Waterford Politics MEGATHREAD

S.O

Max Powers wrote: »

PS,
SO, very blunt and honest of you to come out and say you are voting no, i think we all copped that when you posted your Iona rally poster

The poster I posted wasn,t my poster, I happened to see it on social media and decided to post it here to create awareness that a public meeting was taking place locally on the upcoming referendum so undecided voters could attend to hear out the no side of the argument, as not too many public meetings have being held in Waterford on this issue, for someone to say anyone who is voting no is somehow affiliated with Iona would be equivalent to me saying anyone whos voting yes is affiliated with the anti austerity alliances radical yes campaign facebook group, not everyone whos voting no is affiliated with Iona just like not everyone whos voting yes is affiliated with a front group for the anti austerity alliance, people can make up their minds on SSM as an individual without being part of any group.

Max Powers wrote: »

probably brainwashed by iona and catholic church

He is not the only one who is openly gay calling for a no vote, as someone else posted this opinion piece by another gay man voting no.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/why-ill-be-voting-no-to-samesex-marriage-even-though-im-gay-30953906.html

Max Powers wrote: »

As for gay parents, time and time again studies have proven that the child being loved is the most important thing, 2 same sex parents has no bearing on whether child

See one of my previous posts read Heathers story and hear out Amys story on being raised by same sex parents.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94921795&postcount=1523

I can point out what other people had to say after being raised by same sex parents.

Four adult children of same-sex parents have submitted amicus
curiae briefs in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals asking that it oppose the
legalization of same-sex “marriage."


The Court, in New Orleans, La., heard arguments on Jan. 9 as it considers
whether to uphold traditional marriage – defined as being between one man and one woman -- in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.


B.N. Klein, Robert Oscar Lopez, Dawn Stefanowicz, and Katy Faust all grew up
with homosexual parents. All four argued that redefining marriage to include
same-sex couples would harm children by depriving them of a mother or
father.

In her brief, Dawn Stefanowicz described her experience living in a same-sex
household.


“I wasn’t surrounded by average heterosexual couples,” she says in her
court brief. “Dad’s partners slept and ate in our home, and they took me
along to meeting places in the LGBT communities. .”


“There was no guarantee that any of my Dad’s partners would be around
for long, and yet I often had to obey them,” she said. “My rights and
innocence were violated.”

The other views of people also raised by same sex parents is in the link below.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/adults-raised-gay-couples-speak-out-against-gay-marriage-federal-court

Another open letter from someone else against SSM raised by same sex parents.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/02/14370/

In closing for a while I was on the fence as which way I might vote or whether I might abstain, with the age of the Internet I looked at both sides of the argument in my own privacy, what swayed me into voting no was not any Iona group, but after listening to what adult children have had to say about their own personal experience raised by same sex parents, its the adult children Im listening to by deciding to vote no not Iona.

wellboytoo

He is just going to go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on....

Cabaal

Im gay myself, and its not homophobic to vote no

On this quote I'd like to point out that in a few years we'll look back on such people and see them in a very very poor light, that they would deny themselves equal rights.

The funny thing is that there were many women who were against that very idea of giving women the right to vote, we look back at these women and think out stupid they were that they'd deny themselves such basic equal equality's. Same sex marriage is no different.

If you think same sex marriage some how weakens your marriage then you mustn't have a very secure family. If you think marriage is only about children then you do a disservice to the 40% of children born in 2013 outside of marriage.

You know what same sex marriage and women getting the vote have in common?
Priests, Bishops and religious people supporting the no side.

Its funny how times have moved on for the rest of society but the religious fight change at every corner tooth and nail and frankly its utterly pathetic, if they had their way single mothers would still be kept in homes and they'd get no benefits from the goverment.,

7upfree

Cabaal wrote: »

Its funny how times have moved on for the rest of society but the religious fight change at every corner tooth and nail and frankly its utterly pathetic, if they had their way single mothers would still be kept in homes and they'd get no benefits from the goverment.,

I'm religious. And voting yes. What is pathetic is people like you who do this "cause", as you describe it, a disservice.

I can see you now - fingers poised "oh there's another religious person- must wheel out some boring, flogged to death anti-religious remark".

Pathetic. Yep, there it is.

S.O

Cabaal wrote: »

You know what same sex marriage and women getting the vote have in common?
Priests, Bishops and religious people supporting the no side.

Its funny how times have moved on for the rest of society but the religious fight change at every corner tooth and nail and frankly its utterly pathetic, QUOTE]

Im not the slightest bit religious, in fact I never step foot inside a church unless Im going to a funeral or a wedding, and Im supporting a no vote in this referendum, someone else brought up the Iona group , a big misconception some people have is that anyone who is voting no is religious or involved with Iona as a previous poster suggested, a recent opinion piece in the Irish Independent titled, I am a liberal but will be voting no in referendum


http://www.independent.ie/opinion/i-am-a-liberal-but-i-will-be-voting-no-in-referendum-31098505.html

Again Im just trying to drive the home the point not all no voters are religious.

Cabaal wrote: »

If you think same sex marriage some how weakens your marriage then you mustn't have a very secure family,

While I have no doubt there are people out there that would hold that point of view, I myself do not hold any such views.

fuzzy dunlop

Cabaal wrote: »

On this quote I'd like to point out that in a few years we'll look back on such people and see them in a very very poor light, that they would deny themselves equal rights.

The funny thing is that there were many women who were against that very idea of giving women the right to vote, we look back at these women and think out stupid they were that they'd deny themselves such basic equal equality's. Same sex marriage is no different.

If you think same sex marriage some how weakens your marriage then you mustn't have a very secure family. If you think marriage is only about children then you do a disservice to the 40% of children born in 2013 outside of marriage.

You know what same sex marriage and women getting the vote have in common?
Priests, Bishops and religious people supporting the no side.

Its funny how times have moved on for the rest of society but the religious fight change at every corner tooth and nail and frankly its utterly pathetic, if they had their way single mothers would still be kept in homes and they'd get no benefits from the goverment.,

That's a bit of a patronizing attitude. How do you know these people are opposed to this because they are actually intelligent enough to discern if something is good for society or not? The next logical step from same sex marriage equality is being allowed adopt at least in many peoples minds. "Equality" just because it sounds heart warming is not an absolute human right in reality.There is no absolute equality with regard to child custody after a divorce for example and most people see the logic of that.

There is plenty of legitimate factors for being on the no side if someone thinks it threatens the nuclear family which those 40% of children you mentioned by and large are still born into..First and foremost child development.You also seem to be ignorant of the fact that since Independence, Ireland the most Catholic country in Europe has had equality for women with regard to the vote. Likewise the vast majority of women who had children outside of wedlock didn't end up in homes. I doubt it was a rarity for anybody to be sent to a home without the full collaboration of their family. The sad thing is those proponents of "all things liberal" are just as bigoted, oppressive and ignorant as the peasant religious society of the 50's but through sheer arrogance they just can't see it.

S.O

Back a few years ago Leo Varadkar made a good argument in my view against adoption rights for same sex couples, I will quote him as what he said.

every child has a right to a mother and a father, and that right is much more
Important the right of that child to have a mother and a father is much more
Important then the right of two men to have a family, or two women to have a
family,

I could not agree more with Leo on that one, I guess one could call it a matter of principle or priority, which right do we place first ? the right of a same sex couple to have adoption rights and start a family ? or the rights of children to have both a mother and a father growing up ?

robtri

S.O wrote: »

Back a few years ago Leo Varadkar made a good argument in my view against adoption rights for same sex couples, I will quote him as what he said.



I could not agree more with Leo on that one, I guess one could call it a matter of principle or priority, which right do we place first ? the right of a same sex couple to have adoption rights and start a family ? or the rights of children to have both a mother and a father growing up ?

and I couldn't disagree more with that... every child should have the right to a happy loving family, whether that be hetro or gay couple.
Having a mother and father does not guarantee the child anything....

too many times you see how piss poor a mother and father raise their children. I am not saying every gay couple will be great but at least they will be interviewed and assessed to see if they are fit and a proper match for a child..

while you look around the disadvantages estates in ireland, and you see too many examples of where a hetro couple are the worst parents around.

fuzzy dunlop

robtri wrote: »

and I couldn't disagree more with that... every child should have the right to a happy loving family, whether that be hetro or gay couple.
Having a mother and father does not guarantee the child anything....

too many times you see how piss poor a mother and father raise their children. I am not saying every gay couple will be great but at least they will be interviewed and assessed to see if they are fit and a proper match for a child..

while you look around the disadvantages estates in ireland, and you see too many examples of where a hetro couple are the worst parents around.

But to be fair the small number of same sex parents compared to heterosexual parents mean that no similar comparison can be made for same sex couples. You have a data pool of Billions for one and probably thousands of the other. One would just would not register. The other issue then is with bonding particularly with the mother.From my understanding the psychological development of the child in the first six months in particular is highly dependent on the mother and also in varying degrees to either parent dependent on the sex of the child later on. If this is the case then the implications are that for the child the better option is a mother and father.Simply having a "loving" parent or parents is not enough.Gay rights have nothing to do with it then if this is indeed the case because the rights of the child to have a normal development should take precedence.

S.O

I found this 11 year old girls speech on the same sex marriage issue interesting, even though she is only 11 she was well able to argue her case that a child needs both parents growing up.

wellboytoo

S.O wrote: »

I found this 11 year old girls speech on the same sex marriage issue interesting, even though she is only 11 she was well able to argue her case that a child needs both parents growing up.

And on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on

robtri

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

But to be fair the small number of same sex parents compared to heterosexual parents mean that no similar comparison can be made for same sex couples. You have a data pool of Billions for one and probably thousands of the other. One would just would not register. The other issue then is with bonding particularly with the mother.From my understanding the psychological development of the child in the first six months in particular is highly dependent on the mother and also in varying degrees to either parent dependent on the sex of the child later on. If this is the case then the implications are that for the child the better option is a mother and father.Simply having a "loving" parent or parents is not enough.Gay rights have nothing to do with it then if this is indeed the case because the rights of the child to have a normal development should take precedence.

the number of parents to compare is unfair, my point was that having hetro parents means **** all, its how youa re raised.

so what about a children who lost their mother during first week or two after birth?? they could not bond so are they fecked and can not have normal development??

fuzzy dunlop

robtri wrote: »

the number of parents to compare is unfair, my point was that having hetro parents means **** all, its how youa re raised.

You can't say it means **** all. You can say it means **** all if there was no such thing as gender but there is. And gender effects each parent differently which in turn effects how a person (child) develops emotionally. The concept of equality does not necessarily mean equal.

robtri wrote: »

so what about a children who lost their mother during first week or two after birth?? they could not bond so are they fecked and can not have normal development??

Possibly. It's obviously some people are "fecked" for different reasons one of which may be due to the scenario you described. What are we supposed to do? Not say something for fear of offending those who through no fault of their own found themselves in that position? Its obvious family structures affect people. Whether its a large family or an only child their development will be affected. The purpose should be to have a society where the smallest amount of people possible are "fecked"

robtri

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

You can't say it means **** all. You can say it means **** all if there was no such thing as gender but there is. And gender effects each parent differently which in turn effects how a person (child) develops emotionally. The concept of equality does not necessarily mean equal.



Possibly. It's obviously some people are "fecked" for different reasons one of which may be due to the scenario you described. What are we supposed to do? Not say something for fear of offending those who through no fault of their own found themselves in that position? Its obvious family structures affect people. Whether its a large family or an only child their development will be affected. The purpose should be to have a society where the smallest amount of people possible are "fecked"

and the concept of parents does not mean a man and woman....

fuzzy dunlop

robtri wrote: »

and the concept of parents does not mean a man and woman....

Actually it typically does.

Max Powers

Iona and their minions on here have successfully changed the debate on the ref from Marriage equality to adoption (as far as im aware totally separate and will not influence adoption in any way be it yes or no) and threats to the traditional family (man, woman, kid). Other countries have done this and the sky hasnt fallen in like Iona, the catholic church and others will have you believe.
Id be very careful reading any info from an organised group associated with the catholic church such as Iona, David Quinn's articles in the Indo etc etc. They have a hidden agenda (old school catholic church telling us what to do), they opposed and produced numerous anti civil partnership and divorce items, their scaremongering now will be looked at as the same as their scaremongering on partnership and divorce

S.O

Max Powers wrote: »

Iona and their minions on here have successfully changed the debate on the ref from Marriage equality to adoption (as far as im aware totally separate and will not influence adoption in any way be it yes or no) and threats to the traditional family (man, woman, kid). Other countries have done this and the sky hasnt fallen in like Iona, the catholic church and others will have you believe.
Id be very careful reading any info from an organised group associated with the catholic church such as Iona, David Quinn's articles in the Indo etc etc. They have a hidden agenda (old school catholic church telling us what to do), they opposed and produced numerous anti civil partnership and divorce items, their scaremongering now will be looked at as the same as their scaremongering on partnership and divorce

No matter how many times some posters on here point out to you that not everyone is voting no is involved with or supports Iona, it never seems to register with you that people can hold an individual opinion on same sex marriage/same sex parenting.

S.O

Max Powers wrote: »

(as far as im aware totally separate and will not influence adoption in any way be it yes or no)

Im gonna refer you to a section of the Irish constitution that could be open to interpretation if a no vote passes.

ARTICLE 41
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.

Lets say in the scenario its a no vote next month, if same sex couples can,t have access to marriage rights, Id imagine under article 41/ sec 3.1 is open to interpretation for adoptions rights for same sex couples.

robtri

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

Actually it typically does.

no it doesn't

fuzzy dunlop

robtri wrote: »

no it doesn't

It does! There might be 'legal" caveats that allow two men or two women call themselves parents or adoptive parents but this denotes legal responsibility. When the word is associated with a child means the childs biological parents which is a man and a woman. Everybody has male and female parents no matter what way you have been conceived or reared.It doesn't matter. Of all the people ever born not one is without both male and female parents. Where the word parent is not used in the context of children such as industrial terms it too denotes that something originated materially from something else.The parent is the material originator of the child.And this means a man and a woman.

robtri

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

It does! There might be 'legal" caveats that allow two men or two women call themselves parents or adoptive parents but this denotes legal responsibility. When the word is associated with a child means the childs biological parents which is a man and a woman. Everybody has male and female parents no matter what way you have been conceived or reared.It doesn't matter. Of all the people ever born not one is without both male and female parents. Where the word parent is not used in the context of children such as industrial terms it too denotes that something originated materially from something else.The parent is the material originator of the child.And this means a man and a woman.

you ask a child who has two mothers or two fathers who their parents are and they will not give a mother and father name as an answer...

fuzzy dunlop

robtri wrote: »

you ask a child who has two mothers or two fathers who their parents are and they will not give a mother and father name as an answer...

Maybe we can have threesome marriages and then the child can have three mothers or three fathers. Or a mother and two fathers. At what point does the whole thing become absurd? What a child will ask anf this is guaranteed is that "who is my father?" and "who is my mother?" if they have adoptive parents and they have that right. And you would be surprised at how many people in the gay community who advocate marriage and adoption equality for same sex couples would think its ok to deny children that right. So it seems many gay people are no different to a lot of others in that equality is only important when it is theirs.

robtri

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

Maybe we can have threesome marriages and then the child can have three mothers or three fathers. Or a mother and two fathers. At what point does the whole thing become absurd? What a child will ask anf this is guaranteed is that "who is my father?" and "who is my mother?" if they have adoptive parents and they have that right. And you would be surprised at how many people in the gay community who advocate marriage and adoption equality for same sex couples would think its ok to deny children that right. So it seems many gay people are no different to a lot of others in that equality is only important when it is theirs.

links to this survey??? or is this just hearsay?

a biological father and mother are different to parents....
numerous tribes/religions\cultures have polygamy.... they dont think its absurd

Gardner

back on local issues. were 12 months out from a GE. who do you see Waterford returning?

i think in order:

John Deasy FG
John Halligan Ind
Mulligan/Walsh FF (Michael Walsh rumoured to be running for FF)
David Cullinane SF

Coffey and Conway to lose seats without doubt

fuzzy dunlop

robtri wrote: »

links to this survey??? or is this just hearsay?

a biological father and mother are different to parents....
numerous tribes/religions\cultures have polygamy.... they dont think its absurd

So in other words anything goes......

Max Powers

S.O wrote: »

Im gonna refer you to a section of the Irish constitution that could be open to interpretation if a no vote passes.




Lets say in the scenario its a no vote next month, if same sex couples can,t have access to marriage rights, Id imagine under article 41/ sec 3.1 is open to interpretation for adoptions rights for same sex couples.

There maybe some confusion there but im pretty sure the adoption laws dont discriminate on same sex potential parents of adoptees already and this does not change with outcome of this vote.
Had a quick read of that excerpt from the constitution, that whole section reads well out of date in these times...talking about 'women' in the home, outdated, plenty of dads being main carer now, women dont want to be pigeon holed as homemakers in the consitution etc etc.

Max Powers

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

Maybe we can have threesome marriages and then the child can have three mothers or three fathers. Or a mother and two fathers. At what point does the whole thing become absurd? What a child will ask anf this is guaranteed is that "who is my father?" and "who is my mother?" if they have adoptive parents and they have that right. And you would be surprised at how many people in the gay community who advocate marriage and adoption equality for same sex couples would think its ok to deny children that right. So it seems many gay people are no different to a lot of others in that equality is only important when it is theirs.

This is not about threesome marriages, marrying your aunt or whatever other doomsday scenarios Iona and some would have you believe. Bringing stuff up like that is irrelevant and unhelpful.
Have to say, in general im surprised with the anti-equality in marriage comments on here becasue i would have thought that the age demographic is fairly young.
I think best way for me to think about this is, we all have friends, neighbours, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, nephews and nieces who may be gay, i want them to live in a tolerant Ireland, equality for all, one not beholden to some crackpot in Rome who thinks that hitting kids is ok, no sex before marriage etc. etc. Marriage is not the ownership of any church, its been around long before any religion tried to take ownership of it.

Max Powers

Gardner wrote: »

back on local issues. were 12 months out from a GE. who do you see Waterford returning?

i think in order:

John Deasy FG
John Halligan Ind
Mulligan/Walsh FF (Michael Walsh rumoured to be running for FF)
David Cullinane SF

Coffey and Conway to lose seats without doubt

Id say 2 FG safe and 2 unknown. Michael Walsh CEO of Council would be a loss to Waterford council because he has done good work in his tenure, i would guess if he ran he would get in, Mulligan possibly but prob not both. LAst seat up bewteen Cullinane and Halligan...SF resurgent and i think Halligan talks a lot of sense but as an independent not assocaited with a major party, no one is listening.

wellboytoo

Michael Walsh

fuzzy dunlop

Max Powers wrote: »

This is not about threesome marriages, marrying your aunt or whatever other doomsday scenarios Iona and some would have you believe. Bringing stuff up like that is irrelevant and unhelpful.
Have to say, in general im surprised with the anti-equality in marriage comments on here becasue i would have thought that the age demographic is fairly young.
I think best way for me to think about this is, we all have friends, neighbours, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, nephews and nieces who may be gay, i want them to live in a tolerant Ireland, equality for all, one not beholden to some crackpot in Rome who thinks that hitting kids is ok, no sex before marriage etc. etc. Marriage is not the ownership of any church, its been around long before any religion tried to take ownership of it.

It has nothing to do with Iona either but how many times have you mentioned them in your posts on the topic? Or the Catholic church for that matter (which you are talking about more than anyone) or ridicule with regards to S.O'S posts? With all due respect I don't agree with your all your posts all the time but I can't say I have ever seen you relying on this shrill type of labelling before. For what its worth I am ambivalent about the whole thing but people for or against should be allowed state their reasons without being labelled as bigots which they are not or being members of groups like Iona which they are probaly not.Nor are they some form of backward peasents. It is the exact same tactic which essentially amounts to censorship and denial of freedom of speech. Tolerance involves allowing others have an opinion whether you agree with them or not. I's amazing how this is lost on so mmany people who can preach about tolerance for gay people but not someone with a different opinion.

Intolerance is just as wrong when it is directed against those who hold a conservative social view as it is when its directed at someone say for having a different sexual orientation.It's the exact same thing. What both have in common is that those who perpetrators of such intolerance are safe within a cosy manufactured consensus.In other words a mob.