The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

galljga1

And if he cannot understand the point she is making, then he just does not want to understand.

Bannasidhe

hinault wrote: »

The family is defined in the Constitution and marriage is defined in the constitution.

Pass the referendum and the family and marriage are automatically re-defined.

Please provide the relevant section in the Constitution where 'the family' is defined.

hinault wrote: »

I'm saying that a single parent who's not in a homosexual, with a child/children, is a family.

I carried my child in my womb for 9 months and 1 week.
I am homosexual.

How dare you say we are not a family.

Kiwi in IE

hinault wrote: »

I'm saying that a single parent who's not in a homosexual, with a child/children, is a family.

So a single parent family where the parent is straight is a family, but if the parent is gay they are not a family?

katydid

hinault wrote: »

I'm saying that a single parent who's not in a homosexual, with a child/children, is a family.

But the constitution defines the family as based on marriage, so how can a single parent and his/her children be a family?

katydid

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Please provide the relevant section in the Constitution where 'the family' is defined.



I carried my child in my womb for 9 months and 1 week.
I am homosexual.

How dare you say we are not a family.

Unfortunately, it is correct to say that the constitution gives marriage special status in relation to the family.

"Article 41.1.1° of the Constitution "recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law", and guarantees its protection by the state.

Article 41.3.1° states that "the State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded".

galljga1

I feel a disturbance in the force: the hinault ignore list grows.

3wayswitch

hinault wrote: »

McAleese said
http://www.newstalk.com/Mary-McAleese:-Samesex-referendum-is-about-children--gay-children

I deliberately left out the first line because she says the same thing in both lines, her motivation is love and equality. I also knew you'd become blinkered when she started off that sentence with "It is a debate about children..." even though she was saying that as a response to the no campaign constantly saying that and to turn their argument against them. She then expanded her point in the next sentence to include 'The adults*, children, the children yet unborn, the gay children yet unborn'

*I'm presuming there was a typo on the website as 'The adult children' doesn't make much sense.

hinault

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Please provide the relevant section in the Constitution where 'the family' is defined.

The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.
2. 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

3. 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.
2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that

i. at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or periods amounting to, at least four years during the five years,
ii. there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,
iii. such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and
iv. any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

3° No person whose marriage has been dissolved under the civil law of any other State but is a subsisting valid marriage under the law for the time being in force within the jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament established by this Constitution shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage within that jurisdiction during the lifetime of the other party to the marriage so dissolved.

eviltwin

The constitution is well out of date. Doesn't it still have reference to women in the home being protected or some such claptrap? Don't pay any heed to it. All families are valid and should all be treated equally regardless of their makeup.

katydid

eviltwin wrote: »

The constitution is well out of date. Doesn't it still have reference to women in the home being protected or some such claptrap? Don't pay any heed to it. All families are valid and should all be treated equally regardless of their makeup.

Of course they are. But unfortunately we can't ignore the constitution, as it governs much of our laws. As it stands, the special status given to married couples and their children means differences in tax, inheritance etc.

We've seen even worse results of the constitution in regard to women's reproductive rights and their safety in childbirth.

hinault

katydid wrote: »

But the constitution defines the family as based on marriage, so how can a single parent and his/her children be a family?

The Constitution defines the family. That constitutional definition is not predicated upon marriage. (41.1.1.)

In the Constitution the text makes separate reference to the "institution of marriage" (41.3.1.)

Bannasidhe

katydid wrote: »

Unfortunately, it is correct to say that the constitution gives marriage special status in relation to the family.

"Article 41.1.1° of the Constitution "recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law", and guarantees its protection by the state.

Article 41.3.1° states that "the State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded".

My point is that no where does it actually define exactly what a family is... it says the family is founded on marriage but that is not an actual definition of what a family is as such.


For example is a divorced father and his children still a family when the marriage no longer exists?

What if that father remarries? Which marriage is the foundation of which family?

What about widows? Marriage at that time being 'til death'...

It's a passage written in the 1930s by conservative Roman Catholics when the State had no problem removing children from their mother's and enforcing adoptions that is out of date but many seek to still use a 1930s interpretation now when Irish society, and the State itself, has moved on and embraces many different interpretations of 'family'.

Lastly, it does not say anywhere that only a man and a women can get married. That may have been what they meant - but they never actually wrote that.

galljga1

hinault wrote: »

The Constitution defines the family. That constitutional definition is not predicated upon marriage. (41.1.1.)

In the Constitution the text makes separate reference to the "institution of marriage" (41.3.1.)

Exactly, so what is all this waffle about the referendum redefining the family.

katydid

hinault wrote: »

The Constitution defines the family. That constitutional definition is not predicated upon marriage. (41.1.1.)

In the Constitution the text makes separate reference to the "institution of marriage" (41.3.1.)

You conveniently omitted six very relevant words immediately following "the institution of Marriage": they read as follows - "on which the Family is founded"

Bannasidhe

hinault wrote: »

The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.
2. 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

3. 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.
2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that

i. at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or periods amounting to, at least four years during the five years,
ii. there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,
iii. such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and
iv. any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

3° No person whose marriage has been dissolved under the civil law of any other State but is a subsisting valid marriage under the law for the time being in force within the jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament established by this Constitution shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage within that jurisdiction during the lifetime of the other party to the marriage so dissolved.

That highlighted bit is meaningless. Or are you implying that the State should not recognise the role played by women in the workforce? Or perhaps you believe women shouldn't work outside the home.

How, exactly, does the State act to ensure women are not driven by economic necessity to work outside the home by the way?

Where does it define what it means by the term 'family', it uses the word a lot but never does define it - where does it say a Family is a married man and woman plus children?

It doesn't.

hinault

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That highlighted bit is meaningless

I disagree. But what's new?

steamengine

galljga1 wrote: »

I do not have any desire to view any part of that video again. I left it after 16 minutes feeling the need to wash. A few of the highlights of mr manning's performance were
Using children as pawns to forward his argument for a no vote.
Putting forward the view that children will be wrenched from their parents
Describing surrogacy as third party prostitution.

He is just a vile person.

I'd say he is regarded as a traitor to the gay cause, I've already seen one Uncle Tom reference on another forum. All the YES side is coming up with is a rambling mix of posts - a sort of collective incoherence laced with occasional hostility r/e vile person seems to be the order of the day.

katydid

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That highlighted bit is meaningless. Or are you implying that the State should not recognise the role played by women in the workforce? Or perhaps you believe women shouldn't work outside the home.

How, exactly, does the State act to ensure women are not driven by economic necessity to work outside the home by the way?

Where does it define what it means by the term 'family', it uses the word a lot but never does define it - where does it say a Family is a married man and woman plus children?

It doesn't.

It says the family is founded on the institution of marriage, which implies that a family consists of a man and woman - and offspring from the man and woman.

The clause about the woman in the home may be impractical and unrelated to the modern world, but the fact is that it is written in the constitution.

The constitution needs major revamping.

Bannasidhe

hinault wrote: »

I disagree. But what's new?

Then explain how it still has relevance?

hinault

katydid wrote: »

You conveniently omitted six very relevant words immediately following "the institution of Marriage": they read as follows - "on which the Family is founded"

41.1.1 doesn't assert that the family is founded on marriage.

The Constitution is clear.
41.1.1 recognises the family.
41.3.1 recognises that some marriages are founded on the institution of marriage.

katydid

hinault wrote: »

I disagree. But what's new?

It IS meaningless, as the notion of giving special status to the "woman in the home" is anachronistic, chauvinistic, and totally irrelevant to the 21st century

katydid

hinault wrote: »

41.1.1 doesn't assert that the family is founded on marriage.

The Constitution is clear.
41.1.1 recognises the family.
41.3.1 recognises that some marriages are founded on the institution of marriage.

The institution of marriage ON WHICH THE FAMILY IS FOUNDED. It's unambiguous.

hinault

katydid wrote: »

The institution of marriage ON WHICH THE FAMILY IS FOUNDED. It's unambiguous.

Why isn't it included in 41.1.1. then?
That section is where the family is constitutionally defined.

41.3.1. recognises that some of the families as defined in 41.1.1. are founded in marriage.

Bannasidhe

katydid wrote: »

It says the family is founded on the institution of marriage, which implies that a family consists of a man and woman - and offspring from the man and woman.

The clause about the woman in the home may be impractical and unrelated to the modern world, but the fact is that it is written in the constitution.

The constitution needs major revamping.

It can imply all it wants but that is not what it says.


It also says the State shall not endow any religion but yet the State funds the 96% of all national schools in the country which are under the patronage of local bishops and have a religious ethos as part and parcel of their curriculum.

My point is that using a Constitution which is so open to interpretation and vague on details to argue a position is pointless.

Were the Yes side to agree that ok - it means man plus woman plus children = family will the No side agree that paying the teachers in Roman Catholic Schools is endowing a religion and campaign for all the National Schools to immediately become secular?

Agree absolutely it needs a major revamp.

katydid

hinault wrote: »

Why isn't it included in 41.1.1. then?
That section is where the family is constitutionally defined.

41.3.1. recognises that some of the families defined in 41.1.1. are founded in marriage.

Where is the word "some"?

hinault

katydid wrote: »

Where is the word "some"?

41.1.1. defines the family.

41.3.1. undertakes to protect the institution of marriage.

The Cosntitution recognises that there are (some) family units where there is a marriage and (some) family units where no marriage exists.

Bannasidhe

hinault wrote: »

41.1.1. defines the family.

41.3.1. undertakes to protect the institution of marriage.

The Cosntitution recognises that there are (some) family units where there is a marriage and (some) family units where no marriage exists.

That is not my reading of it.
I wish it did say that but I don't believe it does.

katydid

hinault wrote: »

41.1.1. defines the family.

41.3.1. undertakes to protect the institution of marriage.

The Cosntitution recognises that there are (some) family units where there is a marriage and (some) family units where no marriage exists.

I'll ask the question again (this is becoming a habit); where does it say "some"?

Nick Park

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Wouldn't mind having a look at that Nick - is there a copy available online?

"Who Owns Marriage?" is available on the Amazon Kindle or related apps. Paperback copies available from www.evangelical.ie

shruikan2553

steamengine wrote: »

I'll try now. By ideal I meant - What is the best way for a child to be parented ?

No child is parented the best way, every parent does something the non ideal way at some point.

steamengine wrote: »

A - to be conceived by their mixed sex parents

OR

B to be acquired by adoption (for the sake of this comparison) and raised by same sex parents.

You appear to be against adoption, which is fine Im not going to argue about the pros and cons of adoption but it exists and opposite sex couples and single people can adopt as it is.

You could also ask which is better for a child, parents with third level education or without? Should we deny a couple from raising a child without a degree?

The source of the child has no bearing on the quality of parents and with the new bill same sex couples can adopt without being married. Hence no matter the referendum children will be adopted, although adoptions in Ireland aren't that common with most being within the family.

steamengine wrote: »

Re yourself and your girlfriend - No way, I'm genuinely sorry if you took it that way.

They way you compare whats best for the child you appear to focus on whats best, conceived by the parents or adopted by the parents. How does the source of the child be it IVF, adoption or conceived naturally alter the parenting? If me and my girlfriend would be just as capable of raising a child be it adopted, surrogacy or conceived naturally why is a same sex couple be penalized for having an adopted child?


What is the consensus among psychologists and child welfare groups? These people have looked into this far more than anyone here has. What do they say about same sex vs opposite sex couples and raising children?

In the end, regardless how a person votes you'll have families made up of all sorts. Some will be male and female married couples, some will be same sex couples who are married or in a civil partnership.