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

Civil Marriage Protest! 9th August!

Options
124678

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,938 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    My arguement is and always was that parades do not force legislation especially referenda. I don't see what any of your posts have to do with my points indeed it seems you are attacking me purely for having an opinion different than yours.

    I can't see the connection of this section to what you quoted. Your arguments in this thread have covered your reasons as to why you're opposed to gay marriage, not anything to do with parades forcing referenda. The text you quoted had nothing to do with either of said points.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Am I now ?

    When you're reducing to quoting random bits of text to give replies, its clear that you have.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    You didn't state that.

    Didn't state what? I stated that Jakkass misread/misinterpreted my post, to which he admitted that he'd jumped the gun on an assumption.

    You're not making much sense right now.


  • Options
    #93
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    MYOB wrote: »
    I can't see the connection of this section to what you quoted. Your arguments in this thread have covered your reasons as to why you're opposed to gay marriage, not anything to do with parades forcing referenda. The text you quoted had nothing to do with either of said points.
    My arguement in this thread is and always has been that this protest will not force a referendum on this issue of Gay Marriage.


    MYOB wrote: »
    When you're reducing to quoting random bits of text to give replies, its clear that you have.
    What random bits of text did I quote ?


  • Options
    #94
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,938 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    My arguement in this thread is and always has been that this protest will not force a referendum on this issue of Gay Marriage.

    So why did you go off on a tangent with your personal reasons for not approving of gay marriage? And what do you suspect will force a referendum? Getting a crotchety independent TD elected to a minority government isn't something every lobby is able to do (c.f. Mildred Fox's doomed attempt to tighten the abortion laws).
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    What random bits of text did I quote ?

    The first block of my post you quoted in your previous reply was irrelevant to what you replied with, as I pointed out in my previous reply.

    Starting to go in circles now, I see...


  • Options
    #95
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    MYOB wrote: »
    So why did you go off on a tangent with your personal reasons for not approving of gay marriage? And what do you suspect will force a referendum? Getting a crotchety independent TD elected to a minority government isn't something every lobby is able to do (c.f. Mildred Fox's doomed attempt to tighten the abortion laws).
    If you go back you will see that a previous poster asked for my personal views, and although I didn't see what relevence they had to the discussion I hesitantly gave my views on Gay marriage.
    MYOB wrote: »
    The first block of my post you quoted in your previous reply was irrelevant to what you replied with, as I pointed out in my previous reply.
    Tbh I can see we aren't getting anywhere here, perhaps it would be better to agree to disagree ?


  • Options
    #96
    Untense
    Registered Users Posts: 175 ✭✭Untense


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    And I'm telling you that when it comes to referenda peoples personal issues are not important, what is important is the topic of discussion i.e the effectivness of Protests in forcing a referendum.
    You're turning to abstractions. I am addressing you as a person, the beliefs you hold, which motivate you to post on this thread in the first place.

    Who said my opinion was unimportant to me ? I said my views are unimportant in referendum debates as are yours or any other sigulary person.
    This is why I am addressing you, you continue to hide behind abstractions when it suits you.
    The reason I keep bringing this up is because you have a motivation to post here, it's obviously not for the fun and love of debate. I don't go on to the Photography board and debate about sepia, because it is not something that pushes a button in me.


    Point what out ? That Gay rights groups obviously only publish the material that is compatible with their cause ? I think you'll find I pointed that out to you.
    A group runs a survey, it turns out the results are in favour of their cause. They publish it. The fiends.
    BTW,
    RAI = Read as intended
    RAW = Read as written.
    Think about your own advice next time you try bending someones words.:rolleyes:

    I don't know whether I am in the minority or not bacause there has never been an unbiased poll published.
    It didn't stop you from dismissing points before on this thread, you could try googling once in a while.
    Yes marriage has constantly changed but has never been between two people of the same Sex regardless of the time period.
    Would you at least bother to google before you reply. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

    Same Sex marriage cheapens the Bond of Hetrosexual marriage by taking away the fundemental ideal of marriage, to provide children the security of a settled couple.
    Can you elaborate in detail how the same-sex marriage between the two girls up the road affects the 'fundamental ideal' of the settled heterosexual couple with the child around the corner?

    Two men or two women obviously can't have children thus the need for marriage is void. Save for Tax and legal reasons that Civil partnership will cover if it's passed.

    Firstly, you disregard the 'bond' between a lot of heterosexual couples out there who either choose not to, or cannot have children. They marry anyway, because they love each other. The law provides them with next of kin rights. Should in their lifetime together they encounter a problem, say as an extreme reality their partner is on life support - they get to make the choices. They have the legal right to stand by their partner during the worst. As you can see this has nothing to do with children, but it does have something to do with a bond.

    Secondly, I for one know of two gay people with children, both single parents. Gay people can most certainly have children. The reasons how and why are varied, but there are plenty of them out there. Many want to raise their child with their partner, in a loving home, with legal support. Should an extreme reality arise, say the parent and child are in an accident, the partner, who may be considered a parent by the child but not by the law, has no next of kin rights. In this situation there is inequality, there is a lack of recognition of a very fundamental ideal. The family unit comes in all shapes and sizes. The law needs to accomodate for everyone, to make sure nobody is left in a situation like I've mentioned. Currently this is not the case.

    you really aren't doing your cause any favours by acting as if marriage is a right.
    Do you not believe everyone has a right to stand by their loved one and children? For that to be recognised by the law?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,938 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    If you go back you will see that a previous poster asked for my personal views, and although I didn't see what relevence they had to the discussion I hesitantly gave my views on Gay marriage.

    ...and if you felt your sole argument was that the march wouldn't do anything, that would have been a time for you to do what you suggested below, rather than providing said views.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Tbh I can see we aren't getting anywhere here, perhaps it would be better to agree to disagree ?


  • Options
    #98
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Untense wrote: »
    You're turning to abstractions. I am addressing you as a person, the beliefs you hold, which motivate you to post on this thread in the first place.
    Because this discussion is abstranctional, it puzzles me why you want to make it personal.
    Untense wrote: »
    This is why I am addressing you, you continue to hide behind abstractions when it suits you.
    The reason I keep bringing this up is because you have a motivation to post here, it's obviously not for the fun and love of debate. I don't go on to the Photography board and debate about sepia, because it is not something that pushes a button in me.
    I posted here to defend my arguement that parades will not force referenda, I continue to hold that point. Would you like to discuss that point rather than me ?
    Untense wrote: »
    A group runs a survey, it turns out the results are in favour of their cause. They publish it. The fiends.
    Exactly there is not a neutral poll in existance that proves the irish electorate favour same sex marriage.

    Untense wrote: »
    It didn't stop you from dismissing points before on this thread, you could try googling once in a while.
    Relevence to unbiased poll = 0
    Untense wrote: »
    Would you at least bother to google before you reply. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
    None of those examples are equivalent to contemporary marriage.
    And your arguement doesn't make sense, Homosexuals where persecuted in anichent times. should we persecute them now ? Of course not.
    The idea that we should take lessons from the history of homosexuality is laughable.

    Untense wrote: »
    Can you elaborate in detail how the same-sex marriage between the two girls up the road affects the 'fundamental ideal' of the settled heterosexual couple with the child around the corner?
    Well thats impossible because Civil partnership isn't even legal yet let alone same sex marriage and I'm not going to comment on possibilites.

    Untense wrote: »
    Firstly, you disregard the 'bond' between a lot of heterosexual couples out there who either choose not to, or cannot have children. They marry anyway, because they love each other. The law provides them with next of kin rights. Should in their lifetime together they encounter a problem, say as an extreme reality their partner is on life support - they get to make the choices. They have the legal right to stand by their partner during the worst. As you can see this has nothing to do with children, but it does have something to do with a bond.
    We don't know what the final Civil rights law will include untill it's published but it's pretty safe to say those things will be included.
    TBH apart from the Tax and legal security that civil partnership affords gay couples I don't see why same sex marriage is even needed.
    Untense wrote: »
    Secondly, I for one know of two gay people with children, both single parents. Gay people can most certainly have children. The reasons how and why are varied, but there are plenty of them out there. Many want to raise their child with their partner, in a loving home, with legal support. Should an extreme reality arise, say the parent and child are in an accident, the partner, who may be considered a parent by the child but not by the law, has no next of kin rights. In this situation there is inequality, there is a lack of recognition of a very fundamental ideal. The family unit comes in all shapes and sizes. The law needs to accomodate for everyone, to make sure nobody is left in a situation like I've mentioned. Currently this is not the case.
    As I have said I am against Gay couples adopting, if only that they have no real legal security for the child.
    It's kind of selfish IMO.


  • Options
    #99
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,938 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I posted here to defend my arguement that parades will not force referenda, I continue to hold that point. Would you like to discuss that point rather than me ?

    So what, exactly, do you believe will force a referendum? Making absolutely no noise or comment over the need for one certainly doesn't.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Exactly there is not a neutral poll in existance that proves the irish electorate favour same sex marriage.

    And who, exactly, would you consider a neutral source for a poll? And what neutral source do you think would even comission one? A poll on this topic is only ever going to be comissioned by pro- or anti- sides.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    None of those examples are equivalent to contemporary marriage.
    And your arguement doesn't make sense, Homosexuals where persecuted in anichent times. should we persecute them now ? Of course not.
    The idea that we should take lessons from the history of homosexuality is laughable.

    And yet part of your argument against gay marriage is that it hasn't existed in the past... you can't decide to ignore the past one moment then insist on respecting it the next. A consistent stand is something you seem to be wholly lacking.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    We don't know what the final Civil rights law will include untill it's published but it's pretty safe to say those things will be included.
    TBH apart from the Tax and legal security that civil partnership affords gay couples I don't see why same sex marriage is even needed.

    The final bill has been published.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    As I have said I am against Gay couples adopting, if only that they have no real legal security for the child.
    It's kind of selfish IMO.

    You're against them adopting "only" because of no legal security while also being against something that would provide that security. Do you not see the logical fallacy here?


  • Options
    #100
    Untense
    Registered Users Posts: 175 ✭✭Untense


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Because this discussion is abstranctional, it puzzles me why you want to make it personal.
    Yes, your whole argument is abstractional. However this isn't an abstract idea, it's a very real and very personal thing for many people in Ireland. It is personal.

    Why am I asking for your personal opinion? Because you don't seem to stop to look at why you hold your opinions. If you can pretend for a moment you were pro-gay marriage when you read this thread, do you think you could have felt the urge to post here asking what's the point in protesting?

    I posted here to defend my arguement that parades will not force referenda, I continue to hold that point. Would you like to discuss that point rather than me ?

    If you actually read through this entire thread, you'll see nobody disagreed with you on that point. People have however continued to correct you on your stream of ill-informed comments, many of which are unrelated to protesting, but are related to same-sex coupling in general. It's quite clear from the propositions of your endless stream of inaccurate arguments that your qualm isn't specific to protests / referenda.

    Any rational person with an argument would stop and re-assess their position once they've had a point disproved a couple of times, maybe do some further research, but you constantly jump from one unchecked reason to another. You are constantly being shown that your belief isn't based on accurate information, but rather than taking a step back to look at things, you add the new bit of information to your existing opinion and carry on as if nothing had ever happened.

    So far everything you have said has only affirmed that this isn't so much about protests, but about a personally held belief that you hold. This is why I'm asking your personal opinion.

    Exactly there is not a neutral poll in existance that proves the irish electorate favour same sex marriage.
    If you can try to pretend you're totally pro gay marriage again, and imagine you read that a poll was conducted and the majority of people asked were pro gay marriage. Do you imagine you would have the same level of distrust to this information?
    I am pro gay marriage, and I have zero distrust in that bit of data. Why do you think that is ?

    Well thats impossible because Civil partnership isn't even legal yet let alone same sex marriage and I'm not going to comment on possibilites.
    You are quite prepared to comment in depth about the possibility that the Irish population is not ready for gay marriage, despite having just said there have been no neutral polls having been conducted yet. Notice how you change the rules to suit yourself when you are faced with looking at your beliefs.
    We don't know what the final Civil rights law will include untill it's published but it's pretty safe to say those things will be included.
    This has already been covered by MYOB, but I would like to add that not only has it been finalised, the final draft does NOT include for the possibilities I have mentioned in my last post. There exists today, right now, gay families with children. Whether you think it's selfish or not, they have kids and the kids are dependent on them. The parents do not have all the legal support they might need to support their spouse or child, should things go wrong. The child does not have the legal support to stay with their guardian, should things go wrong. This is why people are protesting.

    TBH apart from the Tax and legal security that civil partnership affords gay couples I don't see why same sex marriage is even needed.
    You made this point in your last post but since you're able to ignore my response, i'll quote myself:
    They marry anyway, because they love each other. The law provides them with next of kin rights. Should in their lifetime together they encounter a problem, say as an extreme reality their partner is on life support - they get to make the choices. They have the legal right to stand by their partner during the worst. As you can see this has nothing to do with children, but it does have something to do with a bond.
    As I have said I am against Gay couples adopting, if only that they have no real legal security for the child.
    It's kind of selfish IMO.

    You are for gay marriage, but you are not for gay couples adopting because they have no legal security for the child? Does this then imply that if gay marriage included support, so that both guardians had legal rights, you would be For gay couples adopting ?
    What about the situation where one of the same-sex couple is the child's natural parent, would you want that natural parent's partner to have the power to get the legal rights they want to protect their child?


  • Options
    #101
    hot2def
    Closed Accounts Posts: 794 ✭✭✭hot2def


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I'm glad to here it went well for you.


    What situation the Black Rights or Gay rights, I'm confused. :confused:


    Well actually, being under 18 I don't enjoy the privilege to marry, but you don't see me organising parades about it.


    So you demand to change the constitution ?
    Well I demand to remove your freedom of speech but it's Not nice when people demand to change the highest law in the Land is it ?


    You can marry. You can marry under 18 with a court order, before you are the age of consent, before you can vote. We allow children to marry in this country, but not adults of the same gender. Good call.

    I do demand a change to the consitution, I have a human right to a family, and not to have that family discriminated against because some people believe in the Floating White Guy.

    If you were to seek to curtail my freedom of speech - that would also infringe on my human rights. But hey - thats cool as long as you are in majority, right?

    Also, once again you are ill-informed on this issue, while getting uppity about the "highest law in the Land". The IS NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN IRELAND, you may be thinking of the US. Freedom of speech in the Irish Constitution of which you are so fond and unfamiliar is limited to speech that does not undermine "public order or morality or the authority of the State" or contain "blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter". And they seem to be able to put through legislationg curtailing my freedom of speech without a referendum. Odd that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    MYOB wrote: »
    So what, exactly, do you believe will force a referendum? Making absolutely no noise or comment over the need for one certainly doesn't.
    As I have said when people are ready for Gay marriage it will become a major electional issue. Loud minorities are seldom more than annoying.


    MYOB wrote: »
    And who, exactly, would you consider a neutral source for a poll? And what neutral source do you think would even comission one? A poll on this topic is only ever going to be comissioned by pro- or anti- sides.
    If you read my earlier posts in this thread you would see that I have said a neutral poll is impossible. The Government cannot hold a poll as that will be seen as supporting gay marriage and will upset their anti-gay marriage voters. The Government is between a rock and a hard place, trying to please both Gay and anti-gay marriage voters.
    And of course any lobby group will have an agenda.


    MYOB wrote: »
    And yet part of your argument against gay marriage is that it hasn't existed in the past... you can't decide to ignore the past one moment then insist on respecting it the next. A consistent stand is something you seem to be wholly lacking.
    My stance is very static, I am pro Civil partnership and Gay rights and anti Gay marriage and Gay adoption.


    MYOB wrote: »
    The final bill has been published.
    It is not law yet.


    MYOB wrote: »
    You're against them adopting "only" because of no legal security while also being against something that would provide that security. Do you not see the logical fallacy here?
    No, I am against Gay adoption because I believe that children should if possible have a mother and father. But again this isn't about my personal opinion.
    Untense wrote:
    Yes, your whole argument is abstractional. However this isn't an abstract idea, it's a very real and very personal thing for many people in Ireland. It is personal.
    As Gay marriage isn't law then we are talking about a theoretical union, there is nothing personal about referenda.
    Untense wrote:
    If you actually read through this entire thread, you'll see nobody disagreed with you on that point. People have however continued to correct you on your stream of ill-informed comments, many of which are unrelated to protesting, but are related to same-sex coupling in general. It's quite clear from the propositions of your endless stream of inaccurate arguments that your qualm isn't specific to protests / referenda.
    I was never proved wrong on my base point, only certain secondary objectional issues that I didn't bother researching.
    Untense wrote:
    If you can try to pretend you're totally pro gay marriage again, and imagine you read that a poll was conducted and the majority of people asked were pro gay marriage. Do you imagine you would have the same level of distrust to this information?
    I am pro gay marriage, and I have zero distrust in that bit of data. Why do you think that is ?
    Yo haven't answered my question, how do you think the Irish Government can put an issue to vote when no vaild evidence of the electorates favour exists ?
    Untense wrote:
    You are quite prepared to comment in depth about the possibility that the Irish population is not ready for gay marriage, despite having just said there have been no neutral polls having been conducted yet. Notice how you change the rules to suit yourself when you are faced with looking at your beliefs.
    I never said the Irish electorate where anti Gay marriage, I said that no evidence exists to prove that they are or aren't. You seem to like to misread posts to suit yourself.
    Untense wrote:
    This has already been covered by MYOB, but I would like to add that not only has it been finalised, the final draft does NOT include for the possibilities I have mentioned in my last post. There exists today, right now, gay families with children. Whether you think it's selfish or not, they have kids and the kids are dependent on them. The parents do not have all the legal support they might need to support their spouse or child, should things go wrong. The child does not have the legal support to stay with their guardian, should things go wrong. This is why people are protesting.
    Am I supposed to feel sorry for these people ?
    They knew what the danger was before they adopted yet they did so anyway ? An unstable couple should never be allowed to adopt, regardless of sexuality.
    Untense wrote:
    You are for gay marriage, but you are not for gay couples adopting because they have no legal security for the child?
    No I am pro Civil partnership not Gay marriage.
    hot2def wrote:
    I do demand a change to the consitution, I have a human right to a family, and not to have that family discriminated against because some people believe in the Floating White Guy.
    Actually you don't have a Human Right to a same sex family:
    Article 16, Universal decleration of human rights wrote:
    (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
    As you can see it says nothing about same sex marriage.
    hot2def wrote:
    If you were to seek to curtail my freedom of speech - that would also infringe on my human rights. But hey - thats cool as long as you are in majority, right?
    No, that's why we live in a Republic not a democracy, to protect us form the whims of the public.
    hot2def wrote:
    Also, once again you are ill-informed on this issue, while getting uppity about the "highest law in the Land". The IS NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN IRELAND, you may be thinking of the US. Freedom of speech in the Irish Constitution of which you are so fond and unfamiliar is limited to speech that does not undermine "public order or morality or the authority of the State" or contain "blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter". And they seem to be able to put through legislationg curtailing my freedom of speech without a referendum. Odd that.
    ok then so I assume your demand for a referendum would be "undermining the state" ? I think we can expect the secret police to come knocking on your door any tme soon...















    ...Yep, any time now.


  • Options
    #103
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,938 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    As I have said when people are ready for Gay marriage it will become a major electional issue. Loud minorities are seldom more than annoying.

    Annoying to you. Staying silent over an issue ensure it *never* becomes an election issue.

    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    If you read my earlier posts in this thread you would see that I have said a neutral poll is impossible. The Government cannot hold a poll as that will be seen as supporting gay marriage and will upset their anti-gay marriage voters. The Government is between a rock and a hard place, trying to please both Gay and anti-gay marriage voters.
    And of course any lobby group will have an agenda.

    If you claim a neutral poll is impossible could you please stop bleating on about the polls being quoted not being neutral, then.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    My stance is very static, I am pro Civil partnership and Gay rights and anti Gay marriage and Gay adoption.

    Pro gay rights != anti gay marriage and adoption. You're pro partial rights, that is all. Equality isn't a partial thing.

    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    It is not law yet.

    Relevance of this? Its the final text, it won't be changing.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    No, I am against Gay adoption because I believe that children should if possible have a mother and father. But again this isn't about my personal opinion.

    You previously said you were against it because it wasn't a stable unit, and you are against the only thing which can make it a stable unit. You are contradicting yourself constantly.


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Actually you don't have a Human Right to a same sex family:

    As you can see it says nothing about same sex marriage.

    Where does it state that family means mixed-sex?

    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    No, that's why we live in a Republic not a democracy, to protect us form the whims of the public.

    You're aware that the fundamental underlying concept of a "Republic" is that is is a democracy, aren't you? Isn't CSPE compulsary in schools these days? There is no such thing as an (actual) Republic which is not a democracy. We live in a democracy.

    And now you're contradicting yourself again, you state that gay marriage should only be allowed when there is public support yet state we need to be protected against the whims of the public? Right so.

    You have proven yourself unable of taking a consistent position on any of your points.


  • Options
    #104
    hot2def
    Closed Accounts Posts: 794 ✭✭✭hot2def


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    As I have said when people are ready for Gay marriage it will become a major electional issue.



    No, that's why we live in a Republic not a democracy, to protect us form the whims of the public.

    ok then so I assume your demand for a referendum would be "undermining the state" ? I think we can expect the secret police to come knocking on your door any tme soon...







    ...Yep, any time now.


    You are the one arguing for the "whims of the public" here, as above.

    Also, you are the one who brought up freedom of speech and the "highest law in the land", I merely pointed out it isn't EVEN the law of our land.

    Look, this is clearly a religious issue for you, why pretend like you care so deeply about laws and a constitution it has been show repeatedly in this thread you know little about?


  • Options
    #105
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    MYOB wrote: »
    Annoying to you. Staying silent over an issue ensure it *never* becomes an election issue.
    Not true, you're speculating now.



    MYOB wrote: »
    If you claim a neutral poll is impossible could you please stop bleating on about the polls being quoted not being neutral, then.
    Then prehaps you should also drop the "Irish public want gay marriage" thing.


    MYOB wrote: »
    Pro gay rights != anti gay marriage and adoption. You're pro partial rights, that is all. Equality isn't a partial thing.
    I am pro gay rights as long as it does not affect another human being, Gay adoption obviously affects the adoptee.



    MYOB wrote: »
    Relevance of this? Its the final text, it won't be changing.
    It has tons of relevance, for starters It isn't law yet.


    MYOB wrote: »
    You previously said you were against it because it wasn't a stable unit, and you are against the only thing which can make it a stable unit. You are contradicting yourself constantly.
    So you think adopting children is the only thing that will make a Gay marriage stable ?




    MYOB wrote: »
    Where does it state that family means mixed-sex?
    Definition: Marriage.
    Marriage is always same sex, unless stated otherwise.


    MYOB wrote: »
    You're aware that the fundamental underlying concept of a "Republic" is that is is a democracy, aren't you? Isn't CSPE compulsary in schools these days? There is no such thing as an (actual) Republic which is not a democracy. We live in a democracy.

    And now you're contradicting yourself again, you state that gay marriage should only be allowed when there is public support yet state we need to be protected against the whims of the public? Right so.

    You have proven yourself unable of taking a consistent position on any of your points.
    Now it's your turn to be wrong.

    Democracy = People are the highest law i.e if the people want to enslave you that's fine as long as thats what the mojority want.
    Pure Democracy can never work and the term is thrown about far to much these days.

    Republic = The Constitution is the higest law i.e the people and government is bound by law and institutions are in place to protect the constitution from bogous laws regardless of the peoples wishes. for example the mojority of white people wanting to inslave the minority black people.

    The Republic is a much better form of Government and the majority of countries use this system.


  • Options
    #106
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,938 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Not true, you're speculating now.

    And you're lying. If something is unknown to the general public it *cannot* be an election issue
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Then prehaps you should also drop the "Irish public want gay marriage" thing.

    Something I've never actually said on this thread. Second time you've loaded words in my mouth in less than 24 hours.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I am pro gay rights as long as it does not affect another human being, Gay adoption obviously affects the adoptee.

    Have you proof of this? No, of course you don't.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    It has tons of relevance, for starters It isn't law yet.

    Again, it doesn't. You said we haven't seen the final bill but we have. Whether or not it is or isn't law doesn't change that it is the final bill.
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    So you think adopting children is the only thing that will make a Gay marriage stable ?

    You're deliberately misreading me, again. I stated that the only thing that will make a gay coupling legally stable is marriage and seeing as you claim you to oppose gay adoption solely on stability issues... you are basically wrapping yourself up in a massive ball of contradiction. Third time you've loaded words in my mouth...
    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Definition: Marriage.
    Marriage is always same sex, unless stated otherwise.

    Definitions of words change. Anyway, did I ask anything about marriage? I asked where it defined that a *family* was mixed sex.


    If you could actually reply on-topic to me in future rather than going off on tangents, we might get somewhere. If you could actually read what I've written and argue without claiming I've said something I haven't, that'd help immeasurably too.


  • Options
    #107
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    hot2def wrote: »
    Look, this is clearly a religious issue for you, why pretend like you care so deeply about laws and a constitution it has been show repeatedly in this thread you know little about?
    You assume I'm Religious ? Why ?
    Also it's interesting to note that while Freedom of Religion is a Human Right [Article 2] Gay marriage isn't. :D


  • Options
    #108
    hot2def
    Closed Accounts Posts: 794 ✭✭✭hot2def


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    You assume I'm Religious ? Why ?
    Also it's interesting to note that while Freedom of Religion is a Human Right [Article 2] Gay marriage isn't. :D

    Because you hang out in Christianity, along with Jakkas and prinz, and occasionally come over here to hassle us.

    anyway:
    (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

    and

    (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.


    now, if the state favours with extra protection wedded families, (which ireland does...), surely thats in breach of number two?


  • Options
    #109
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    hot2def wrote: »
    Because you hang out in Christianity, along with Jakkas and prinz, and occasionally come over here to hassle us.
    Yes because discussing LGBT issues in the LGBT forum is harrasment. :rolleyes:
    P.S I also hang out at A&A.
    hot2def wrote: »
    anyway:
    (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

    and

    (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.


    now, if the state favours with extra protection wedded families, (which ireland does...), surely thats in breach of number two?
    Relevence to Gay marraige ?


  • Options
    #110
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    hot2def wrote: »
    Because you hang out in Christianity, along with Jakkas and prinz, and occasionally come over here to hassle us.

    I have no intention to hassle you. You are capable of making your own choices. I do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle, just as much as you disagree with the Christian lifestyle. I don't want to "hassle" any of you, and I certainly have no interest in doing so.

    I'm glad of my right to express my opinion, and I will gladly step aside and let you have your opportunity to speak and express yourself in a civil manner.
    hot2def wrote: »
    now, if the state favours with extra protection wedded families, (which ireland does...), surely thats in breach of number two?

    The State should be in favour of giving extra protection to wedded families which have managed to stay together. Whether we like it or not, children are born of both a mother and a father. Both mother and father have an impact on how they are raised, and stable families produce a stable society. I don't see any reason why I wouldn't get behind the State supporting stronger families.


  • Options
    #111
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,938 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't see any reason why I wouldn't get behind the State supporting stronger families.

    And ensuring that children who are being raised in same sex families - which already happens - have legal protections isn't the state supporting stronger families, then?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    MYOB wrote: »
    And ensuring that children who are being raised in same sex families - which already happens - have legal protections isn't the state supporting stronger families, then?

    I'm not convinced that same sex families can raise children as effectively as in cases where the child has both a mother and a father. I also believe the child has a right to both a mother and a father and that this should be respected.

    I would obviously prefer if families remained as they were biologically, but obviously that isn't possible either.

    Again, I understand that my POV may be offensive, but I don't intend it to be.


  • Options
    #113
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,938 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm not convinced that same sex families can raise children as effectively as in cases where the child has both a mother and a father. I also believe the child has a right to both a mother and a father and that this should be respected.

    I would obviously prefer if families remained as they were biologically, but obviously that isn't possible either.

    Again, I understand that my POV may be offensive, but I don't intend it to be.

    You're not convinced by the vast weight of evidence from the decades in which same sex couples have raised children, then.

    And you're still not answering my question as to why you claim you'll support the state in any move to strengthen families - except when they're same sex. These families exist and there is absolutely nothing you can do to change that - yet you continue to support a position that puts the children at risk of being left parentless, financially unsupported, etc.


  • Options
    #114
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    MYOB wrote: »
    You're not convinced by the vast weight of evidence from the decades in which same sex couples have raised children, then.

    Journals that have been produced on the subject have been rather inconclusive. Some say that both mothers and fathers have unique impacts in a childs development, and others say that it doesn't make a difference whether a mother replaces a father, or a father replaces a mother. It's a mixed bag currently from what I've looked at.
    MYOB wrote: »
    And you're still not answering my question as to why you claim you'll support the state in any move to strengthen families - except when they're same sex. These families exist and there is absolutely nothing you can do to change that - yet you continue to support a position that puts the children at risk of being left parentless, financially unsupported, etc.

    I'll support the State in protecting the biological family first and foremost. Again, I feel a child has a right to both a mother and a father, and if I were to agree to any LGBT structure that involved the idea of children being involved, I would expect for some form of redress for the child to be set up to have access to their biological parents wherever they may be. Or if it is biological through a sperm donor, I would expect the child to have the right to contact their father.

    Edit: I am not convinced that a same sex family is just as beneficial for the child as a child with both a mother and a father.


  • Options
    #115
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,938 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Jakkass wrote: »

    I'll support the State in protecting the biological family first and foremost. Again, I feel a child has a right to both a mother and a father, and if I were to agree to any LGBT structure that involved the idea of children being involved, I would expect for some form of redress for the child to be set up to have access to their biological parents wherever they may be. Or if it is biological through a sperm donor, I would expect the child to have the right to contact their father.

    Have you considered a career in politics? You are refusing to answer my question and giving lots of fluff in response.

    If you would support any effort by the state to strengthen families why are you against any effort to get them to strengthen same sex families?


  • Options
    #116
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Edit: I am not convinced that a same sex family is just as beneficial for the child as a child with both a mother and a father.
    Why though? Is it just because of a lack of a vast array of empirical evidence?


  • Options
    #117
    Dr. Baltar
    Registered Users Posts: 1,252 ✭✭✭Dr. Baltar


    slipperyslopeel4.png


  • Options
    #118
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    It's quite curious that Roe has since become a pro-lifer. Roe vs Wade is one of the most anti-democratic decisions that has ever been made in the USA by judicial activism. It's the last thing I would support in respect to dealing with either the abortion issue or the marriage issue in Ireland. The view of the public needs to be respected.

    I'm quite happy to let the people decide, and if that decision comes out in favour of gay marriage, I will accept that as the democratic will of the people of Ireland. Until that point I am entitled to take my position on the issue.
    MYOB wrote:
    Have you considered a career in politics? You are refusing to answer my question and giving lots of fluff in response.

    I've studied it for the last year, I decided it wasn't for me :pac:
    MYOB wrote:
    If you would support any effort by the state to strengthen families why are you against any effort to get them to strengthen same sex families?

    I would prefer if first priority was given to biological families. No doubt if LGBT families exist, child benefit amongst other assistance will have to be given. I'm not convinced that the Government has made the right decision concerning gay adoption.
    Aard wrote:
    Why though? Is it just because of a lack of a vast array of empirical evidence?

    It seems a bit schizophrenic in light of previous evidence to suggest that the lack of a father has serious impacts on families. Either having both a mother and a father is preferential to having no father at all, or it isn't. There doesn't seem to be any consensus on the issue from what I have found. I think issues that could have an impact on childhood development should be taken in extreme caution, I also think the State should consider what is best for children first and foremost.


  • Options
    #119
    kabuk1
    Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭kabuk1


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Journals that have been produced on the subject have been rather inconclusive. Some say that both mothers and fathers have unique impacts in a childs development, and others say that it doesn't make a difference whether a mother replaces a father, or a father replaces a mother. It's a mixed bag currently from what I've looked at.

    I'll support the State in protecting the biological family first and foremost. Again, I feel a child has a right to both a mother and a father, and if I were to agree to any LGBT structure that involved the idea of children being involved, I would expect for some form of redress for the child to be set up to have access to their biological parents wherever they may be. Or if it is biological through a sperm donor, I would expect the child to have the right to contact their father.

    Edit: I am not convinced that a same sex family is just as beneficial for the child as a child with both a mother and a father.

    So, a child is better off in foster care, where many children get abused (though not always) and aren't in a stable situation as many go from home to home, or in an orphanage, where both situations do not provide even one parent, then in a stable home where his/her adoptive parents are a same-sex couple. That just doesn't make any sense at all.

    Also, what about all those heterosexual families who need to find a sperm donor due to the male have sperm issues, would you require them to keep in contact with the sperm donor. . . I don't think so.

    If I were to give birth, I should have the right to request that my partner adopt my child as his/her second parent, and the government shouldn't be able to tell me no, especially if the adoption took place elsewhere, as in my situation, it'll take place in the Netherlands. Also, there are lots of male and female role models for children outside of this home. In fact, my parents, a heterosexual couple, were never around and I sought guidance outside of the home. I always have.

    This argument is so backwards. Yes, lets leave all these children on orphanages and foster care because those environments are soooooo much more stable and loving. Before you go on to say that everyone wants to adopt a baby, that isn't always the case. In fact, if my partner and I were to adopt a child that neither of us gave birth to, I would adopt a child between 5-10 years of age, as they are more likely to remain in their current situation than get adopted as most people want babies.

    Also, if a partner who gives birth isn't allowed to have their partner adopt, there's a chance that those children who have been raised in a household for years, with both parents and other siblings could have their world torn apart if their biological parent were to die. That is cruel. Lets take all these children away from a healthy familiar environment when they need their family most.

    This world is just full of hypocrites.


  • Options
    #120
    kabuk1
    Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭kabuk1


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's quite curious that Roe has since become a pro-lifer. Roe vs Wade is one of the most anti-democratic decisions that has ever been made in the USA by judicial activism. It's the last thing I would support in respect to dealing with either the abortion issue or the marriage issue in Ireland. The view of the public needs to be respected.

    Please explain this. Because I don't follow. While the US is a democracy, they also have common law, so a court case can set precedence. The main issue here is religion, and the first amendment sites separation of Church and State:
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

    Although, not sure how US law plays into this.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,938 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I would prefer if first priority was given to biological families. No doubt if LGBT families exist, child benefit amongst other assistance will have to be given. I'm not convinced that the Government has made the right decision concerning gay adoption.

    Thats still not an answer!

    I feel like Paxman here tonight.


Advertisement