Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

1…6791112…34

Comments

  • #242
    Muir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 948 ✭✭✭Muir


    kylith wrote: »
    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!

    Can I rate them all equally or do I need to rank them 1-4?


  • #243
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Muir wrote: »
    Can I rate them all equally or do I need to rank them 1-4?

    One choice, and no take backs.


  • #244
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Depends. Arrrgh the two pirates gheys?


  • #245
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    As with many things the public don't know what's best. The entire poll is reducing a complex issue to a few simple choices, and omitting important options. It's flawed.
    Not that it matters since the public aren't getting to vote on the rights of homosexuals to raise a family.



    I'm going to write this again nice and clear in big letters and nice simple words to clear up any confusion on the matter:

    Next month's referendum has nothing to do with children.



    Correct me if I am wrong but a simple look at the Department of Justice website will tell you that the referendum is quite simply to decide whether or not to enter the following text into article 41 of the constitution:

    ‘Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex'.

    They were toying with the idea of making homosexuality mandatory and taking kids off those couples who put 'family valuuuuuues' ahead of homosexual practices, these kids to be distributed to the awaiting gay hordes.

    Vote no, vote yes, your choice but please stop spouting rubbish about children's rights. That is covered by a bill currently under discussion. Set up a different thread. Suggested title: Gay Hordes Will Eat Our Children.


  • #246
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    lazygal wrote: »
    Depends. Arrrgh the two pirates gheys?
    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    More importantly, are the pirates both the same gender or opposite genders? :mad:


    :P

    No, no more information! You have to make your choice.


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    kylith wrote: »
    No, no more information! You have to make your choice.


    Stop trying to oppress me! :pac:

    I fear for the sanctity of my own marriage if the two gays next door get married - sure wont mine spontaneoulsy combust....


  • #248
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    fran17 wrote: »
    There has been a litany of nasty attacks directed towards anyone who has the moral fibre to oppose this issue in public.There has been cases of death threats in other countries surrounding lgbtq activists and people/businesses who oppose gay marriage.
    I have spoken to numerous people who are voting no but have said the opposite in there work place because of these exact reasons.Its another reason why people no longer engage in debate in this forum on this issue,sad but true.I believe there is a large,still silent,percentage of hard working honest people out there who will determine this referendums outcome.

    Moral fibre? Is that to suggest that those supprtong a yes vote or lacking in moral fibre or immoral?

    Help, help, I'm being viciously attacked by Fran. He's saying mean things on the Internet. I'm being bullied by his anonymous slurs.


  • #249
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,707 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    galljga1 wrote: »
    Correct me if I am wrong but a simple look at the Department of Justice website will tell you that the referendum is quite simply to decide whether or not to enter the following text into article 41 of the constitution:

    ‘Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex'.

    They were toying with the idea of making homosexuality mandatory and taking kids off those couples who put 'family valuuuuuues' ahead of homosexual practices, these kids to be distributed to the awaiting gay hordes.

    Vote no, vote yes, your choice but please stop spouting rubbish about children's rights. That is covered by a bill currently under discussion. Set up a different thread. Suggested title: Gay Hordes Will Eat Our Children.


    Well, you did suggest you could be corrected if you were wrong, so here you go -

    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    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.


    And the more the "yes" campaign try to ignore and play down the issue of children's welfare and the impact this referendum has on society as a whole, the more they're going to look like they have something to hide, and the less people are going to trust them, and then they're not going to vote no for homophobic reasons, but they're going to vote no because they are simply afraid of the unknown.

    No amount of statistics is going to convince them otherwise btw, so either the yes campaign acknowledge and address people's concerns about child welfare, or they are simply setting themselves up for failure.


  • #250
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Well, you did suggest you could be corrected if you were wrong, so here you go -





    And the more the "yes" campaign try to ignore and play down the issue of children's welfare and the impact this referendum has on society as a whole, the more they're going to look like they have something to hide, and the less people are going to trust them, and then they're not going to vote no for homophobic reasons, but they're going to vote no because they are simply afraid of the unknown.

    No amount of statistics is going to convince them otherwise btw, so either the yes campaign acknowledge and address people's concerns about child welfare, or they are simply setting themselves up for failure.

    It's news to me that people are concerned about child welfare. I believe that this is a smokescreen to hide their anti-gay agenda, a scapegoat.


  • #251
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    And the more the "yes" campaign try to ignore and play down the issue of children's welfare and the impact this referendum has on society as a whole, the more they're going to look like they have something to hide, and the less people are going to trust them, and then they're not going to vote no for homophobic reasons, but they're going to vote no because they are simply afraid of the unknown.

    No amount of statistics is going to convince them otherwise btw, so either the yes campaign acknowledge and address people's concerns about child welfare, or they are simply setting themselves up for failure.
    So go ahead, tell us what their concerns are about "children's welfare" and "the impact this referendum has on society as a whole". There aren't any, they don't really exist.

    Really the issue here is exactly as you have pointed out - "No" voters have decided that this is bad and no amount of facts are going to convince them otherwise.

    You can't fight that level of blind ignorance except to continually tell them that they're wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • #252
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    I tire of this country sometimes..........


  • #253
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    seamus wrote: »
    So go ahead, tell us what their concerns are about "children's welfare" and "the impact this referendum has on society as a whole". There aren't any, they don't really exist.

    Really the issue here is exactly as you have pointed out - "No" voters have decided that this is bad and no amount of facts are going to convince them otherwise.

    You can't fight that level of blind ignorance except to continually tell them that they're wrong.


    The gays might spread the gayness to their kids when they are pouring out their rice crispies

    Who will bath the girl child if it has two fathers?

    Who will bath the man child if it has two mothers?

    How will the manchild know it's a manchild if it doesn't have a parent with a willy?

    What happens if the offspring of biggotted no voters poke fun at the child because it comes from a "different" family and they feel threatened by diversity?

    Who will talk to the girl child about periods?

    Who will help the man child assemble his lego?

    What will happen to the poor child when the sexually deviant gays want a peice of action?

    What happens when the heterosexual union next door spontaneously destructs because two gay people in a committed relationship have equal rights?

    What happens when the gays adopt all the (nonexistent) babies and there are none left for the straights? (because we all know gay people lack the requisite reproductive plumbing to actually lay any claim to fertility themselves)

    Any concerns I may have missed?


  • #254
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    fran17 wrote: »
    There is a simple answer to this fallacy and to be honest I'm frankly fed up answering it.
    Of course there is families which do not contain a father and mother figure permanently in there lives,and this is unfortunate.However these situations are not created or enacted through legislation.Voting yes in this up coming referendum will categorically guarantee under the constitution that a child's right to a mother and father in there lives is off balanced by the right of a same sex couple to deny them that most basic human right.As a citizen of this country I could,and would,never promote this.

    I naively thought we were voting on the legal recognition of the relationship between adults - which will exist regardless of how we classify it and can and do have children already.

    I never knew we were voting to allow gay couples snatch children from their parents though.


  • #255
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,707 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    It's news to me that people are concerned about child welfare.


    It shouldn't be really. I'm concerned about the welfare of children regardless of their parents gender or sexuality. The whole point of marriage equality goes beyond any legal protections of children already covered in the Children and Families Act.

    If the referendum is passed, it will mean that children of same-sex parents will not be stigmatised by the perception that their parents relationship is not seen as equal to other children's parents who are married. Children notice these kinds of things, and anything which makes them feel like they are different from all the other children, isn't good for them. By normalising same-sex marriage (it won't happen immediately), it's setting in place a society where children don't have to feel like they are treated differently by society.

    I believe that this is a smokescreen to hide their anti-gay agenda, a scapegoat.


    For some people it is, yes, but I doubt anyone could accuse me of being homophobic?

    Well, they could, but they'd be wrong.


  • #256
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Well, you did suggest you could be corrected if you were wrong, so here you go -





    And the more the "yes" campaign try to ignore and play down the issue of children's welfare and the impact this referendum has on society as a whole, the more they're going to look like they have something to hide, and the less people are going to trust them, and then they're not going to vote no for homophobic reasons, but they're going to vote no because they are simply afraid of the unknown.

    No amount of statistics is going to convince them otherwise btw, so either the yes campaign acknowledge and address people's concerns about child welfare, or they are simply setting themselves up for failure.

    So, what exactly are you correcting about my opening statment? Are we not voting on whether to enter that particular text into Article 41?

    Not sure what there is to hide. If people are afraid of the unknown, education is the answer. With regard to the child welfare issues being raised, some people give the impression that the vote on ssm is a vote on the family/childrens bill currently under discussion. It is not. That is the point I am trying to get across, maybe not very well.


  • #257
    maxibaby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 89 ✭✭maxibaby


    Yes to marriage no to adoption


  • #258
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,007 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    maxibaby wrote: »
    Yes to marriage no to adoption

    You can vote on one but not the other and they don't have anything to do with each other


  • #259
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    fran17 wrote: »
    There is a simple answer to this fallacy and to be honest I'm frankly fed up answering it.
    Of course there is families which do not contain a father and mother figure permanently in there lives,and this is unfortunate.However these situations are not created or enacted through legislation.Voting yes in this up coming referendum will categorically guarantee under the constitution that a child's right to a mother and father in there lives is off balanced by the right of a same sex couple to deny them that most basic human right.As a citizen of this country I could,and would,never promote this.

    Please explain this to me. I used to think I was moderately intelligent, not so sure now.
    Firstly, does it state in the constitution that a child has a right to a mother and father?
    Second, how does the insertion of the proposed text give the right to a same sex couple to deny children their parents?

    What nonsense is this?


  • #260
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,707 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    seamus wrote: »
    So go ahead, tell us what their concerns are about "children's welfare" and "the impact this referendum has on society as a whole". There aren't any, they don't really exist.


    See my post above.

    Really the issue here is exactly as you have pointed out - "No" voters have decided that this is bad and no amount of facts are going to convince them otherwise.

    You can't fight that level of blind ignorance except to continually tell them that they're wrong.


    Indeed, so let's just rip the piss out of them instead and make a show of ourselves? That's hardly a winning strategy. Who among anyone here thinks that anyone who is firmly in the "No" camp is actually going to change their mind? What the Yes campaign needs is support, and while there are people who support marriage equality, they're not getting the support they need, because there are a handful of people who are totally trashing the campaign as far as I can see, and that's going to lead to voter apathy.


  • #261
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    maxibaby wrote: »
    Yes to marriage no to adoption

    There both deeply entwined regarding article 41,which this referendum wishes to alter.I would ask you to gather all information on the subject and then make your decision.


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    It shouldn't be really. I'm concerned about the welfare of children regardless of their parents gender or sexuality. The whole point of marriage equality goes beyond any legal protections of children already covered in the Children and Families Act.

    If the referendum is passed, it will mean that children of same-sex parents will not be stigmatised by the perception that their parents relationship is not seen as equal to other children's parents who are married. Children notice these kinds of things, and anything which makes them feel like they are different from all the other children, isn't good for them. By normalising same-sex marriage (it won't happen immediately), it's setting in place a society where children don't have to feel like they are treated differently by society.





    For some people it is, yes, but I doubt anyone could accuse me of being homophobic?

    Well, they could, but they'd be wrong.

    Shouldn't it? The point of my post was that I don't believe these people actually give a damn about children in the first place. They are just pretending to care so they have a stick to beat gay people with.


  • #263
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    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.

    And yet I linked you to something which says this is wrong but you still say this.
    fran17 wrote: »
    There protecting children now by voting no.
    Protecting them from what?
    Will the legislation that allows unmarried couples to adopt be undone? Will children be taken away from parents who are gay?


  • #264
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    I tire of this country sometimes..........
    Don't give up. Nowhere is perfect. This country is still full of great people.


  • #265
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    maxibaby wrote: »
    Yes to marriage no to adoption


    Good thing you are only being asked to vote on one then...

    Honestly I think there should be some kind of comprehension assessment carried out on the population rather than giving anyone over an arbitrary age limit the right to vote - some people clearly don't even know what they are voting for :confused:

    And the adoption thing is a moot point IMO.

    First, what makes everyone think that gay people have to adopt?

    Secondly, there are no more babies to adopt anyway since they can be easily disposed of.

    Getting worked up about hypothetical situations TBH.


  • #266
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    galljga1 wrote: »
    Don't give up. Nowhere is perfect. This country is still full of great people.


    Don't know. Yesterday our God freak neighbour took it upon herself to call in with No campaign propaganda, and my parents let her in. :confused:


  • #267
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Don't know. Yesterday our God freak neighbour took it upon herself to call in with No campaign propaganda, and my parents let her in. :confused:

    Maybe they just wanted to gather confetti making materials...

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/examviral/real-life/a-dublin-paper-company-is-making-marriage-equality-confetti-out-of-100-recycled-lies-322836.html


  • #268
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    floggg wrote: »
    Maybe they just wanted to gather confetti making materials...

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/examviral/real-life/a-dublin-paper-company-is-making-marriage-equality-confetti-out-of-100-recycled-lies-322836.html


    I had thought about that. Then I thought about using it to line the cats litter tray. Eventually I settled for returning it through her post box with a note requesting that she politely fúck off.


  • #269
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    I had thought about that. Then I thought about using it to line the cats litter tray. Eventually I settled for returning it through her post box with a note requesting that she politely fúck off.

    The confetti is a far better use in my book. That way they spend more on printing materials which are then used to fund raise for the yes side.


  • #270
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,707 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Shouldn't it? The point of my post was that I don't believe these people actually give a damn about children in the first place. They are just pretending to care so they have a stick to beat gay people with.


    Yeah I got that, but the bit I took issue with was this -

    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    It's news to me that people are concerned about child welfare. I believe that this is a smokescreen to hide their anti-gay agenda, a scapegoat.


    I don't particularly give a flying fcuk about what David Quim or the RCC Hierarchy has to say on this issue, and I've met many people who don't consider themselves religious, and don't consider themselves homophobic, and they don't have a clue who Iona are, and they have no interest in religion, but they are concerned about children's welfare, and that's ordinary people, not nutbars who use religion as a smokescreen to justify their prejudices.

    They have no more an "anti-gay agenda", than any "gay agenda". They're just ordinary people who don't feel particularly strong either way on the issue and they don't particularly care about any referendum.

    It's a pain in the hole tbh to try and make them care and to try and alleviate their concerns at the same time, but speaking only for myself - I can only do that by taking them seriously first, and by addressing their concerns they have about children's welfare.

    It's not enough to tell people "Well we have a bill for this and that and this referendum has nothing to do with children anyway". Dismissing their concerns is just going to have them either not vote at all, or vote no because they're not sure of the consequences.

    I just think that rather than getting all fired up about David Quinn and the RCC Hierarchy, it would be better to focus on addressing ordinary people who actually need our support if we're asking for theirs.


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    I had thought about that. Then I thought about using it to line the cats litter tray. Eventually I settled for returning it through her post box with a note requesting that she politely fúck off.

    What you should have done is agree. The children need protected from the gays... and the single mothers, protestants and Jews. Then you can talk about how much of a disgrace it is that black and white people can betray their race to marry each other. Bring in sterilisation of people on the dole if they're still there.


Advertisement