White knot, why not?

Pink Adoptions

Pressure groups for equal rights to marry have not come up with a strong public symbol.

This one is simple: a white knot.
Call the campaign: white knot, why not?

But it is just an American fad? Or can it be worn by us all, within a week?

No need to buy them: just pin a white ribbon made form a strip of white fabric.

And when asked at work, or at home, why you do it, simply answer that you believe that marriage is a human right, and that you are human too. And that it is time the government noticed.

Why not send one to your TD/Senator as well?

* TD's: http://www.oireachtas.ie/members-hist/default.asp?housetype=0
* Senators: http://www.oireachtas.ie/members-hist/default.asp?housetype=1

http://whiteknot.org
http://whiteknot.org/map-knots.html
Not the same as: http://www.whiteribbon.eu/ireland/

Plek Trum

LOVE this idea.. excellent thinking!:D

Pink Adoptions

And so easy to do...
You can even use a piece of your own (clean) sheets to make the point more strongly.

Pink Adoptions

"Human Right in Ireland" was inviting guest contributions on the impact of civil partnership.
We offered the point of view of pink families, and our support for the white knot. What do you think?

http://www.humanrights.ie/index.php/2010/08/05/cpcroca-2010-naurice-on-family-protection-and-pink-adoption/

wonderfulname

Pink Adoptions wrote: »

We offered the point of view of pink families, and our support for the white knot. What do you think?

Its an excellent article, clear, concise and authoritative. The only downside is the size of audience who will read it, and their opinions. I'd love to see something like that in my Sunday paper because its the type of writing that would get people to think who otherwise would pay no heed.

I'm just going to tip over to the Christian forum and post that link in a thread that has been dismaying me recently and see the response..

cooltown

It's a very good article, . The downside is the size of audience who will read it, and their opinions.

Pink Adoptions

wonderfulname wrote: »

Its an excellent article, clear, concise and authoritative. The only downside is the size of audience who will read it, and their opinions. I'd love to see something like that in my Sunday paper because its the type of writing that would get people to think who otherwise would pay no heed.

I'm just going to tip over to the Christian forum and post that link in a thread that has been dismaying me recently and see the response..

Please let us know the link to the thread you post it in :P

wonderfulname

Pink Adoptions wrote: »

Please let us know the link to the thread you post it in :P

Gay Marriage. (Christian response Only Please)

I noticed quite a few people making the usual Maud Flanders "think of the children" argument and also mention of how the HSE would never give a gay couple a child so I thought maybe one or two of these people might have something to say, unfortunately no response as of yet but you never know..

Podgoricka

i still think ireland has a long way to come in relation to gay couples adopting kids etc etc.. kinda sad really that in 2010 there is still an "issue"

wonderfulname

Podgoricka wrote: »

i still think ireland has a long way to come in relation to gay couples adopting kids etc etc.. kinda sad really that in 2010 there is still an "issue"

To put it mildly...

Pink Adoptions

wonderfulname wrote: »

Gay Marriage. (Christian response Only Please)

I noticed quite a few people making the usual Maud Flanders "think of the children" argument and also mention of how the HSE would never give a gay couple a child so I thought maybe one or two of these people might have something to say, unfortunately no response as of yet but you never know..

Just to clarify, the article is a fiction: no gay couple has yet been given a child for adoption after being assessed "jointly" (in the framework of a "single" adoption, as only married couples can adopt "jointly").

But you can still prove them wrong because:
- the HSE has granted the right to adopt internationally to couples of women (but they have not yet found a match for international adoption)
- the HSE has been assessing couples of men
- the HSE has granted adoption orders for openly gay men, and the children are now being raised by a same-gender couple

To these people who make that argument "the HSE would never give a gay couple a child", you can alway tell them about the facts above on the HSE considering gay single parents, and gay couples as perfectly suitable potential adoptive parents.

You can also ask them why they do not report one of the hundreds of same-gender couple raising children to social services, to the HSE and to the Gardai, and see who is sent to the loony bin.
After all, if they fail to report what they are convinced is akin to child abuse... they are accomplices. Surely they would want to see all these children in danger removed from that terrible life of sin, and put in the more secure care of the State.
If they are so sure the HSE would not stand for it, why do they not take a high profile action and report a high profile gay adopter... and see to their dismay that the guy was rigorously assessed, was open about his sexuality; and that the HSE only care about the children, not about the hysterical "think-about-the-children-ers" who are too selfish to see the best interest of the child.

wonderfulname wrote: »

Gay Marriage. (Christian response Only Please)

I noticed quite a few people making the usual Maud Flanders "think of the children" argument and also mention of how the HSE would never give a gay couple a child so I thought maybe one or two of these people might have something to say, unfortunately no response as of yet but you never know..

Interestingly, adoption in same-gender couples is legal (if only one applies for the adoption), but religious segregation on publicly published media is not... so the "Christian response Only Please" tag is obviously discriminatory, especially when they end up suppressing the opinions of gay Christians because they are not the right type of Christian!

wonderfulname

Pink Adoptions wrote: »

Interestingly, adoption in same-gender couples is legal (if only one applies for the adoption), but religious segregation on publicly published media is not... so the "Christian response Only Please" tag is obviously discriminatory, especially when they end up suppressing the opinions of gay Christians because they are not the right type of Christian!

Oh don't I know it, I argued that topic on purely theological grounds, "for [we] are all one in Christ Jesus", but obviously the bible was wrong there as the thread was shut down for LGBT people forcing their opinions onto board members... now theres a role reversal!

Pink Adoptions

Last push to get as many people as possible.
You are awake now, so why not go!

We will be gathering for the march at 2pm just beside City Hall on Dame Street and marching to the Department of Justice.

We will have white knots' ribbon and safety pins at hand to give for free to make your own white knots.
Why not?

wonderfulname

So how did the march go? I couldn't go myself unfortunately..

wonderfulname

Irishtimes.com

Please don't tell me this is it??

So now d'gays are against civil partnership too? Ooh dear..
And the government was only trying to "pacify the gay community" with it? *seething in anger* so they don't give a toss about equal rights really.

Annasopra

wonderfulname wrote: »

Irishtimes.com

Please don't tell me this is it??

So now d'gays are against civil partnership too? Ooh dear..
And the government was only trying to "pacify the gay community" with it? *seething in anger* so they don't give a toss about equal rights really.

I'm confused - are you seething in anger?

wonderfulname

Johnnymcg wrote: »

I'm confused - are you seething in anger?

Lol yup, well not really, I think its a horrendous article, completely missed the point..

Annasopra

wonderfulname wrote: »

Lol yup, well not really, I think its a horrendous article, completely missed the point..

how did it miss the point? I think myself they more or less copied press releases but what do you see as the point?

wonderfulname

Johnnymcg wrote: »

how did it miss the point? I think myself they more or less copied press releases but what do you see as the point?

Because it implies that gay people don't want the civil partnership bill at all, rather than that the civil partnership bill is just a step in the right direction and further rights are sorely needed.

Also I dislike the use of the word "pacify", small words do matter, and that implies that gays are a militant force that need to be appeased. And yes that one is a direct quotation, i just think that the people who write some of this stuff need to be a little more careful, its fine to be free with words when everyone agrees with you.

Annasopra

wonderfulname wrote: »

Because it implies that gay people don't want the civil partnership bill at all, rather than that the civil partnership bill is just a step in the right direction and further rights are sorely needed.

Also I dislike the use of the word "pacify", small words do matter, and that implies that gays are a militant force that need to be appeased. And yes that one is a direct quotation, i just think that the people who write some of this stuff need to be a little more careful, its fine to be free with words when everyone agrees with you.

But thats what LGBT Noise have been saying along, that they (and we) did not want the CP Bill, I don't think the journalist is at fault, they are going by the press releases and speeches. The March for Marriage organisers have chosen that emphasis not the journalists

wonderfulname

Johnnymcg wrote: »

But thats what LGBT Noise have been saying along, that they (and we) did not want the CP Bill, I don't think the journalist is at fault, they are going by the press releases and speeches. The March for Marriage organisers have chosen that emphasis not the journalists

its a bit of both (which is what i was trying to say above but i recognise not very clearly)

Noise, in my opinion, took up the position as the front for gay marriage and didn't do fantastically, and the journalist took that position, in some respects, to be the approach of everybody it affects. The manner in which the press releases were written, along with the manner in which that information was then presented.. well anyway lets just say i think it all could have been done a bit better and stop myself from ranting, its just my opinion, ignore if you like (its for your own good :P)

Annasopra

wonderfulname wrote: »

its a bit of both (which is what i was trying to say above but i recognise not very clearly)

Noise, in my opinion, took up the position as the front for gay marriage and didn't do fantastically, and the journalist took that position, in some respects, to be the approach of everybody it affects. The manner in which the press releases were written, along with the manner in which that information was then presented.. well anyway lets just say i think it all could have been done a bit better and stop myself from ranting, its just my opinion, ignore if you like (its for your own good :P)

You can see the press release here

http://www.politics.ie/culture-community/136426-gay-group-lgbt-noise-says-full-gay-equality-would-still-discrimination.html

Annasopra

Noise are now being criticised

http://www.tallyman.ie/?p=991

wonderfulname

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Noise are now being criticised

http://www.tallyman.ie/?p=991

Note to all, don't miss the comments, following the link is actually worth it for them alone.