Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

Ave Sodalis · 11-04-2015 08:14PM

fran17 wrote: »

But you didn't even watch the video,the video this thread is about,before making comment on its contents.

And you know that how?

ebbsy · 11-04-2015 08:17PM

I like chicken.

conorh91 · 11-04-2015 08:22PM

lazygal wrote: »

Is that the same David Quinn who[...] thinks if you're rich enough you should be able to circumvent the adoption checks?

I'm sure you'd never invent lies which tend to damage a person's reputation, so you must have a link for this?

catallus · 11-04-2015 08:27PM

ebbsy wrote: »

I like chicken.

Chicken curry?

eviltwin · 11-04-2015 08:31PM

What are Quinn's credentials that make him such an expert on the rights of children?

mikom · 11-04-2015 08:35PM

indy_man wrote: »

Dude looks like what I'd imagine Diarmuid Gavin's nonce brother to look like.
.
.

catallus · 11-04-2015 08:35PM

eviltwin wrote: »

What are Quinn's credentials that make him such an expert on the rights of children?

God tells him what to do.

seamus · 11-04-2015 08:47PM

So I watched the first two minutes where he's trying to convince a room of like-minded people that the same-sex marriage referendum is going to fail, spouting off statistics. He claims that in all referendums the pro-SSM side has always been miles ahead at the start. Wrong. The more recent one in Slovakia, in its first opinion poll, found that 81% of voters opposed SSM.

He claims that in "liberal" California*, SSM was defeated in referendum. Wrong. A referendum on blocking SSM was passed in California, and later overturned by their legal system.

There are so many incorrect soundbites, misinformation and deliberate misrespresentation of statistics, that I'm not going to waste my time watching the rest of his drivel.

A 35 minute speech can be condensed into 500 words. Come back to me with that and I'll read it in five minutes, but I won't waste my time listening to this man's nonsense.

*California is liberal in US terms, but not internationally, again belying David Quinn's ignorance

haveringchick · 11-04-2015 09:07PM

Very interesting video. Food for thought. Thanks for posting.

TheBeardedLady · 11-04-2015 09:12PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

I do agree with you. However the no side have yet to come out with a single credible argument. Debate is good for issues like this, but only if it informed.

With regards to your co-worker and parents who are voting no, I thought Panti Bliss summed it up perfectly. You see these people who are otherwise really good people that you'd get along with and have no reason to dislike, and you hear them debating about why you as a person don't deserve to be treated equally. Why you as a person would be an unfit parent or why you, because of something inherent within yourself, are disgusting. And then you're told that you should be lucky and accept this because hey, you're not getting stoned in the middle east or beat up in Russia. I mean, I'm lucky that I'm out and comfortable within myself. But I cannot even begin to imagine the emotional toll that especially takes on young gay teenagers out there who are afraid themselves to come out or accept who they are.

Anybody who has, or plans to have kids, has to accept the possibility that they may be gay. And just as you made a vow to your husband/wife that you'd love them til' death do you part, you make that same commitment to you children. And come May 22nd everyone should be confident in making a decision they can stand by should their child come out to them in the future.

This is an excellent post.

lazygal · 11-04-2015 09:42PM

conorh91 wrote: »

I'm sure you'd never invent lies which tend to damage a person's reputation, so you must have a link for this?

http://www.inarchive.com/page/2011-08-03/http:/www.sbpost.ie/archives/2005/0710/adoption-the-agony-and-the-ecstasy-6248.html

Of course.

Annasopra · 11-04-2015 09:53PM

Scruffy...The Janitor wrote: »

If people really do want to 'please think of the children' then the ispcc, an organisation which exists to look after the best interests of children, with no political or religious agenda, has come out on favour of same sex marriage. I know who I'd rather pay attention to.

http://www.ispcc.ie/news-media/childrens-issues-in-the-news/ispcc-confirms-its-support-for-a-yes-vote-in-the-marriage-equality-referendum/12761

Annasopra · 11-04-2015 10:10PM

lazygal wrote: »

Is that the same David Quinn who's robbed two children of the right to biological parents by adopting them from another country? And thinks if you're rich enough you should be able to circumvent the adoption checks?

Honestly I think comments like this have no place in the debate. David Quinn got harshly criticised and rounded upon for making personalised comments against Dil Wickremasinghe. No matter how much Iona and DQs comments are hurtful, I strongly feel those of us on the yes side shouldnt be attacking David Quinns family circumstances.

lazygal · 11-04-2015 10:21PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Honestly I think comments like this have no place in the debate. David Quinn got harshly criticised and rounded upon for making personalised comments against Dil Wickremasinghe. No matter how much Iona and DQs comments are hurtful, I strongly feel those of us on the yes side shouldnt be attacking David Quinns family circumstances.

David Quinn asked a person who was the father of a child . What's the difference between that and asking him about his family circumstances? If you're not bothered about the circumstances of conception why worry about his.explanation about his family when he's happy to comment on that of others?

eviltwin · 11-04-2015 10:25PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Honestly I think comments like this have no place in the debate. David Quinn got harshly criticised and rounded upon for making personalised comments against Dil Wickremasinghe. No matter how much Iona and DQs comments are hurtful, I strongly feel those of us on the yes side shouldnt be attacking David Quinns family circumstances.

Normally I would agree but I think in this case its information we have a right to know. There is a vested interest for Quinn in things like this as he is an adoptive parent, no wonder he is so anti abortion and against gay couples having access to an already small pool of children. He is well within his rights to have his views but he should at least be honest about why he feels that way. It means that he is a bit emotive about the issue and therefore has his own agenda and we all know how much the man hates agendas! Its not an attack on his family, he has done nothing wrong, its just a request that he be upfront about things.

Annasopra · 11-04-2015 10:51PM

lazygal wrote: »

David Quinn asked a person who was the father of a child . What's the difference between that and asking him about his family circumstances? If you're not bothered about the circumstances of conception why worry about his.explanation about his family when he's happy to comment on that of others?

Let him. Just don't stoop to his level and remember the old adage "two wrongs don't make a right"

Annasopra · 11-04-2015 10:55PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Normally I would agree but I think in this case its information we have a right to know. There is a vested interest for Quinn in things like this as he is an adoptive parent, no wonder he is so anti abortion and against gay couples having access to an already small pool of children. He is well within his rights to have his views but he should at least be honest about why he feels that way. It means that he is a bit emotive about the issue and therefore has his own agenda and we all know how much the man hates agendas! Its not an attack on his family, he has done nothing wrong, its just a request that he be upfront about things.

I respectfully disagree. I feel dragging David Quinns family into this debate is actually a personal attack. His attack on Dil was not welcome and personalised attacks against him are unwelcome.

The Black Oil · 11-04-2015 11:09PM

I believe his personal circumstances are off limits in all debates, I hope so anyway. I'd never stop him from speaking as that's intolerant and not very liberal minded, really. Funny how the 'silenced' brigade often have the biggest megaphones, though.

Anyway, he seems to have insulted a mother on Twitter this evening and got called on it fairly sharpish.

insulted

https://twitter.com/BrendanPart/status/586998742735319040

Thoie · 11-04-2015 11:23PM

The Black Oil wrote: »

Anyway, he seems to have insulted a mother on Twitter this evening and got called on it fairly sharpish.

But you can guarantee that he probably sees the responses calling him on it to be bullying, or trying to silence him or some such other tosh. In his world, he should be allowed say whatever nasty little things he wants to about other people's relationships, and anyone who disagrees with him, or thinks he should apologise for his hateful ways is automatically a sign that people are out to get him.

pl4ichjgy17zwd · 11-04-2015 11:30PM

I think his personal family situation should be kept out of debate, however, if he's preaching about 'the biological family is best' while having adopted children, then I think it's fair for that hypocrisy to be pointed out (but not if it in any way targets his family)

Cold War Kid · 12-04-2015 02:13AM

I was willing to give David Quinn a chance for a long time - I don't agree with him, but felt his view (which he has a right to hold, as others have a right to refute it) that marriage should only be between a man and a woman didn't necessarily mean he has hatred for gay people (although it does feed into homophobia).

But that tweet by him - what a pile of petty, childish spitefulness. Stooping to that level really discredits him, and he should know better. I'd only have expected the likes of that from Waters.

Nodin · 12-04-2015 04:39AM

Cold War Kid wrote: »

I was willing to give David Quinn a chance for a long time - I don't agree with him, but felt his view (which he has a right to hold, as others have a right to refute it) that marriage should only be between a man and a woman didn't necessarily mean he has hatred for gay people (although it does feed into homophobia).

But that tweet by him - what a pile of petty, childish spitefulness. Stooping to that level really discredits him, and he should know better. I'd only have expected the likes of that from Waters.

His twitter feed is far less PR conscious that his usual output, and you can see the far more conservative influence come to the surface.

Annasopra · 12-04-2015 07:16AM

Cold War Kid wrote: »

I was willing to give David Quinn a chance for a long time - I don't agree with him, but felt his view (which he has a right to hold, as others have a right to refute it) that marriage should only be between a man and a woman didn't necessarily mean he has hatred for gay people (although it does feed into homophobia).

But that tweet by him - what a pile of petty, childish spitefulness. Stooping to that level really discredits him, and he should know better. I'd only have expected the likes of that from Waters.

Its not the first though

fran17 · 12-04-2015 10:53AM

seamus wrote: »

So 35 minutes of hateful bigotry derived from a book of fairytales is insightful and listen-worthy, but if you dare challenge his opinions you're a bully.

Standard victim playing straight from the Catholic playbook.

http://www.yoism.org/images/addiscartoon.jpg

David Quinn's hateful nonsense is well publicised. If he has magically come up with a new opinion that's rational and worth hearing, he can put it into a single paragraph, it doesn't need a 35 minute speech.

The fact stands that this referendum has nothing to do with children, so mentioning children immediately proves that the speaker doesn't understand what the referendum is about.

Shrap wrote: »

Why wouldn't you be on autopilot having to listen to the done-to-death baseless arguments David Quinn spews forth? Haven't we heard them often enough?

Is there anything new? Nope.
Does he carefully avoid bible references? Yup.
Does he appeal to "reason"? I expect so. Oh wait...no, that's usually Ronan Mullen's trick.
Does he mention "tradition" a lot and families requiring a mother and a father in his view (thereby devaluing every single parent and gay family in the country)?
Yes? Ok then.

Guys you would really want to get a cohesive response to this video.Is it 35 minutes of hateful bigotry derived from the Bible OR is it a careful avoidance of Biblical references?
Come on now hands up,who actually listened to it before becoming hugely offended by its contents which you are not aware of :rolleyes:

Shrap · 12-04-2015 10:58AM

fran17 wrote: »

Guys you would really want to get a cohesive response to this video.Is it 35 minutes of hateful bigotry derived from the Bible OR is it a careful avoidance of Biblical references?
Come on now hands up,who actually listened to it before becoming hugely offended by its contents which you are not aware of :rolleyes:

No, sorry. I'd have to be well paid to listen to that, seeing as I'm on the brink of throwing my crockery at my laptop every time he's on the radio, and I have listened to him, too many times already. I now practice better self-care and only listen to him when there is an intelligent interviewer and/or guest who is able for his carry-on.

pablomakaveli · 12-04-2015 11:29AM

Nodin wrote: »

His twitter feed is far less PR conscious that his usual output, and you can see the far more conservative influence come to the surface.

Thats the beauty of twitter. People like him post things spontaneously on it without consulting their PR guys and tend to show their true nature by when they do so.

seamus · 12-04-2015 12:11PM

fran17 wrote: »

Guys you would really want to get a cohesive response to this video.Is it 35 minutes of hateful bigotry derived from the Bible OR is it a careful avoidance of Biblical references?

Well it can be both. His opinion is completely derived from religious texts. But he knows this, so he's careful to avoid appearing like a bible-thumper.

In any case, there's no need for Shrap & me to be "cohesive". I don't recall being on the same "team" as them or otherwise being part of any joint venture?

Come on now hands up,who actually listened to it before becoming hugely offended by its contents which you are not aware of :rolleyes:

Like I say, give me a transcript and I'll read it. I'm not wasting 35 minutes of my time, but for the sake of fairness I'll waste five of them. If he has an argument, it can be presented in text format.

fran17 · 12-04-2015 03:36PM

Vey interesting survey which took place quite recently in league with the continuing drop in the yes vote.

http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/mum_and_dad_adoption_preferred_irish_poll_shows/15672

Its going to take a lot more than the lgbtq lobby and the student unions,the base of the yes vote,to get this over the line.David Quinn gave some telling statistics regarding previous gay marriage referendums throughout the world.This referendum is eerily similar to them.

Pherekydes · 12-04-2015 03:45PM

fran17 wrote: »

Vey interesting survey which took place quite recently in league with the continuing drop in the yes vote.

http://www.mercatornet.com/conjugality/view/mum_and_dad_adoption_preferred_irish_poll_shows/15672

Its going to take a lot more than the lgbtq lobby and the student unions,the base of the yes vote,to get this over the line.David Quinn gave some telling statistics regarding previous gay marriage referendums throughout the world.This referendum is eerily similar to them.

David Quinn has a history of misusing statistics. All of the correctly conducted polls show 70%+ in favour. These polls aren't biased by the LGBT lobby and students. They are representative of the general population.

The above article was published by Quinn and the poll alluded to was commissioned by the iOnanists.

fran17 · 12-04-2015 03:56PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

David Quinn has a history of misusing statistics. All of the correctly conducted polls show 70%+ in favour. These polls aren't biased by the LGBT lobby and students. They are representative of the general population.

The above article was published by Quinn and the poll alluded to was commissioned by the iOnanists.

The poll was conducted independently by Amarach research.Cant believe your trying to discredit its validity.From my own daily experiences I would have thought the percentage would be higher.

Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

Comments