Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

fran17 · 12-04-2015 08:27PM

sup_dude wrote: »

Liberal bullies... And what exactly is wrong with believing a man and a man can be in love, or a woman and a woman? What's wrong with believing that that love should be legally recognised? The referendum has nothing to do with children, not matter how many times people say it.

Incorrect.Article 41 of the constitution has now been explained twice but you continue to ignore it.This referendum wishes to change this.
What answer would you give to Grace's question?

Ave Sodalis · 12-04-2015 08:29PM

fran17 wrote: »

Incorrect.Article 41 of the constitution has now been explained twice but you continue to ignore it.This referendum wishes to change this.
What answer would you give to Grace's question?

I actually don't ignore it. You ignore the fact it is the Children and Family Relationship Bill that is changing anything to do with children and families. That is not a referendum. That is happening whether you want it to or not, whether you vote yes or no in the referendum.

Also, I already answered Grace's question.

Frank Bullitt · 12-04-2015 08:34PM

Stinicker wrote: »

I'm voting No because I believe Marriage is something which should be between a man and a woman, I am also against same-sex couples adopting. I am not afraid to say this and I am not afraid of the liberal bullies who would try and enforce their wrong beliefs upon the people. I expect the Referendum to be defeated by around 53% to 47% in a very small turn out.

Care to expand on this?

lazygal · 12-04-2015 08:39PM

fran17 wrote: »

Another red herring.Yes by law a single person can make an application for adoption but do you honestly think that this application would be successful in relation to a married couple applying in parallel?
No,a married couple will always,and rightly so,get preference over a single application.
I honestly cant believe your using as your argument the question of whether a male and female parent is a human right.There is no research or academic on this planet that will conclude that a child being raised by two men is preferable to a mother and father.Please stop with this lunacy.

A married couple who have convictions for abusing children would get priority over a single person or gay couple, really? How can the "right" of children to married heterosexual parents be enforced?

Pherekydes · 12-04-2015 09:12PM

fran17 wrote: »

Links? Or is it hearsay by any chance...

Jesus Christ! You posted the f***ing link. Are you going to say you posted the link but never bothered to read what it contains?

fran17 · 12-04-2015 09:52PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

Jesus Christ! You posted the f***ing link. Are you going to say you posted the link but never bothered to read what it contains?

Now now,lets keep a civil tongue shall we.We all have enough of this form of abuse from the yes campaign.
The question asked in the poll was:
"When a child is available for adoption,who is it best to place the child with?"
1 A man
2 A woman
3 A man and a woman
4 Two women
5 Two men

Now this question was put to 1000 people from the age of 16 upwards.Also the options were rotated when asked.

So please tell me how this was contrived to give the required results?
I would also appreciate the exclusion of vulgarities,thanks.

Ave Sodalis · 12-04-2015 10:02PM

fran17 wrote: »

Now now,lets keep a civil tongue shall we.We all have enough of this form of abuse from the yes campaign.
The question asked in the poll was:
"When a child is available for adoption,who is it best to place the child with?"
1 A man
2 A woman
3 A man and a woman
4 Two women
5 Two men

Now this question was put to 1000 people from the age of 16 upwards.Also the options were rotated when asked.

So please tell me how this was contrived to give the required results?
I would also appreciate the exclusion of vulgarities,thanks.

Poll is lacking an answer, the most critical one of all:

6 Whoever provides the most stable and loving home

Honestly, if I were to get that, I'd refuse to answer. They're contorting statistics to get the answer they want.

Muir · 12-04-2015 10:39PM

fran17 wrote: »

Now now,lets keep a civil tongue shall we.We all have enough of this form of abuse from the yes campaign.
The question asked in the poll was:
"When a child is available for adoption,who is it best to place the child with?"
1 A man
2 A woman
3 A man and a woman
4 Two women
5 Two men

Now this question was put to 1000 people from the age of 16 upwards.Also the options were rotated when asked.

So please tell me how this was contrived to give the required results?
I would also appreciate the exclusion of vulgarities,thanks.

The survey forces you to choose - there's no option to pick them all equally, you have to choose an order. Ruins the credibility of the survey really.

shruikan2553 · 12-04-2015 10:48PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Would it be better to place a child with a man and a woman rather than a same sex couple? Perhaps, although current evidence certainly suggests otherwise.

Even if that were the case, the chances of finding equally suited same sex and opposite sex couples for the adoption of a child are astronomically low. The child would be best placed with the couple (or indeed single person) who appears most likely to be caring parents who are able to support the child. Gender doesn't come into it.

Ah no, you're doing it wrong. The drug addict and sex offender is definitely better as long as they are married.

PopePalpatine · 12-04-2015 11:50PM

sup_dude wrote: »

Liberal bullies... And what exactly is wrong with believing a man and a man can be in love, or a woman and a woman? What's wrong with believing that that love should be legally recognised? The referendum has nothing to do with children, not matter how many times people say it.

Usually those who whine about "liberal bullies" miss being able to bully religious and sexual minorities freely.

mohawk · 13-04-2015 12:19AM

I really don't get why people are making a fuss over gay couples adopting children. There isn't babies being given up for adoption in Ireland so why make a fuss.

For much of this debate I thought that this referendum has nothing to do with children, but given the special status our constitution has given marriage/family I think perhaps I was wrong. Because there are children who are currently being raised by gay couples. If it's passed then these kids will finally be in a family that is protected by the constitution.

Many people have made their mind up on this issue and are going to vote no because they don't want gay couples raising children. This already happens and those children are just as important as every other child.

Our laws shouldn't legislate for the "ideal" instead we should legislate for the reality.

kylith · 13-04-2015 08:04AM

Stinicker wrote: »

Because Marriage is something between Heterosexual couples and has been since the dawn of time and we have no right to try and change this now.

No, no it hasn't. Homosexual marriage was very common in pre-Christian times in Ireland and even within the early Christian church. In some cultures homosexuality was even seen a spiritual thing; the blending of a female mind and a male body (or vice versa). Feck knows why they decided to redefine marriage and remove the right from homosexuals. All this will do is put marriage back as it traditionally was.

Honestly, some people think that the world only began when some loudmouth Jew got himself killed. The same Jew, incidentally, who had zero to say about gay people but who DID say 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. Which is commonly known as the New Covenant, the covenant that took precedence over Leviticus. So if anyone's desire to deny rights to gay people comes from the bible they'd want to reflect on that, and then give up pork, shellfish, stop shaving, make sure their clothes have tassels, and be sure to ask every woman you meet when she last had her period because if it was within a week ago you're not allowed to touch her or anything she's touched.

floggg · 13-04-2015 08:09AM

efb wrote: »

Family law is always complex

That law has been amended.

But Iona can't wait to mix the two

Care to point to these legal Eagles? I assume there is a reasonable number of legal experts voicing concerns in that regard, and not just one or two isolated voices?

What are their concerns exactly?

floggg · 13-04-2015 08:12AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Traditionally In Ireland it has been Only a Religious ceremony.

Better tell my cousin her civil ceremony never happened then. She'll be devastated - her and her "husband" have been living a lie all these years.

And of course people of never faiths could never marry here either.

Hermy · 13-04-2015 08:31AM

Stinicker wrote: »

Because Marriage is something between Heterosexual couples and has been since the dawn of time and we have no right to try and change this now.

Says who?

VinLieger · 13-04-2015 08:38AM

Stinicker wrote: »

Because Marriage is something between Heterosexual couples and has been since the dawn of time and we have no right to try and change this now.

It's cute that you think that, maybe you should go read up a bit more on the history of marriage before Christianity got involved, I'd be careful though as it might make you think too hard, especially the parts where quite a lot culture and opinions have actually changed throughout history despite your assertion they don't have the right to

floggg · 13-04-2015 09:45AM

indy_man wrote: »

He is well informed, well balanced and feels balance is needed also in a child's life. You shoot this down straight away without giving it a chance yet you probably subscribe to every other counter argument no matter how skewed towards so called current day political correct thinking. Traditional family is a fundamental cornerstone of our civilization, give this a chance!

Can you tell us what this balance is? What are these supposedly mutually exclusive parenting roles and duties mothers and fathers provide?

What specifically is it that a child being raised by a single mother is missing? And equally for children raised by single fathers?

Assuming physical proximity to a mis-matching set of genitals isn't an essential component of child hood, what is it that a father can do that a mother can't, and vice versa.

Is it just superficial stuff like teaching them how to shave or a first period?

I think it would be a bit patronising to the child and the parents to think a mother can't relate to a boy going puberty or a father couldn't relate to a daughter.

Not to mention the countless children of single parents who made it through puberty unscathed.

Is there something concrete and specific at play here, or is Quinn just trying to construct a superficial and baseless argument to mask his pretty obvious bias and prejudice?

And do you actually believe that argument or do you just agree with position they have been constructed to justify?

OldNotWIse · 13-04-2015 09:48AM

theboy1 wrote: »

Gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt IMO.

They should be afforded the right to marry absolutely, but It would be unfair on the child to have to cope with the stigma.

Gay people can have their own children? Being gay doesn't make you infertile you know... amazing the amount of idiots that confuse the two....

floggg · 13-04-2015 09:50AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

No one does, Well I don't I'm Not religious in that way. But they are a large group and cannot be ignored They do have rights as well.

And what of my rights. Why should my rights be subordinated for theirs?

I am asking to be treated equally. They are trying to ensure I am treated as lesser or unequal.

They only think that will be required of them if the referendum passes is to recognise My relationship will be seen as equal in the eyes of the law (not their god).

Do you really think the religious right are the ones who rights are being threatened or denied here?

floggg · 13-04-2015 10:04AM

conorhal wrote: »

Iona have more access I suspect because they're the 'go to crowd for the no side' whenever RTE need a comment, and nobody else is prepared to stick their head above the parapet.
On line is really the only place you tend to see the no side creep out, protected by the anonymity it affords then, and you don't get a lot discussion or political discourse from trolling homophobes. But then the internet can be a nasty place and not the best forum for debate.

I was actually debating SSM with a co-worker over coffee who quietly told me that she intends on voting no and who said that it was refreshing to have an open debate about it, because she felt as if no voters could only really talk to those they can unequivocally trust, she wouldn't even talk about it with her sister who's a fervent yes voter.
Whether you buy it or not, if someone publically voices a negative opinion on SSM, the truth is that they can expect more then a robust debate. They can expect to be the subject of a pervasive on line hate campaign, they might loose their job or be blacklisted from a variety of institutions. She said that telling somebody you're a no voter is like telling somebody that you're a communist in the 1950's.
I think I actually made a lot of points in favour that in the end she agreed with, which is a positive approach, rather then simply bullying people into silence and I've met a few yes campaigners that are more then a little perturbed by the actions of some on their side.

That is fantastical nonsense.

Name anybody who has been the victim of these hate campaigns?

Name one person who has lost their job for voicing their intent to vote no in their private capacity?

Please evidence this backlash.

No voters are boring challenged, and challengers robustly at times but that is all part of the political discourse.

If they cannot stand up to the challenge and counter their opponents with fact and logic then they aren't being silenced - they are just loosing the debate.

And the reason that Iona get the airtime isn't because they are the only ones willing to stand up and be heard - it's because all the rest have been loons.

Anytime we have heard from No Campaigners other than Iona, they have lost the debate simply by opening their mouths. It's either illogical bigotry and fear (Susan Phillips anybody), or thinly veiled religious crap.

Iona are leading the campaign simply because they are the only ones smart enough not to say what they actually believe.

floggg · 13-04-2015 10:07AM

conorhal wrote: »

What's ironic is to be subject to that sort of abuse from the same people that suffered it.

Please. I wish they only thing gay people had to over come was been disagreed with in public fora.

VinLieger · 13-04-2015 10:13AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

No one does, Well I don't I'm Not religious in that way. But they are a large group and cannot be ignored They do have rights as well.

Rights to believe whatever they want indeed, but a yes vote in absolutely no way infringes on any rights of religious people

osarusan · 13-04-2015 10:15AM

Gay marriage is wrong! We need to keep our traditions!

'Sorry, you're talking rubbish. Actually, gay marriage has been part of a lot of cultures for a long long time.'

Well it's not good for children. Every child should have a mother and father to grow up normally, not two fathers.

'This is nonsense. Lots of research has shown that children raised by same sex couples aren't affected in the way you are suggesting. Perhaps you should do some research before making these kinds of comments.'

STOP BULLYING ME AND TRYING TO SILENCE ME.

OldNotWIse · 13-04-2015 10:17AM

VinLieger wrote: »

Rights to believe whatever they want indeed, but a yes vote in absolutely no way infringes on any rights of religious people

Most of these religious people are religious on an a la carte basis also. How many of them have sex before marriage? Use contraception? Only go to church on Christmas Eve while the ham cooks? Have their children baptised so they can get them on the school waiting list and pocket a few quid in the post office for them? How many of them have had the big white wedding in a church because it's part of the fairytale day and so their father can walk them up the aisle? How many have ended up divorced? How many have been unfaithful to their partners?

Relgious......but only when it suits their agenda folks ie; when they want to veil their homophobia and hatred.

Same as the ones screeching about childrens rights now too, because it also suits their agenda. Where were their voices when paedophiles were being protected? What are they doing to protect children now, aside from saving them from the eternal damnation of the gays...

fran17 · 13-04-2015 11:10AM

sup_dude wrote: »

Poll is lacking an answer, the most critical one of all:

6 Whoever provides the most stable and loving home

Honestly, if I were to get that, I'd refuse to answer. They're contorting statistics to get the answer they want.

Ah you really shouldn't say things like that it makes you look,well,silly.
It's a very telling statistic when 1000 people are given all logical options regarding what is best for the upbringing of a child,91% of the public of this country say it's a man and a woman.

fran17 · 13-04-2015 11:12AM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Most of these religious people are religious on an a la carte basis also. How many of them have sex before marriage? Use contraception? Only go to church on Christmas Eve while the ham cooks? Have their children baptised so they can get them on the school waiting list and pocket a few quid in the post office for them? How many of them have had the big white wedding in a church because it's part of the fairytale day and so their father can walk them up the aisle? How many have ended up divorced? How many have been unfaithful to their partners?

Relgious......but only when it suits their agenda folks ie; when they want to veil their homophobia and hatred.

Same as the ones screeching about childrens rights now too, because it also suits their agenda. Where were their voices when paedophiles were being protected? What are they doing to protect children now, aside from saving them from the eternal damnation of the gays...

There protecting children now by voting no.

OldNotWIse · 13-04-2015 11:23AM

fran17 wrote: »

There protecting children now by voting no.

Will they also teach them how to spell?

Sorry......

Why now and not before?

One eyed Jack · 13-04-2015 11:26AM

fran17 wrote: »

There protecting children now by voting no.

Are they protecting children whose parents are already in same-sex relationships?

People will still have children, but denying their parents the rights and privileges of marriage means those children will not have the same protection of society as children in opposite sex marriages.

I don't like when people play down the effect this decision will have on children or claim that it's nobody else's business, because it is, and it is a good thing for future generations in society (it's not as if the children don't grow up to be adults themselves!), but I also don't like when people try and claim that they are voting no to protect children or that they have society's best interests in mind.

Their opinions are as transparent as glass - they're not interested in protecting children, or anyone else but themselves for that matter, their only interest is in keeping things the way they like it.

Muir · 13-04-2015 11:26AM

fran17 wrote: »

Ah you really shouldn't say things like that it makes you look,well,silly.
It's a very telling statistic when 1000 people are given all logical options regarding what is best for the upbringing of a child,91% of the public of this country say it's a man and a woman.

The survey doesn't give logical options, It forces people to choose an order. Why doesn't the survey have an option to pick all equally? Because then they wouldn't get a result like that to fit their argument.

kylith · 13-04-2015 11:31AM

Muir wrote: »

The survey doesn't give logical options, It forces people to choose an order. Why doesn't the survey have an option to pick all equally? Because then they wouldn't get a result like that to fit their argument.

Who is best to raise a child?
A corpse
Two pirates
Charles Manson
A band of wolves

OMG! People want to let pirates adopt children!

Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

Comments