Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Catholic church urges schoolchildren to back anti gay marriage petition

12345679»

Comments

  • #402
    Bobby42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,314 ✭✭✭Bobby42


    You don't believe sexual orientation is biologically determined?

    Can I ask when did you choose to be straight?


  • #403
    krudler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    I'm not interested in denying rights as I've said already. For the umpteenth time, everyone has the right to be married the restriction is in who they can be married to. There are numerous restrictions on this, including in respect to whether or not family members can be married.

    are you comparing homosexuality with incest? inbreeding families can cause birth defects, being gay can't.

    you keep trotting out these studies which have time and time again been shot down as nonsense. what about single parents? should widowed people be forced to marry again to provide a more stable family for a child? how about accidental pregnancies where the father isnt around? no perfect nuclear family so the child will be warped?

    and AGAIN, not all gay couples want children, gay marriage and gay adoption are two different issues.


  • #404
    HUNK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 383 ✭✭HUNK


    I would like to know what you think determines somebody's sexuality Phil?


  • #405
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Unbelievable. I don't normally partake in these threads but I'm stunned. A poster has been shown their evidence is flawed, but they still believe.

    Should be used to it in politics, but times I just look on in awe at how brain washed people let themselves be.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #406
    Pedant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 919 ✭✭✭Pedant


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    What is natural about marriage?. Name me another species that marries.

    This is not the point. Natural rights are things like the right to life. Natural life rights can be pretty much summed up as anything to do with the right to "life, liberty and property" or sometimes the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Marriage can pretty much be categorized as a natural right in this regard.


  • #407
    Pedant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 919 ✭✭✭Pedant


    histories wrote: »
    Well, Article 12 is titled the Right to Marry, "Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and found a family..." Pretty specific. Also I don't see how it would conflict with Article 14 which, as you said, prohibits discrimination. Not allowing same-sex couples the rights and protections under the law IS discrimination; gender discrimination, family status discrimination, ie. not recognising their rights as a family, discrimination based on their sexual orientation.

    As for Arts 10 and 11, those rights are subject to limitations including the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

    The thing is, same-sex marriages don't exactly infringe the rights (as a form of expression) or others or contravene any of those limitations. Not allowing a couple to define a marriage as they please could be defined as a breach of freedom of expression, therefore. Anyway, my arguments are basically philosophical, not altogether legal - mainly because I'm trying to prove philologos wrong.
    histories wrote: »
    Take religion out of the debate and keep the focus legal i.e. same-sex couples can get married in the registry office or as Ciaran said just expand civil partnership to include all those rights that heterosexual married couples have. These are legal issues not religious ones.*

    *I know you didn't reference religion.


    I totally agree.


  • #408
    Pedant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 919 ✭✭✭Pedant


    K-9 wrote: »
    Should be used to it in politics, but times I just look on in awe at how brain washed people let themselves be.

    @ Philologos - yet another reason why democracy should not tamper with people's rights :D


  • #409
    Mya Handsome Glob
    Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Mya Handsome Glob


    K-9 wrote: »
    Unbelievable. I don't normally partake in these threads but I'm stunned. A poster has been shown their evidence is flawed, but they still believe.

    Should be used to it in politics, but times I just look on in awe at how brain washed people let themselves be.

    I wish he'd grow up and join us in the real world tbh

    You wouldn't hear these posters happily talking about "the evidence" and "studies" if it were shown that religion had a detrimental effect on the upbringing of children
    they wouldn't be happily quoting articles saying "we believe it has a detrimental effect because we just do" and insisting that's the same as a peer reviewed study and that anyone who doesn't agree is being dishonest

    philogos wrote:
    here's clear research to show that in the vast vast vast majority of cases it is best for a child to have a mother and a father joined together in marriage.
    If it's so clear then why do you keep SAYING it and not linking anything except christian articles which just SAY the same thing and no studies?


  • #410
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    philologos wrote: »
    Newspaper articles:

    News paper articles are not studies and never have been. They are, at best, opinion pieces written by people with backgrounds in things like Literature, not usually things like science. Let us stick to peer reviewed actual science shall we? I doubt there is anyone among us who can not find news paper articles that back up our positions, whatever they may be.

    Your "other" links all appear to be links to blogs and the like too. One is a link to a law firm, hardly a science network is it? Those that work that is as some of the links are broken and lead nowhere, not that that changes the usefulness of them in any way either.

    There is even a link a the Christian Post news paper. I am sure that was a non biased article for sure. A christian trolling christian literature to support his own christian bias. Wow, just wow dude.

    Again you were asked a simple question which you appear to have wholesale avoided. If you were to list the things a child actually needs for it's upbringing to become a healthy and mature adult.... name me things on that list that are some how precluded one parental configuration over yours?
    philologos wrote: »
    There's much more, this is only a quick subsection.

    Oh goodie. I hope you kept the good stuff till last and not vice versa because this first attempt was laughable. At best.
    philologos wrote: »
    Except it has been, time and time again.

    Ah the old Jakkass trick of saying something has been proven without actually telling anyone how and where. Long used to seeing that from you son.
    philologos wrote: »
    It's perfectly honest to approach this topic by looking at what research has said about mother and father impact on children.

    That WOULD be the honest approach if that HAD been what you did. However you did not. What you ACTUALLY did was to look at what Christian News papers said about what the studies said about the impact. A massive difference given the penchant journalists have for twisting research to make it say what it did not.

    Do you have ANY science citation to back up your position at all or is it just to be blog posts and Christian News Papers and opinion pieces?
    philologos wrote: »
    Regard these as my closing remarks.

    Your usual retreat and run tactics then? Oh well I guess another chance to test "Nozzferrahhtoos rule of forum posting" and see where you post again.


  • #411
    histories
    Registered Users Posts: 116 ✭✭histories


    philologos wrote: »
    Regard these as my closing remarks.



    There is no evidence to suggest that sexuality is biologically determined, and as a result I cannot make that jump in assumption, and I don't find it intellectually honest to make a comparison like that.



    It's not about equality. It's a definition issue. The LGBT lobby have issues with marriage being defined as the union between a man and a woman. "Equality" is a red herring in this debate.

    I've explained in full in my previous posts why I support defending traditional marriage.



    That's not a great example as it is exclusive to the laws of the US rather than Ireland or other countries.

    Firstly, you've assumed that I think that is acceptable. I don't, I think it's horrible that people treat marriage so flippantly. I agree with Ireland's perspective in ensuring that people are separated for 4 years before divorce. I think it makes people consider much more the impact of divorce on all involved. Divorce should be the last option rather than the first option in relationship issues.



    Where did you pull that out of? - I never suggested anything in respect to the "bedroom" and that's not the point of my argument. Please keep to what my posts are saying rather than what you want them to say.

    I said that marriage is a fundamental pillar of society and the basis of the family, as a result it is an interest of society. Civil partnership provides LGBT couples all the rights they need in respect to formalising a relationship. The key difference is in respect to family. Keeping marriage as the union between a man and a woman is based on the understanding that the nuclear family is best.



    All people have the right to be married. The restriction is in who they can be married to. There are other restrictions to who one can be married to other than that it must be to the opposite gender. One can't marry their siblings, or their parents for example.



    I've presented evidence that gender roles count in respect to children's upbringing. You can look this up on even a cursory look of Google Scholar for example. There's not a "mammoth" amount of evidence to suggest that over 30 years of research on gender roles is wrong.



    I don't believe you have really.



    I'd rather the people had the say rather than an exclusive minority steamrolling over their will for society. This is our society, and society should determine what is right.

    I'm an advocate of direct democracy in issues that affect society at large. Marriage and its definition does. Therefore I think there should be a referendum.



    See above, the alternative that you present isn't much better. Actually it's significantly worse. It amounts to aristocracy casually steamrolling over the public will.

    Direct democracy has flaws, all political systems do, but it is a heck of a lot better than allowing legislators to ignore the public will.



    I don't believe a select group of politicians have a better understanding of human rights than the general public. Not allowing the public to have a say on something that affects society at large is worse, not better.



    In Switzerland there has to be 50,000 people to back a proposal for a referendum before one will go through. There's a threshold, obviously the State can't be paying for every referendum, but direct democracy I find is a much better system than casually ignoring the public. Obviously in proportion nearly 500,000 people as have signed the Coalition for Marriage petition is significantly greater than that. Which is why I think that David Cameron needs to sit down and actually think about this in a full public consulation.

    I think it's a disgrace that people can ignore a significant portion of the public on this issue. I think it's a disgrace that in California the public verdict was ignored. That's fundamentally wrong in basic democracy as far as I see it.



    See the point I made to krudler. That's not a valid point in this argument. There's no evidence that sexuality is biologically determined.



    Direct democracy is better as far as I'm concerned. You're supporting elites having a role in determining what is best for society. I think the people should have that role.



    See above. There is no evidence that sexuality is biologically determined.



    Firstly, the Marriage Act 2004 does and the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution in that way after that Gilligan and Zappone case of 2006.

    Secondly, this is about British law, not Irish law.



    I don't think it has moved forward in such a way that traditional marriage should be compromised. LGBT people have civil partnerships, there is no need for marriage. Marriage, as the union between a mand and a woman is better for children. Therefore I support it. The nuclear family has been shown to have advantages again and again in research.



    This is a rubbish argument. You're saying because things that are wrong happen very very rarely in nuclear families that they should be discounted. That's nonsense, and it doesn't prove anything.

    There's clear research to show that in the vast vast vast majority of cases it is best for a child to have a mother and a father joined together in marriage.



    That's not true on the basis of any research. Not all family structures are equally beneficial and that has been clearly shown in quite a number of studies.



    (i) I asked someone else about this, and asked them to cite the particular law, they weren't able to show me where this was. Could you? I'm interested.
    (ii) If you've given your child to another family, that's extremely serious, and one should think long and hard before they do that.
    (iii) Elaborate on this.
    (iv) This is why people should get married before they have children surely?



    I'm not interested in denying rights as I've said already. I'm opposing changing the definition of marriage. It isn't an equality issue it's very clearly a definition issue.

    I've clearly said numerous times that I think that the reason I think we should have a referendum on this is that marriage is pivotal to society and the direction it goes in. It's important enough to warrant a vote.



    I'm not interested in denying rights as I've said already. For the umpteenth time, everyone has the right to be married the restriction is in who they can be married to. There are numerous restrictions on this, including in respect to whether or not family members can be married.



    I think you're wrong. For the most part, marriage still plays a significant role in society. Research has clearly shown traditional marriage to be better for children than in the case of other family structures. That's not to say that children can't be raised in other family structures, it's only to say that the Government should promote traditional marriage and encourage that as the best for children to be raised in.

    And with that, I can't imagine that I've got much more to say on this issue.

    The Marriage Act is an act of the Oireachtas and does not supercede the Constitution of this country.

    You forgot to link your research, no religious propaganda please.

    I'm not saying that the nuclear family should be discounted, just not put on the pedastal above everything else including the welfare of children within the family. Abuse in the nuclear family happens a lot more than you would like to think. Abuse, like domestic violence, crosses all creeds, class, race etc. Which is exactly why one can say that children need a safe, loving and protected environment. They need this a lot more than they need society's definition of what constitutes a family. Check out irlii.org, bailii.org, courts.ie, plenty of case law available on these.

    The Adoption Act of 2010 states that the child must be orphaned or not born to parents married to each other before it can be placed for adoption.

    One should think long and hard before giving their child up for adoption. Look at the Baby Ann case, unmarried 19ish yr olds. Wanted to give child up for adoption, child placed with a family, said family raised that child until about 2ish when the birth parents changed their minds and wanted her back. They got married and they got their child back. Ignoring the fact that this poor kid was taken from the only family she had ever known.

    People are going to have sex outside marriage (Church ain't trying to get petition signed against that I notice) parental rights should vest automatically. Again, it is just further discrimination by the State against anyone who isn't married. It all stems from the influence the Church had and to an extent still has on this country. The day the Catholic Church crumbles into the dust of history will be a truly glorious day and I will dance in the bloody streets!

    Would you be against extending civil partnership to include all the rights married couple have without calling it marriage? Or should gay people be happy with the few crumbs they've been thrown? Separate but equal......your seat is at the back of the bus.


  • Advertisement
  • #412
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    44leto wrote: »
    The Catholic church is obsessed with sex.

    They are obsessed with what goes on in other people's sex lives - gay people can be gay but can't have sex. Straight people can have sex but only after marriage. Married people can have sex but only to procreate. Priests can only have sex with minors and not consenting adults. Those pedastals are looking a little shaky... :rolleyes:


Advertisement