Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

OldNotWIse · 13-04-2015 02:33PM

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.

You're free to "take issue" with whatever you want - that doesn't change my belief that people screeching about protecting the children in the context of gay marriage are only doing so to put a populist spin on their anti-gay agenda.

This referendum is about equality. We are being asked to vote on whether gay people can marry, not whether gay people can adopt. It is frightening that some people don't get the distinction. What a sorry thought - that the future of equality lies in the hands of morons who cannot even decipher what they are voting for

fran17 · 13-04-2015 02:40PM

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.

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

One eyed Jack · 13-04-2015 02:41PM

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.

You could just encourage people not to be intolerant, selfish and self-absorbed about issues that only concern them?

The fact is that people aren't just single issues, so while people here are all taken up with ripping the piss out of religious people, and calling them out for what they see as their hypocrisy, the point they consistently seem to be missing is that 82% of the 78% of people that support marriage equality identify as Roman Catholic.

I think it's important to keep that in mind when you're actually talking to people about this issue face to face, because that's where it's really going to matter - offline, in society, in reality, not in some fantasy online echo-chamber world.

Intolerance towards other people is simply breeding intolerance in society, and if people want to break that circle, then the onus is on them to show understanding, no matter how much of a pain in the hole it is at times, and I say that as a religious person who will be voting yes in the referendum.

OldNotWIse · 13-04-2015 02:47PM

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.

floggg · 13-04-2015 02:49PM

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

In fairness, asking questions only serves to silence those unable to come up with an answer.

Given my questions are all relevant and made in response to specific claims, it's definitely not me that ends up looking bad from any resulting silence.

The fact that asking people to explain themselves is being cited as an example of silencing the no side really shows how pathetically transparent and contrived that whole argument is.

And what exactly was asked of me?

One eyed Jack · 13-04-2015 03:40PM

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 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).

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.

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!).

OldNotWIse · 13-04-2015 03:47PM

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!).

Oh so now you are in the same boat as a gay person 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.

kunst nugget · 13-04-2015 03:57PM

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?

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?

OldNotWIse · 13-04-2015 04:12PM

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?

Exactly. There is a deliberate spin being put on the children argument here. The "what about the children" from the No campaigners stems from a fear that the children of gay people will suffer because of their parents sexual orientation. The "what about the children" from the Yes campaigners is a reference to the fact that their children could grow up gay and be affected by anti-equality legislation that victimises them because they are gay.

Two completely different points really.

McG · 13-04-2015 04:49PM

I sat through all of that to give him a chance to make a valid argument. He didn't.

It boiled down to him having a problem with 2 women or 2 men being parents of a child. He didn't give any real reason either why this is problem.

One eyed Jack · 13-04-2015 04:49PM

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I wasn't, and I wouldn't.

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 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)

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.

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.

How you would feel if you were relying on your peers to validate your marriage?? Oh that's right.... you wouldn't know.

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.

OldNotWIse · 13-04-2015 04:58PM

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.

Simple question - does the law actually discrimate against you because you are a man?

OldNotWIse · 13-04-2015 04:59PM

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?

Still waiting for an answer....

One eyed Jack · 13-04-2015 05:22PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

Those two sentences you quote only have the word children in common. Nothing else… they are two completely different arguments.

That's my point:

Those people campaigning for a yes vote can't have it both ways - either this referendum is about children's futures, and we recognise children's welfare, or it isn't, and we don't then get to ask "but what if one of your children turns out to be gay? how could you look your grandchildren in the eye knowing you didn't support their right to marry the person they love?", etc.

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…

Hence why I used the word 'hypothetical'. I don't know how many people voting in the referendum do or don't have children, hell I don't even know if half the people I talk to on a daily basis about this issue have children, but the point is that they may have children in the future, they may not, maybe someone related to them will have children, and how the bloody hell is anyone to know the sexuality of those children?

We are talking about the future of everyone in society here, not only people who are LGBT in society today. Some people may not be cognisant of future generations, and that's well and good for them, but from my perspective, in talking about an issue that affects all people and future generations in society, then it's incumbent upon people to be mindful of where those future generations are supposed to come from - us, all of us (well, those of us who want children, and those of us who plan on having children, and those of us who are an influence in children's lives... so that would be all of us then, unless some of us have no contact with anyone else in society).

Out of curiosity, what religion are you that you believe everyone views you as a paedophile?

Oh I didn't say everyone, not by a long shot, thankfully, only those people who are intolerant and like to belittle other people for their own amusement.

seenitall · 13-04-2015 05:23PM

One-eyed Jack is Roman Catholic, he has mentioned it a couple of times in AH.

edit: oops didn't mean to speak for you while you are in fact here, oej!

Well now.

seamus · 13-04-2015 05:29PM

Refcom have published their guidance:
http://refcom2015.ie/marriage/

Unsurprisingly very little about children in it, except for the fact that you can't marry them.

floggg · 13-04-2015 05:38PM

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!).

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.

One eyed Jack · 13-04-2015 06:40PM

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.

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.

efb · 13-04-2015 06:42PM

Law proffessor and former president Mary McAleese says yes to Marraige Equality

galljga1 · 13-04-2015 06:45PM

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.

You have a couple of valid points Jack in that we do need to engage the 'nos' that are uninformed and try and persuade them that voting yes is the way to go without antagonising them but at the moment you are antagonising a number of people from the yes side.

At this moment in time OldNotWise is on the verge of voting no.

Bridge93 · 13-04-2015 06:56PM

If SSM is so bad for children why have the ISPCC come out in support of a Yes vote?

galljga1 · 13-04-2015 07:02PM

Bridge93 wrote: »

If SSM is so bad for children why have the RSPCC come out in support of a Yes vote?

The Rspca?

800 years of oppression rant rant rant, Sorry, wrong thread.

Bridge93 · 13-04-2015 07:04PM

http://www.breakingnews.ie/discover/a-dublin-paper-company-is-making-marriage-equality-confetti-out-of-100-recycled-lies-670800.html

I enjoyed this actually

Annasopra · 13-04-2015 07:06PM

Bridge93 wrote: »

If SSM is so bad for children why have the NSPCC come out in support of a Yes vote?

The ISPCC? Good Question?

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.’

Bridge93 · 13-04-2015 07:07PM

galljga1 wrote: »

The Rspca?

800 years of oppression rant rant rant, Sorry, wrong thread.

Haha Children are not, and should never be, considered animals!

galljga1 · 13-04-2015 07:10PM

Bridge93 wrote: »

Haha Children are not, and should never be, considered animals!

Ah, I did not twigg the A at the end. Freudian slip, you have not met my kids.

floggg · 13-04-2015 07:34PM

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.

I know all too well the referendum won't change all attitudes over night.

And I don't want to get into discrimination pissing contests either.

But to be honest only having to worry about negative and prejudicial opinions would be a nice change.

floggg · 13-04-2015 08:01PM

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

Also, don't think it hasn't escaped my, and everybody else's, attention that nobody on the no said has been able to answers those questions in any thread to date.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 13-04-2015 08:55PM

Well I for one am intrigued by the rather counterintuitive concept of asking people questions in order to silence them. What does one do to make them answer questions then, fran, make the "shhh" gesture?

j80ezgvc3p92xu · 13-04-2015 09:34PM

What never ceases to amaze me is how we collectively as the human race always think of ourselves as the smartest generation to grace God's green earth. We are happy to throw out 1000s of years of conventional wisdom in the name of "progress" and "equality", ideas (in their current understanding) which have only appeared in the last 40 years or so. Does anyone ever stop to think of did our forefathers maybe get it right on some issues? After all, when we abided by their ideas the world just seemed to be that bit less degenerate than what we have today. Just a thought.

I also wonder do people ever think about the inherent nature of homosexual relationships. Homosexual acts are barren i.e cannot produce offspring. Maybe there is also a reason for this? What about the gay subculture. Is that something children should be exposed to? After all, it is our moral duty to protect them.

You also have to examine the nature of homosexuality itself. As far as I'm aware, there is no conclusive study that proves a person is simply "born that way". In the interest of an open debate, perhaps it should be examined if homosexuality is a psychological disorder. For those appealed by such a proposition, may I remind you what is at stake: the well-being of innocent children. Therefore it follows that all such eventualities must be fully explored.

Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

Comments