Youth Defense Prints off 50,000 Anti-Gay Leaflets to send to Oireachtas Committee

damien

This was in the Sunday Business Post, read it here.

There's a thread about this already in the LGB forum, but I thought I'd post this here for wider additional discussion.

The Oireachtas All-Party Committee on the Constitution is currently accepting submissions from the public on the constitutional status and definition of the family.

Among the questions are whether unions other than those based on marriage should be given the legal and constitutional protection currently extended to married couples and their families.

The Mother and Child Campaign, an organisation which grew out of Youth Defence and which is housed at the same Capel St address, has printed 50,000 submissions which it is inviting members of the public to sign and submit to the All-Party Committee, although the leaflet does not identify its authors.

The leaflet is being distributed by, among others, friendly churches.

Not surprisingly, the leaflet argues against any broadening of the definition of a family, and against "homosexual and lesbian unions's" in particular.

"Homosexual and lesbian couples should never have the right to adopt children," the Mother and Child crew assert.

"They cannot provide the secure and loving best environment that children require."

"Parents of Irish children would be horrified to think that their children could, in the event of their deaths, be adopted by homosexuals or lesbians."

There you are. All Irish parents would be horrified if their children were adopted by a gay or lesbian couple. On the other hand, they'd be delighted if the kids were adopted by members of Youth Defence.

Here is the Youth Defense submission:

1. The Constitutional Family

The family is the fundamental social unit. Article 41.1.1 of Bunreacht na hEireann recognises the special position of the family and gives it inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law. Article 41.3.1 pledges the State to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack. The All Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution (APOCC) should not broaden this constitutional definition of the family.

2. How should one strike a balance between the rights of the family as a unit and the rights of individual members?

The Constitution already does this; firstly by Article 41 which contains the main provisions relating to family and secondly, by Article 40.3.1 which deals with personal rights. The identification of personal rights under Article 40.3.1 are common to all citizens. The rights of the family as a unit and the rights of the individual members of the family are complementary.

3. Is it possible to give constitutional protection to families other than those based on marriage?

Every individual, because of their inherent human dignity, must be protected by the State. The family based on marriage is guaranteed protection under the Constitution and this must remain. It is not possible to give constitutional protection to families other than those based on marriage because the family is a union of a man and woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage. Unions not based on marriage already have protection by the personal rights identified under Article 40.3. Where siblings or other family members reside together, some legal protection with regard to say, distribution of property etc, could be provided. The Constitution currently recognises that the family based on marriage offers the stability and security needed by society. This must not be weakened by affording the same status to other unions.

4. Who has the right to marry?

The legal right to marry should be restricted to one man and one woman, in the best interest of the nation's children and our society. The primary purpose of marriage is to rear children in a loving and secure environment. Children being adopted are entitled to an adoptive mother and an adoptive father, to fulfill the roles of a natural mother and father. Homosexual and lesbian unions should not be given the status of marriage.

5. Who has the right to adopt children?

Homosexual and lesbian couples should never have the right to adopt children. They cannot provide the secure and loving best environment that children require. Parents of Irish children would be horrified to think that their children could, in the event of their deaths, be adopted by homosexuals or lesbians.

6. Is the Constitution's reference to a woman's life within the home a dated one that should be changed?

Absolutely not. It is an important provision and one that reflects the desire of the majority of Irish women, as shown in many surveys, to stay at home and rear their children. Mothers who make many sacrifices to rear their children at home do the State an inestimable and unrewarded service. Article 41.2 should not be changed - instead the APOCC should recommend to the State that it fulfills its obligations to protect mothers at home.

7. What are the rights of Natural mothers and Natural fathers?

The rights of the natural mother are already protected under Article 40 of the Constitution. A natural father's rights should have the same recognition as those of a natural mother.

8. Should the rights of the child be given an expanded constitutional protection, and should the Constitution be changed in view of the UN Convention on the rights of the child?

The child already enjoys Constitutional protection which must be upheld by the State and the Constitution should not be amended to reflect the UN Convention on the rights of the child, or any other extra-territorial conventions.

9. The State and the Family

Despite the Constitutional protection afforded to the family based on marriage, the State continues to fail in its duty to protect and support the family, and has introduced a blatantly anti-family tax measure - tax individualisation - which actively discriminates against single-income families. The APOCC should urge the State to reverse that policy immediately.

10. Bunreacht na hÉireann

The rights of the Family under the Constitution should not be interfered with. Articles 41, 42 and 40.3 reflect the opinions of the majority of Irish people and the best practice for our nation, our children and our society.

Below is the request for submissions

THE ALL-PARTY OIREACHTAS COMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
The Family
The Committee invites written submissions

Bunreacht na hÉireann (the Constitution of Ireland) contains its main provisions in relation to the family in Articles 41, 42 and 40.3.

Following the enactment of the Constitution, legislation relating to the family has been developed in line with those Articles and elucidated by the courts in a substantial body of case law.

The All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, which is charged with reviewing the Constitution in its entirety, is now examining these Articles to ascertain the extent to which they are serving the good of individuals and the community, with a view to deciding whether changes in them would bring about a greater balance between the two.

The Committee wishes to invite individuals and groups to make written submissions to it, whether in general terms or in terms of specific issues such as:

* how should the family be defined?

* how should one strike the balance between the rights of the family as a unit and the rights of individual members?

* is it possible to give constitutional protection to families other than those based on marriage?

* should gay couples be allowed to marry?

* is the Constitution's reference to woman's 'life within the home' a dated one that should be changed?

* should the rights of a natural mother have express constitutional protection?

* what rights should a natural father have, and how should they be protected?

* should the rights of the child be given an expanded constitutional protection?

* does the Constitution need to be changed in view of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child?

Submissions should reach the Committee at the address below before 31 January 2005

The All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution
Fourth Floor, Phoenix House
7-9 South Leinster Street
Dublin 2

Fax: 01 662 5581
Email: info@apocc.irlgov.ie

Yoda

I have sent my own submission in to the Oireachtas.

gandalf

The first thing I would do if I made a submission is to make sure that members of Youth Defense and their ilk are not allowed to pro-create !!!

What people do with their own lives is their own business as long as they do not infringe on you living yours. If they can provide a stable and loving home for children then they should be allowed to have a family.

I really really really hate fundamentalists of all creeds who try and tell people how they should live and what they should do. The most messed up people I know had parents like that.

Poker_Peter

This reminds me of the Republican rednecks in the US. We must not allow ourselves to be brainwashed by these freaks.

Yoda

Don't tell Boards. Make your thoughts known to the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution. Tomorrow is the deadline for submissions.

AngelofFire

The first thing I would do if I made a submission is to make sure that members of Youth Defense and their ilk are not allowed to pro-create !!!

I would vote and actively campagin to have that submission passed.

rsynnott

Every time I think this country may be getting some small amount of sense, something like this happens. Amazing. Nearly as bad as crazy Minister Mary.
Rob.

Nuttzz

Why do gay people want to get married and have kids, I thought that was one of the advantages of being gay. Seriously though they would want to "normalise" the law to take modern society into account especially on things like property rights etc

Sleepy

I think this is why we have such tight gun control in this country. Think about it, if guns were freely available could you stop yourself from shooting some of those idiots?

monument

Yoda wrote:

Don't tell Boards. Make your thoughts known to the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution. Tomorrow is the deadline for submissions.

Got a 'Thank you for your submission' reply this morning.

It’s probably best that I’m only now remembering the suggestion in the West Wing last week… ‘If everyone can’t marry, then I want to make marriage illegal for everyone’

Meh

Hahaha, they're wasting their time and money trying to stuff a nonexistent ballot box. Someone should tell them that this is a call for opinions, not a vote.

arcadegame2004

Nuttzz wrote:

Why do gay people want to get married and have kids, I thought that was one of the advantages of being gay. Seriously though they would want to "normalise" the law to take modern society into account especially on things like property rights etc

I agree that even though I am gay and I simply cannot understand why some gays want to have children. I do regard not having to worry about pregnancies as an advantage of being gay but obviously others think differently. I personally would have found it rather strange being brought up without a mother to talk to about personal problems. Studies indicate gay males are usually much closer to their mothers than to their fathers and I really would not feel comfortable discussing all my problems with one of two fathers. Two mothers would be okay though.

However, this may not be the case for all children and therefore I feel that in a complex society, it would be wrong to make it illegal for gay couples, male or female, to adopt children.

DoctorEdgeWild

These type of groups make me sick. Our house gets quite a few of these types calling round looking for support because its one of those areas full of older people. Scary how they can think like this. I really don't understand it.

I'd be very interested to actually talk to one of them at length about the issue. See if they are truly ignorant or so brainwashed that rational thought eludes them. Sadly, when I answer the door (two three-inch mohawks) they politely decline my invite of tea and conversation. Maybe they're all gay.

Victor

Whats the difference between homosexual and lesbian? Aren't lesbians homosexual?

oscarBravo

arcadegame2004 wrote:

I personally would have found it rather strange being brought up without a mother to talk to about personal problems.

Lots of people grow up without mothers, for lots of reasons. They cope.

Mad Cyril

I wonder will this make headline news in every single newspaper in the country :rolleyes:

Disgusting.

rsynnott

Victor wrote:

Whats the difference between homosexual and lesbian? Aren't lesbians homosexual?

Yep, that they are. It was probably meant to read "gay and lesbian". (Tho a lot of lesbians call themselves gay too).

Occasionally people do think that the 'homo' in homosexual refers to men (as in homo sapiens; Latin); however, it's actually the Greek 'same'.
Rob.

nlgbbbblth

Youth Defence are a bunch of bigots

remembering clashing (physically) with them in my college days over abortion issues

Grrrrrrrr

steviec

I know nothing about this organisation, but I'm surprised how much repulsion and anger people are showing towards the suggestion that a child should have a mother and father. Having been brought up by a single mother myself I'd be inclined to agree with most of the leaflet. I don't think it's anything to do with being gay or not. Two straight men(or single people) shouldn't have the right to adopt either for example.

billy the squid

steviec wrote:

I know nothing about this organisation, but I'm surprised how much repulsion and anger people are showing towards the suggestion that a child should have a mother and father. Having been brought up by a single mother myself I'd be inclined to agree with most of the leaflet. I don't think it's anything to do with being gay or not. Two straight men(or single people) shouldn't have the right to adopt either for example.

the issue of whether a child should have a mother or a father is not the issue, the issue is whether a same sex couple should be allowed to bring up a child.

as for letting two single (gay) people adopt, let them marry then.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

why?


black people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

should I be able to get away with saying that?

steviec

billy the squid wrote:

the issue of whether a child should have a mother or a father is not the issue, the issue is whether a same sex couple should be allowed to bring up a child.

as for letting two single (gay) people adopt, let them marry then.

Surely the issue of a child having a mother and father is the same as the issue of a same sex couple adopting? I have no problem with gay marriage, they should have all the same financial rights etc as a male and female couple, thats fine. But why should their rights come ahead of those of a child?

A gay couple may *want* a child, a child *needs* a mother and father.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

got proof?

Sangre

Tbh despite all my claims that all our created equal (to an extent) and all should be given equal rights and hopes in every way. I can't quite accept a gay couple raising a child in society as it stands. This isn't about their rights, its about the child's right. I still believe being a child of a same sex couple will be detrimental to it, firstly because of society's reaction and secondly because I believe a child should have a mother and a father, its the foundation of humanity I believe. Of course a lot of people don't have these, that doesnt mean we shouldn't give these children the best chance.

Of course, you can argue that society won't change until we start doing stuff like this but that doesn't justify using these children as guinea pigs for a social experiment.
I don't know, Im very undecided on this issue, this isn't so much a post but more me trying to write down my thoughts.

steviec

Mordeth wrote:

got proof?

Well a very quick google got me this, just one of many random articles: http://cms.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20020301-000025.html

I don't think there's any such thing as proof when it comes to psychology but speaking from my own experience and what I thought would be common sense I thought it was very obvious that its better for a child to have a mother and father than not.

Yoda

Millions and millions of children have been raised by gay parents already in the history of our species. Let's not pretend that this isn't the case.

Sangre and others have a blinkered rosy-pictured view of the family. The fact that a household has an adult male and an adult female in it is in itself no magic guarantee that the level of nurturing or support will be adequate to the task of raising that household's children safely and well. Indeed, many households with just such a configuration are known to be places in which horrific abuse can occur.

The genitalia of parents is not a magic charm. Heterosexual couples do not have a monopoly on a human ability to love, nuture, teach, and support.

Common sense, StevieC? Common sense is to look keenly and intelligently at the facts, not at what feels "obvious". And the facts are that human beings raise children, and whether they are single, coupled, gay, or straight is orthogonal the the functions or child-rearing.

solice

When a child is being adopted im sure that there are checks and balnces to make sure that the houshold into which that child is being sent is kind, loving and caring. The houshold that is adopting the child is interviewd, tested, assesd (sp? you know what i mean) and screened. it takes months to adopt a child and if there is anything that may pose even the slightest danger to the child then the adoption will not take place.

Basically, only people who can care for, love, nurture and raise a child in the best way possible will be allowed to adopt.

I like that idea. It puts the welfare of the child above all else. it gives assurance to the child that it is being placed somewhere where it will be loved and respected. Its a good system.

So the question remains, are two men or two women who are in a long term stable and committed relationship capable of raising a child in the ways stated above? Yes there are. There are homosexual couples out there that can give a child the best of everything and raise it well.

There are also homosexual couples out there that are not capable of doing this. But they like there heterosexual counterparts will be vetted and disqualified from adoption. The child is put first in every circumstance.

Of course, you can argue that society won't change until we start doing stuff like this but that doesn't justify using these children as guinea pigs for a social experiment.

As for whether or not society is ready? Screw what society thinks. If two men can raise a child in a loving, caring, nurturing way where the child will always come first then is that not what is more important than what the old lady down the road thinks?

You may think that the children will be used as guinea pigs, I think they could be loved and cared for in an equal way as heterosexual couple could love and care for an adopted child.

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

Troll banned; zombie thread closed.