Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

shruikan2553 · 13-04-2015 09:40PM

Colson Stocky Hornet wrote: »

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.

Like slavery and child marriage. We didnt have age of consent laws either.

Colson Stocky Hornet wrote: »

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.

As opposed to letting them watch straight people going at it.

Colson Stocky Hornet wrote: »

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.

Does it matter?

qt3.14 · 13-04-2015 09:41PM

indy_man wrote: »

If you get to watch all this are you still 100% sure redefining marriage in our constitution is the correct thing to do? It would be best if you watched it before slamming it, if you don't watch it at all probably best not comment.

If you get to watch all this are you still 100% sure redefining marriage in our constitution is the wrong thing to do?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HpTBF6EfxY

Trudiha · 13-04-2015 09:41PM

I'm sorry OP, I couldn't watch Mr Iona, I just don't have the bandwidth but I did make an effort to go look up all of the 'No' information and spent most of the afternoon nipping in and out of it. It seems that the kiddies are the main source of concern.

As a lesbian, I know lots of other lesbians, many of whom have children now; my peer group are getting to the age when they have a few shillings left over after paying the mortgage. I can honestly reassure all of those in the 'no' camp that their kids are doing alright, those real life, already here kids are all okay. Some of them are parented better than others, just like with my straight friends, but at an absolute minimum, they're alright. Just fine. Many of them are in the UK and now afforded legal protection to their right to two parents, doesn't seem to have done them any harm at all.

Of course, I don't know any kids who were conceived or adopted as a result of same sex marriage being introduced, I don't think that's how the urge to procreate strikes anyone, I'm not aware of knowing anyone who thought 'Dave's the PM is down with the gays, let's have another couple of kids' but the existing ones now have a few more legal protections and we can all do with as many of them as possible. So that's nice.

Many of them will also have benefited from the legislation that stops their parents being discriminated against in the provision of good and services too. A totally different piece of legislation but it's nice that they can all get birthday cake from wherever they like too but just to hammer that point home a little harder, that took a totally different Act of Parliment. I checked, RefCom had absolutley nothing to say about the provision of wedding cake, not a word.

During my digging, I also found some statistics suggesting that lesbian mothers had children with better educational and emotional outcomes. I thought about sharing it with you but we'd both know that it as a case of lies and damed lies. Lesbians have better outcomes not because they are better parents but because they don't have accidental pregnancies, so they tend to have their kids later in life when they have a bit more cash and a bit more cash is the one single thing that makes for kids with better outcomes. Better education, better housing, better nutrition, better healthcare, happier lives.

I can't help but think that the cost of printing the pamphlets I was looking at today could have been put to much better use, it could have gone some way towards helping real live kids, hungry ones or ones who had the arse hanging out of their trousers because the queer spawn I know are just grand.

fran17 · 13-04-2015 10:11PM

Colson Stocky Hornet wrote: »

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.

All very logical points and accepted by the vast majority of society.However you must understand we're dealing with a very different set of understandings,definitions and moral compasses here.
Marriage here is the redefined version,two gay men bring up a girl is an equal to a mam and dad and the counter argument to a child having the most basic human right as to having a mother and father is "Where is this a human right anyway?"
Welcome to THE OTHER SIDE....

efb · 13-04-2015 10:12PM

Waiting for Iona to accuse the Referendum Commission of bias...

shruikan2553 · 13-04-2015 10:13PM

fran17 wrote: »

All very logical points and accepted by the vast majority of society.However you must understand we're dealing with a very different set of understandings,definitions and moral compasses here.
Marriage here is the redefined version,two gay men bring up a girl is an equal to a mam and dad and the counter argument to a child having the most basic human right as to having a mother and father is "Where is this a human right anyway?"
Welcome to THE OTHER SIDE....

And the other side.

Whos understanding are "Im right and will ignore any evidence that Im wrong"

Actually no, most of the no side are probably better than that. Its just you

lazygal · 13-04-2015 10:15PM

fran17 wrote: »

All very logical points and accepted by the vast majority of society.However you must understand we're dealing with a very different set of understandings,definitions and moral compasses here.
Marriage here is the redefined version,two gay men bring up a girl is an equal to a mam and dad and the counter argument to a child having the most basic human right as to having a mother and father is "Where is this a human right anyway?"
Welcome to THE OTHER SIDE....

How can a human right to a mother and father be enforced? Must they be also married? Must they be the biological parents?

Ave Sodalis · 13-04-2015 10:16PM

fran17 wrote: »

All very logical points and accepted by the vast majority of society.However you must understand we're dealing with a very different set of understandings,definitions and moral compasses here.
Marriage here is the redefined version,two gay men bring up a girl is an equal to a mam and dad and the counter argument to a child having the most basic human right as to having a mother and father is "Where is this a human right anyway?"
Welcome to THE OTHER SIDE....

Vast majority of society? Where are you getting that from?

I don't want a mother and father. Are you going to force that upon me, because you believe it's best for me?

galljga1 · 13-04-2015 11:19PM

fran17 wrote: »

All very logical points and accepted by the vast majority of society.However you must understand we're dealing with a very different set of understandings,definitions and moral compasses here.
Marriage here is the redefined version,two gay men bring up a girl is an equal to a mam and dad and the counter argument to a child having the most basic human right as to having a mother and father is "Where is this a human right anyway?"
Welcome to THE OTHER SIDE....

I am down to one infraction and just back from the pub so some slack please mods but you sir are a knob.

About what exactly are you talking. Your post makes no sense.

Two gay men can bring up a girl equally as well or equally as badly as 'a mam and dad' so what exactly are you trying to say?

With regard to the most basic right of a child to have a mum and a dad, to put it bluntly, where the fcuk are you getting this from?

WeHaveToGoBack · 13-04-2015 11:24PM

Its strange who the religious side of the argument say they only care about children (and not their homophobia) but why don't they care about these children once they discover they are gay?

fran17 · 14-04-2015 07:59AM

galljga1 wrote: »

I am down to one infraction and just back from the pub so some slack please mods but you sir are a knob.

About what exactly are you talking. Your post makes no sense.

Two gay men can bring up a girl equally as well or equally as badly as 'a mam and dad' so what exactly are you trying to say?

With regard to the most basic right of a child to have a mum and a dad, to put it bluntly, where the fcuk are you getting this from?

I don't see why being under the influence of alcohol has made you imune from been infracted for personal abuse but however.
The reason my post makes no sense is the same reason you got a pass for personal abuse,you were drunk.

Trudiha · 14-04-2015 09:04AM

Fran, you can't expect to make less of others people's families without them being insulted and offended. It's not just the existing families of gay people that you are implying are inferior, it's also ever single parent family, every reconstructed family, every family who've overcome fertility problems and the childless. You're not arguing against same sex marriage, you're calling into question the validity of, I'd guess, half of the families in the country. That's going to annoy people.

I was raised by one functioning parent, he managed to plait my hair before school, give me all the information I needed about puberty, politics and my place in the world. He did and does and excellent job of being a parent and when you repeat as fact that my family situation must have been inferior to another, that feels personal. I feel attacked, I don't feel angry, just bemused that you could be so wrong.

Fran, I'm going to assume that you, like me, had a lovely childhood and that one of the results of that is you feel warmly towards your parents. Put yourself in my shoes, imagin the warmth I feel towards my parent and imagin how I feel when I think of that delightful, competent parent being made less of.

kylith · 14-04-2015 09:06AM

fran17 wrote: »

Marriage here is the redefined version,two gay men bring up a girl is an equal to a mam and dad and the counter argument to a child having the most basic human right as to having a mother and father is "Where is this a human right anyway?"
Welcome to THE OTHER SIDE....

Why is two gay men worse than one straight man? Do these gay men have no mothers, sisters, or friends who could talk their daughter through puberty?

galljga1 · 14-04-2015 09:09AM

fran17 wrote: »

I don't see why being under the influence of alcohol has made you imune from been infracted for personal abuse but however.
The reason my post makes no sense is the same reason you got a pass for personal abuse,you were drunk.

It's a bit like the drunk vs ugly joke.
It's morning, I am sober, your post still makes no sense.

I will ask for the third time: please explain where this 'most basic right' to a mother and father is defined.

Please also explain how two men, gay, straight, whatever cannot bring up a child, boy or girl as well as a man and woman combination or a 2 women combination.

galljga1 · 14-04-2015 09:20AM

kylith wrote: »

Why is two gay men worse than one straight man? Do these gay men have no mothers, sisters, or friends who could talk their daughter through puberty?

Single dad here with a nearly 12 year old daughter. Trudiha, I cannot plait hair to save my life but have bought the books, had the puberty talk, have the emergency pack of sanitary products on standby, no bother to either of us because that is just the way we are. Did my dad or mum talk to me about sex? No. Are they better or worse than me? No.

I get a lot of help from neighbours, friends and family and I could not give a rats if they are male, female, gay, straight and neither could my kids because they have been brought up to be accepting. Maybe they will not always be that way but you can only start them off on the right path.

floggg · 14-04-2015 09:26AM

kylith wrote: »

Why is two gay men worse than one straight man? Do these gay men have no mothers, sisters, or friends who could talk their daughter through puberty?

Because they are gay. Plain and simple.

I think we all know that the no side aren't really concerned with child welfare - it's just code to express their fear and hatred of gay people.

If they cared about child welfare they would be speaking to and for the children of lgbt people and more importantly lgbt children who have to grow up hearing critical messages.

But condemning homosexuality is far more important to them than the welfare of any adult or child, and they show little regard for the damage their words cause to real and identifiable children and youths.

OldNotWIse · 14-04-2015 09:32AM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Like slavery and child marriage. We didnt have age of consent laws either.

As opposed to letting them watch straight people going at it.

Does it matter?

Dont feed the....

Trudiha · 14-04-2015 10:28AM

galljga1 wrote: »

Single dad here with a nearly 12 year old daughter. Trudiha, I cannot plait hair to save my life but have bought the books, had the puberty talk, have the emergency pack of sanitary products on standby, no bother to either of us because that is just the way we are.

I'm drawn to people who had the same shape family as me and have spoken to many adult daughters of single parent dads, all straight as far as I can remember. The only thing we have in common is having had an 'all men are beasts' chat from our fathers that was more suited to a Taliban controlled area, than Westerrn Europe. Single dads put the nuns of the 1970s to shame.

kunst nugget · 14-04-2015 10:30AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Still not related. We're talking about the potential effect your actions could have on present and future gay people by how you vote. It doesn't affect how children can be raised because effectively that has already been dealt with over the last couple of weeks. They are two separate issues. I don't understand why you're trying to meld the two of them together.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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?

There isn't any way to know the future sexuality of your children. I don't understand what this has to do with anything here besides the potential to annex the equality of gay people by voting no.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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).

Are you essentially saying that people should vote no because of the potential influence gay parenting could have on future generations? Am I reading this right? I'm a parent myself. I'm not going to use this to shout down anyone's argument that doesn't have kids but the one thing I have learned is that there is no one right way to raise children besides doing the best that you can for them and doing it from a place of love. The rest of it is muddling through and getting on with daily living. Imo, whether you're gay or straight is not going to make a jot to your children. Knowing that they are loved is.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Okay, so you feel intolerance on an infrequent basis. I'm presuming you're Roman Catholic but correct me if I'm wrong. I was raised RC but I no longer practice. I can't say I was ever made to feel like a paedophile because of my upbringing by anyone but maybe I'm unique in that. Nevertheless, has the intolerance shown to you given you any insight into what it must be like for people who face it on an ongoing basis? Has it made you aware of what it might feel like to be treated unequally in society.

galljga1 · 14-04-2015 10:42AM

Trudiha wrote: »

I'm drawn to people who had the same shape family as me and have spoken to many adult daughters of single parent dads, all straight as far as I can remember. The only thing we have in common is having had an 'all men are beasts' chat from our fathers that was more suited to a Taliban controlled area, than Westerrn Europe. Single dads put the nuns of the 1970s to shame.

I am not of that ilk, at least I hope not. I might change my mind when she starts going out. I want her to have as much irresponsible fun as I had, with a bit of responsibility thrown in. I hope she is always able to tell me everything, well, not everything, somethings a parent does not need to know but I hope she will at least be able to come to me with any problems she has.

fran17 · 14-04-2015 11:05AM

See here's the thing,because of the constant abuse which anybody on the no side of this referendum receives in this forum,as in the media in general,not many bother contributing to such threads.In another recent thread on this topic a man,after constant abuse,stopped contributing but this wasn't enough for them.He was horribly goaded and bullied by many through continuous reference to him in there postings.This was deemed acceptable but its not.So forgive me if I don't take anyone on the yes side serious when they claim there feelings are being hurt.
Now I have said on numerous occasions,check my history as I have a couple of individuals who exist here purely to highlight it,that there are numerous families that exist without a mother and father present and there doing just fine.However these situations are not made by design,if this referendum is passed then the constitution of the Republic of Ireland will enshrine in law that all of its present and future children are equally entitled to not having a family which includes a mother and a father as having a mother and father.This would be a catastrophic failure by this government on our children and by its citizens if they vote Yes.

floggg · 14-04-2015 11:14AM

fran17 wrote: »

See here's the thing,because of the constant abuse which anybody on the no side of this referendum receives in this forum,as in the media in general,not many bother contributing to such threads.In another recent thread on this topic a man,after constant abuse,stopped contributing but this wasn't enough for them.He was horribly goaded and bullied by many through continuous reference to him in there postings.This was deemed acceptable but its not.So forgive me if I don't take anyone on the yes side serious when they claim there feelings are being hurt.
Now I have said on numerous occasions,check my history as I have a couple of individuals who exist here purely to highlight it,that there are numerous families that exist without a mother and father present and there doing just fine.However these situations are not made by design,if this referendum is passed then the constitution of the Republic of Ireland will enshrine in law that all of its present and future children are equally entitled to not having a family which includes a mother and a father as having a mother and father.This would be a catastrophic failure by this government on our children and by its citizens if they vote Yes.

Seriously? I'm pretty sure I know which poster you are talking about and the only thing that happened was he was asked to back up statements made. He left because he couldn't.

Honestly Fran, if asking for clarification and evidence is the best example of bullying you can come up, I am starting to wonder whether you have actually been a parody account all along.

galljga1 · 14-04-2015 11:16AM

fran17 wrote: »

See here's the thing,because of the constant abuse which anybody on the no side of this referendum receives in this forum,as in the media in general,not many bother contributing to such threads.In another recent thread on this topic a man,after constant abuse,stopped contributing but this wasn't enough for them.He was horribly goaded and bullied by many through continuous reference to him in there postings.This was deemed acceptable but its not.So forgive me if I don't take anyone on the yes side serious when they claim there feelings are being hurt.
Now I have said on numerous occasions,check my history as I have a couple of individuals who exist here purely to highlight it,that there are numerous families that exist without a mother and father present and there doing just fine.However these situations are not made by design,if this referendum is passed then the constitution of the Republic of Ireland will enshrine in law that all of its present and future children are equally entitled to not having a family which includes a mother and a father as having a mother and father.This would be a catastrophic failure by this government on our children and by its citizens if they vote Yes.

Personally, my feelings are not hurt, I just live my life.

Please give real life examples of how a yes vote is going to negatively impact any of these present and future children.

floggg · 14-04-2015 11:19AM

galljga1 wrote: »

Personally, my feelings are not hurt, I just live my life.

Please give real life examples of how a yes vote is going to negatively impact any of these present and future children.

Stop trying to silence him by politely asking him to provide more information, you vicious bully!

kunst nugget · 14-04-2015 11:21AM

floggg wrote: »

Stop trying to silence him by politely asking him to provide more information, you vicious bully!

Tbf, calling him a knob isn't very polite…

galljga1 · 14-04-2015 11:24AM

kunst nugget wrote: »

Tbf, calling him a knob isn't very polite…

Quite correct.

OldNotWIse · 14-04-2015 11:24AM

Is there a sense yet of whether this will go through? Initially I thought it was a given - complacency is a dangerous thing! Now, I am not sure...

smash · 14-04-2015 11:26AM

fran17 wrote: »

if this referendum is passed then the constitution of the Republic of Ireland will enshrine in law that all of its present and future children are equally entitled to not having a family which includes a mother and a father as having a mother and father.This would be a catastrophic failure by this government on our children and by its citizens if they vote Yes.

It also enshrines that it's present and future children are equally entitled:

A family consisting of a mother and a father
A family consisting of two mothers
A family consisting of two fathers

I don't see how this would be in any way catastrophic.

One eyed Jack · 14-04-2015 11:31AM

kunst nugget wrote: »

Still not related. We're talking about the potential effect your actions could have on present and future gay people by how you vote. It doesn't affect how children can be raised because effectively that has already been dealt with over the last couple of weeks. They are two separate issues. I don't understand why you're trying to meld the two of them together.

I'm not talking about it in terms of how children are raised, but how children themselves will feel about either being LGBT themselves, or being a child of same sex parents, or being, just being a child! this can be at least one thing that they won't have to feel "different" about. That's why I'm trying to say that this referendum is a positive thing for children, because when it's written into the constitution, it's there for future generations. That's why I don't like people saying this referendum has nothing to do with children. It has!

It has nothing to do with adoption. That, as you quite rightly point out, is another matter entirely that has been dealt with in the Children and Family Relationship Bill.

There isn't any way to know the future sexuality of your children. I don't understand what this has to do with anything here besides the potential to annex the equality of gay people by voting no.

The whole point of the Constitution is that it lays the groundwork for the future of society as such. So it's not just voting on LGBT people's rights today, it's voting for a change in the Constitution that will undoubtedly have an impact on future generations to come. That's why I don't see this referendum as "other people voting on our rights", I see it as everyone in society having a say in the future of that society.

To those that say "morons shouldn't be allowed vote on what they don't understand", well there's nothing can be done about David Quinn, but thankfully he is restricted to one vote, the same as everyone else.

Are you essentially saying that people should vote no because of the potential influence gay parenting could have on future generations? Am I reading this right? I'm a parent myself. I'm not going to use this to shout down anyone's argument that doesn't have kids but the one thing I have learned is that there is no one right way to raise children besides doing the best that you can for them and doing it from a place of love. The rest of it is muddling through and getting on with daily living. Imo, whether you're gay or straight is not going to make a jot to your children. Knowing that they are loved is.

Nope, you're definitely reading that wrong

I dunno if it's the way I'm coming across or whatever it is but there's a hell of a lot of kind of "if you don't fit the profile" stuff going on in this thread. I don't know how many times I've already said it but I will be voting YES in the upcoming referendum, and anyone I talk to I encourage them to vote yes, and even my parish priest knows I am encouraging people to vote yes, because this is a CIVIL matter, and NOT a religious one, so all the spouting and shouting from DQ, Iona and some members of the RCC Hierarchy - they know damn well this referendum has nothing to do with religion either!

EDIT: Meant to say - completely agree with the rest of that paragraph, forgot

Okay, so you feel intolerance on an infrequent basis. I'm presuming you're Roman Catholic but correct me if I'm wrong. I was raised RC but I no longer practice. I can't say I was ever made to feel like a paedophile because of my upbringing by anyone but maybe I'm unique in that. Nevertheless, has the intolerance shown to you given you any insight into what it must be like for people who face it on an ongoing basis? Has it made you aware of what it might feel like to be treated unequally in society.

Absolutely, which is why I hold the opinions I do, and even though I may come across woefully on here, trust me, it's not fcuking intentional! I'm here because I give a shít, not just for myself but for other people besides myself. That's the whole point of society - it's never going to be just about one group of people (whatever "second class citizen" group takes your fancy) and their "rights", it's about people whoever they are, being responsible for each other and being responsible for future generations in society.

galljga1 · 14-04-2015 11:31AM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Is there a sense yet of whether this will go through? Initially I thought it was a give - complacency is a dangerous thing! Now, I am not sure...

It did at first seem like a no brainer. The hardcore no and yes group will vote. A lot of middle of the roaders probably will not vote. It depends on turnout. As mentioned here by others, I am concerned by the voters who are going with the flow in conversation giving the impression that they favour a yes vote but who actually may vote no. I do believe they exist and are just keeping their heads down

I still say it will be a yes. The youth of today will swing it.

Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

Comments