One eyed Jack wrote: » Yeah I got that, but the bit I took issue with was this - 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. Therefore nothing that "we" say or do to convince them that the babbies will be eaten by the gays will have effect - because, wuite simply - they do not want to be convinced. 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.
floggg wrote: » 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.
shruikan2553 wrote: » 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.
fran17 wrote: » floggg you and the rest of the lgbtq lobby have been long found regarding your tactics in this forum.Your the John Humphrys of boards.ie,you ask dozens of questions in an attempt to silence people but don't answer any. Hey,you even broke your old record in this thread.7 questions in one post!You could probably have sneaked in an 8th if you used the line "I've started so I'll finish" Lol
OldNotWIse wrote: » It's easy to rise above when you, by nature of your sexual orientation, have full and equal rights and can marry the person you love.
It's not so easy to take a step back and be objective when you have a sense that you are relying on others for vindication of your rights, and that those others wish to deny you said rights because they think you are going to eat their young.
One eyed Jack wrote: » It's not as easy as you think, when by nature of my religious beliefs I have to put up with being tarnished as a child molester (among other choice terms by people who claim to want tolerance in society, tolerance it seems, only for themselves, and to hell with everyone else).I rely upon other people daily for vindication of my rights to plenty of things, that's how society works. I have to tolerate people who think I'm going to molest their children because of their prejudices about both my gender and my religious beliefs. I have to maintain my objectivity and show tolerance to people I think are idiots every day, because intolerance is just cutting off my nose to spite my face, when there are bigger issues in play than just my rights. It reminds me of people that say - "This referendum has nothing to do with children" And then in the next breath - "What if one of your future children turn out to be gay?" They don't care about that person's child or children, they only care about themselves and issues that affect them, so this hypothetical child's sexuality only matters if they're gay, but otherwise? This is why the referendum is important for ALL people in society, in the future, it's not just a referendum about giving LGBT people their rights. It's much bigger than that. (and that's not even accounting for many people I know who are religious and who are LGBT - never mind people sitting on the fence, these people fall between the two stools of the particular lobby groups, they're either likely to eat children, or molest them, depending on who you're talking to!).
One eyed Jack wrote: » It reminds me of people that say - "This referendum has nothing to do with children" And then in the next breath - "What if one of your future children turn out to be gay?" They don't care about that person's child or children, they only care about themselves and issues that affect them, so this hypothetical child's sexuality only matters if they're gay, but otherwise?
kunst nugget wrote: » Those two sentences you quote only have the word children in common. Nothing else… they are two completely different arguments. In terms of this referendum, if you vote no it's not going to make a difference to your straight child but is going to affect your gay child so in regards their sexuality would only matter if they were gay… Out of curiosity, what religion are you that you believe everyone views you as a paedophile?
OldNotWIse wrote: » [/b]Oh so now you are in the same boat as a gay person[/b] who does not have full and equal rights simply because you are a man?? I've heard it all now.
You might be subjected to prejudice or stereotyping because of your gender (and don't forget women experience this too), but you're not being treated as a second class citizen or being actively denied the right to marry who you wish because of stereotyping.
If you want to start a campaign to have men's rights written into the constitution go ahead - but don't use them to diminish the significance of May 22nd.
Fact is this is a thread about the marriage equality referendum, the outcome of which does not directly affect you since you do not identify as homosexual.
It's not too much of an ask therefore that you at least accept the fact that its easier for you to "take a step back" and preach tolerance than it is for someone who is directly affected by it.
How you would feel if you were relying on your peers to validate your marriage?? Oh that's right.... you wouldn't know.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Demonstrates my point perfectly - aren't I lucky I'm not a gay and a man then? Because gay men don't exist in reality at all, you're either a gay person or you're a man, but you can't be both, apparently. The amount of times I've heard "gay people want to get married? I've heard it all now" doesn't surprise me any more either. Couple of points: - There's no "might" about it. I am, and I'm quite aware that women are subjected to discrimination based upon their gender. Many of these issues experienced by both genders have been addressed by the Children and Families Bill. - That phrase "second class citizen" really bugs me, and it's because with regard to ANY issue - if you're in a minority in one way, you're a majority in another, and that goes for everyone in society, not just you or I. In many ways, everyone could claim to be second class citizens, but you never hear a whole lot from people with regard to how they are actually first class citizens in many ways, because they don't care all too much about other people besides themselves, and they don't care all too much about issues that affect other people that they are not affected by. Some people do, but most people think "I've heard it all now" when they are faced with an issue that doesn't affect them personally. I wasn't, and I wouldn't. It's an issue that affects everyone in society and future generations, which is why I feel the outcome does directly affect me, and not just me but my children and my friends and their children. (that's not even taking account of the fact that I didn't always identify as heterosexual) See above, and that's why I won't take a step back, because I want to encourage people to vote yes in the referendum because I see it as important that the referendum is passed for ALL people in society, and future generations, and not just LGBT people today. Actually I DO know, because the very basis of my right to marriage is based upon society recognising that I am married and the State conferring upon me the rights and responsibilities of marriage on behalf of society. No different than what I am asking of society then for people who are my family, friends and co-workers, people that aren't me, people other than myself. I recognise the fact that I may need their support too one day and insulting them would only be short sighted cutting off my nose to spite my face.
kunst nugget wrote: » Those two sentences you quote only have the word children in common. Nothing else… they are two completely different arguments. In terms of this referendum, if you vote no it's not going to make a difference to your straight child but is going to affect your gay child so in that regards their sexuality would only matter if they were gay…Out of curiosity, what religion are you that you believe everyone views you as a paedophile?
kunst nugget wrote: » Those two sentences you quote only have the word children in common. Nothing else… they are two completely different arguments.
In terms of this referendum, if you vote no it's not going to make a difference to your straight child but is going to affect your gay child so in that regards their sexuality would only matter if they were gay…
Out of curiosity, what religion are you that you believe everyone views you as a paedophile?
One eyed Jack wrote: » It's not as easy as you think, when by nature of my religious beliefs I have to put up with being tarnished as a child molester (among other choice terms by people who claim to want tolerance in society, tolerance it seems, only for themselves, and to hell with everyone else). I rely upon other people daily for vindication of my rights to plenty of things, that's how society works. I have to tolerate people who think I'm going to molest their children because of their prejudices about both my gender and my religious beliefs. I have to maintain my objectivity and show tolerance to people I think are idiots every day, because intolerance is just cutting off my nose to spite my face, when there are bigger issues in play than just my rights. It reminds me of people that say - "This referendum has nothing to do with children" And then in the next breath - "What if one of your future children turn out to be gay?" They don't care about that person's child or children, they only care about themselves and issues that affect them, so this hypothetical child's sexuality only matters if they're gay, but otherwise? This is why the referendum is important for ALL people in society, in the future, it's not just a referendum about giving LGBT people their rights. It's much bigger than that. (and that's not even accounting for many people I know who are religious and who are LGBT - never mind people sitting on the fence, these people fall between the two stools of the particular lobby groups, they're either likely to eat children, or molest them, depending on who you're talking to!).
floggg wrote: » I'm not saying it's right people assume these things of you, but it's not exactly comparable. No matter what they may think of you, they cannot lawfully interfere with your rights or stop you expressing your faith. That's not really the same as a situation where you are denied rights as a matter of law.I'm not trying to diminish your experiences, but there is a distance between prejudicial opinions and discriminatory laws.
Bridge93 wrote: » If SSM is so bad for children why have the RSPCC come out in support of a Yes vote?
Bridge93 wrote: » If SSM is so bad for children why have the NSPCC come out in support of a Yes vote?
The Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has joined a coalition of organisations under the leadership of BeLongTo YES , Ireland’s national organisation for LGBT young people, to support a Yes Vote in the forthcoming Marriage Equality Referendum. The ISPCC, which provides a range of services to children and their parents- including the national Childline service- is collaborating with Barnardos, Foróige, Youth Work Ireland, the Migrant Rights Centre, the Children’s Rights Alliance, Pavee Point and EPIC. ISPCC Chief Executive Grainia Long said, ‘The ISPCC exists to ensure that children are afforded equal rights as citizens, to bring about a society in which all children are loved, valued and able to fulfil their potential and to assert the rights of children as equal citizens. The referendum provides an opportunity to send a strong message to children and young people across Ireland that they are valued equally- irrespective of their sexual orientation. The ISPCC is strongly of the view that marriage equality is a children’s issue and is in the best interests of children. Last year we saw Childline receive over 29,000 calls in relation to issues of sexuality. Our experience of listening to and providing services to young people has demonstrated that those who are LGBT are directly and adversely impacted by a family law system in which rights to marry are restricted to heterosexual couples. Our practice shows that that children who are LGBT often feel excluded, isolated and under-valued; some are affected by bullying because of their sexuality. The Referendum gives us an opportunity to send a clear message to all children that they are valued and that treating them differently because of their sexuality, or the sexuality of someone in their household, is unacceptable. Children’s ability to grow up, form relationships and have those relationships recognised equally by the state is a vital factor in enabling all children to feel valued, and to feel comfortable talking about their sexuality. The ISPCC is pleased to be part of BeLonGTo YES and work with other national organisations to support a Yes Vote.’
galljga1 wrote: » The Rspca? 800 years of oppression rant rant rant, Sorry, wrong thread.
Bridge93 wrote: » Haha Children are not, and should never be, considered animals!
One eyed Jack wrote: » Ahh I understand you're not trying to diminish my experiences floggg, and you know I have a massive, massive amount of respect for you and all, but what you're missing is the fact that prejudicial opinions are the basis of discriminatory laws - were it not for prejudiced opinions in the first place, the laws would not be written as they are. Those prejudices are not going to change and have not changed as a result of the law, they have changed because of people's opinions and their experiences. Depending on how deeply their prejudices are held, people are going to disregard the laws that they don't agree with, and that's why even if this referendum does pass, it's not going to change people's prejudices, there will still exist in society people who are prejudiced against other people for whatever reasons suit them. Just like you have experienced harassment and prejudice against you for being gay, I too have experienced harassment and prejudice for a number of different reasons, so in that way they are comparable, because we are all people who have to share a space in society, and we are all affected in different ways by the prejudices of other people. I'm trying to purposely avoid a pissing contest about who faces worse discrimination in society as I think I've distracted from the issue we're discussing enough at this point. My only point was that when we're looking for other people's support and trying to work towards a more tolerant society, it doesn't help when we're belittling other people ourselves. David Quinn, the Iona Institute, nor a few intolerant people within the RCC Hierarchy, don't speak for all of us, just like I don't expect the intolerant minority of marriage equality advocates speak for everyone else either.
