Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

joseph brand · 14-04-2015 11:33AM

I'm on the Yes side, so allow me to play Devil's advocate. A voice for all the meek Christians in the 'No' camp, if you will.
Ahem. /clears throat

A load of desert-dwelling goat herders, who lived 2,000 years ago, hated fags. They expressed their ignorant views in a bumper book which is open to interpretation. Therefore, vote No.

@the IONA crowd: you're welcome.

OldNotWIse · 14-04-2015 11:34AM

galljga1 wrote: »

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.

Hadn't considered this. Hope it's a yes. Hard to believe we are relying on the votes of others for equal rights.

galljga1 · 14-04-2015 11:35AM

joseph brand wrote: »

I'm on the Yes side, so allow me to play Devil's advocate. A voice for all the meek Christians in the 'No' camp, if you will.
Ahem. /clears throat

A load of desert-dwelling goat herders, who lived 2,000 years ago, hated fags. They expressed their ignorant views in a bumper book which is open to interpretation. Therefore, vote No.

@the IONA crowd: you're welcome.

It all makes sense now.

OldNotWIse · 14-04-2015 11:36AM

Why are people still making this all about children? Are they the only ones who matter in our society or something? Do they cease to matter when they become adults?

Anyone who doesn't actually know what they are voting for should do the right thing by not voting.

smash · 14-04-2015 11:41AM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Why are people still making this all about children?

The no side are making this about children. It's the only way in which they can justify their bigotry. Ask them for an argument against same sex marriage that doesn't involve children and they can't really put one forward.

Even bringing children into the argument is dud defence because same sex couples are raising children as it is right now, even without marriage.

kunst nugget · 14-04-2015 11:43AM

joseph brand wrote: »

I'm on the Yes side, so allow me to play Devil's advocate. A voice for all the meek Christians in the 'No' camp, if you will.
Ahem. /clears throat

A load of desert-dwelling goat herders, who lived 2,000 years ago, hated fags. They expressed their ignorant views in a bumper book which is open to interpretation. Therefore, vote No.

@the IONA crowd: you're welcome.

Funnily enough, mocking and attacking people's beliefs re-enforces those beliefs. Look at the anti-vaxxers. While it might help to fuel a smug sense of superiority in yourself, it's actually detrimental to reasoned debate and engenders a sense of martyrdom in the people whose beliefs are being attacked.

Zen65 · 14-04-2015 11:45AM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Traditionally In Ireland it has been Only a Religious ceremony.

Untrue. EVERY church marriage includes a civil marriage, unless the civil marriage has already taken place at another time.

kylith · 14-04-2015 11:50AM

As far as I can tell there are 2 ways in which this referendum will affect children:

1) The relationship between the homosexual parents of a child will be protected by law meaning that if the biological/adoptive parent dies the child will not also lose the only other parent they've ever known.

2) If a child grows up to be a homosexual adult they will be able to get married should they desire to do so.

Can anyone on the NO side please explain why either of these is a bad thing?

OldNotWIse · 14-04-2015 11:56AM

smash wrote: »

The no side are making this about children. It's the only way in which they can justify their bigotry. Ask them for an argument against same sex marriage that doesn't involve children and they can't really put one forward.

Even bringing children into the argument is dud defence because same sex couples are raising children as it is right now, even without marriage.

Well, they probably dont care about those children since they are "beyond saving" now that they are living with the gays. :rolleyes:

floggg · 14-04-2015 12:02PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

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.

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

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.

I'll be honest, I don't know what to make of your posts a lot of times. I think your heart is generally in the right place, you seem to share many of the same macro beliefs as I do on equality etc, but sometimes your way of approaching things or your thought processes on specific issues just makes me thing "what the ****?"

I don't mean that in a critical way, you seem like a good person and even where we disagree you've at least thought about the issue and have some substance behind your position - even if I disagree with the premise).

But I can see sometimes why people take you up completely wrong on these issues or assume you might be on the other side of things (including myself).

Trudiha · 14-04-2015 12:03PM

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.

Fran, that makes no sense at all, you're basically saying that because someone who agrees with me on one topic has, in the past, said something offensive to someone else who agrees with you on one topic, anything you say can't be offensive. I've told you in good faith and all honesty that your stance is offensive to me and half the country, now you might not care that you offend me and my family, you might even enjoy doing so but that doesn't make the offensive any less real.

My dad and by extrapolation my family, is worthy of respect, he raised four children on his own and did a fantastic job, we're all good taxpayers who've never spent a night in jail. All three of my siblings have children of their own who, again, are a credit to them.

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.

Without boring you with too much of my family history, the reason I only had one functioning parent was because my mother's upbringing. She was born to a single mother in 1930s Ireland and endured the kind of childhood that left her unfit to parent her own children. It wasn't the lack of a father figure that left her unable to parent but societies' response to her lack of a father. People then, like now, tend to ostrisize that which doesn't fit in with their own view of 'proper'. My grandmother got a hard time but the real victim of those who thought that there was only one right way to have a child, was my mother.

I won't go into detail about the un-Christian abuse she suffered at the hands of those who raised her but I can assure you it was a bit more hardcore than folks typing things on the Internet she didn't agree with, she'd have taken being raised by a single mother, who didn't have to face total social stigma, over the upbringing she actually got.

I think that those who have very conservative views of what a family should look like, tend to spend an awful lot of time worrying about hypothetical children, who don't actually exist to the detriment of the real, live children who need a bit of protection. The lack of same sex marriage in this country hasn't stopped gay people having kids, in the same way that a lack of legislation hasn't stopped surrogacy. The kids who are already born deserve legal protection, even if they don't meet your ideal.

Zen65 · 14-04-2015 12:07PM

Interesting how he feels at liberty to dismiss the NGO organisations who are concerned with the rights of children as being misguided. Mr Quinn wants to assert that the Iona Institute, an organisation which derives its objectives from fundamental religious values, knows more about children's rights than organisations like ISPCC.

I have to say, just listening to the 'logic' that he's trying to espouse, and leaving the emotion out it, he's wrong in almost everything he says.

Really the only conclusion I can draw is that he is either foolish, or so bigoted that he can convince himself that these flawed arguments are valid, or that he is simply trying to ensure by any means to persuade people not to vote in a manner which takes the country's laws one step further away from the teachings of the deranged Book of Leviticus.

Zen65 · 14-04-2015 12:30PM

The most fundamental error he makes is to assert that the proposed change in the constitution will effectively mean that there is absolutely no distinction between heterosexual marriage and same-sex marriage, and therefore that laws could not exist which would give a heterosexual couple an advantage over a same-sex married couple when it comes to adoption. That is not true.

If the referendum is passed, the constitution Article 41 Section 3 would read as follows:

The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

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

(The part in italics is the new text)

So the primary purpose (and effect) of the change is to ensure that the protection provided by the state to a married couple is the same regardless of their genders. This is not to say in any way that there would be no difference between the genders. If an adoption agency were to favour female-female couples over male-male couples on the basis of some (new) scientific research which showed that female-female couples made better parents they would be free to do so. It would be exactly the same as favouring a couple who had income (or other children, or a house) over a couple who did not, even though neither the constitution nor legislation specifies a pecking order.

The truth is that the adoption argument is a straw-man argument anyway. There are very few single-parent adoptions in Ireland, and very few same-sex couples with adopted children (in such cases currently only one member of the couple is recognised as being an adoptive parent). In most cases where adoption by SS couple occurs, it is where one member of couple is actually the biological parent. The introduction of this legislation will be statistically insignificant in terms of adoptions, and specifically in almost every current case it simply means the non-related 'parent' would get automatic guardianship rights if the biological parent dies.

Mr Quinn's warnings of dire consequences are nothing more than scaremongering. But then again, he's not trying to be rational, because as he says himself, he's speaking for "his side".

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 14-04-2015 03:34PM

David Quinn is many things, stupid he ain't. At some level he has to know that what he's saying makes no sense, I suppose he justifies it by thinking if he gets the 'right' outcome it doesn't matter what bollox he spouted to get it. Iona are the friendly face of bigotry, they know they'll get farther with an affable tone of voice, plinky-plonky-we're-all-friends-here youtube videos and vague and illogical calls to think of the children than they will with sounds of sodomy type stuff.

I really have tried to get the No arguments, because you can better argue against something you understand. It still makes not a bit of sense. Accept any number of their first premises, apart from plain old 'I don't like gay people' and it still makes no sense. Start from 'I don't like gay people'...I still don't agree with it, but at least there's some logical consistency.

Penn · 14-04-2015 03:54PM

Ismael Incalculable Feet wrote: »

David Quinn is many things, stupid he ain't. At some level he has to know that what he's saying makes no sense, I suppose he justifies it by thinking if he gets the 'right' outcome it doesn't matter what bollox he spouted to get it. Iona are the friendly face of bigotry, they know they'll get farther with an affable tone of voice, plinky-plonky-we're-all-friends-here youtube videos and vague and illogical calls to think of the children than they will with sounds of sodomy type stuff.

I really have tried to get the No arguments, because you can better argue against something you understand. It still makes not a bit of sense. Accept any number of their first premises, apart from plain old 'I don't like gay people' and it still makes no sense. Start from 'I don't like gay people'...I still don't agree with it, but at least there's some logical consistency.

Exactly. All of their arguments about children are very, very easily disproven and defeated. But they're going to keep repeating them, because they're good soundbites. They look good on campaign leaflets. They look like they actually mean something.

It's all about putting doubt and fear in people's minds. Scaremongering. Children being dragged from their cots, away from their heterosexual, biological, married parents, and given to gay couples to be fashion accessories. Trying to get people to focus on the idea of that, rather than the truth, which is that such children were never going to be raised by their biological parents anyway, that the parenting ability of the individuals involved is hugely more important than what sexual organs they have, and that nurture and growing up in a loving environment isn't something which is exclusively provided by heterosexual married couples.

Quinn and the Ionaists are no dummies. I despise their tactics and objectives, but they're playing the best cards they can.

kevin12345 · 14-04-2015 04:15PM

Funny how all these Catholics weren't screaming from the rooftops about the welfare of children all those years ago when children were being separated from their mothers and those mothers were shipped off as slaves basically.

I agree with posters who are saying it's just a smokescreen that people are hiding behind to mask their own prejudices against gay people.

PopePalpatine · 14-04-2015 04:20PM

kevin12345 wrote: »

Funny how all these Catholics weren't screaming from the rooftops about the welfare of children all those years ago when children were being separated from their mothers and those mothers were shipped off as slaves basically.

I agree with posters who are saying it's just a smokescreen that people are hiding behind to mask their own prejudices against gay people.

I suppose when you're getting free labour you're not going to complain, c.f. IBEC and Jobbridge.

OldNotWIse · 14-04-2015 04:23PM

kevin12345 wrote: »

Funny how all these Catholics weren't screaming from the rooftops about the welfare of children all those years ago when children were being separated from their mothers and those mothers were shipped off as slaves basically.

I agree with posters who are saying it's just a smokescreen that people are hiding behind to mask their own prejudices against gay people.

Or paedophile priests were being protected and relocated to other parishes so that they could continue their abuse of innocent children. We don't exactly have a clean record when it comes to vindication of children's rights. All of a sudden, it has become a matter of extreme urgency because same sex people no longer wish to be treated as second class citizens.

shruikan2553 · 14-04-2015 04:29PM

kevin12345 wrote: »

Funny how all these Catholics weren't screaming from the rooftops about the welfare of children all those years ago when children were being separated from their mothers and those mothers were shipped off as slaves basically.

I agree with posters who are saying it's just a smokescreen that people are hiding behind to mask their own prejudices against gay people.

Condemn that and you are just Catholic bashing according to the same people coming out with claims that gay people are unfit parents.

kevin12345 · 14-04-2015 04:31PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Or paedophile priests were being protected and relocated to other parishes so that they could continue their abuse of innocent children. We don't exactly have a clean record when it comes to vindication of children's rights. All of a sudden, it has become a matter of extreme urgency because same sex people no longer wish to be treated as second class citizens.

Exactly and it's not like all gay people are proclaiming all over the media that they want children as soon as they get married? They don't need to, that bill has been passed - it's done, SS couples can now apply to formally adopt a child, nothing No voters can do to change this. All is being asked for is MARRIAGE equality, who's to even say that all gay people want to have children? I am sick of hearing it being used as an excuse to vote no in this referendum.

Trudiha · 14-04-2015 04:38PM

I don't think that it's a simple as a dislike of the gays, its about all round social control. One of the ironies of religious fundamentalists is that their own faith never seems quite enough for them. They aren't satisfied with their own worship, religious morals or behaviour; its not enough for them not to get divorced, not to marry a partner of the same sex or not use contraception. They don't just want to be pious Christians/Jews/Muslims/whatever, they need to impose those beliefs and customs on those who don't share their faith.

What I'm trying to say is the gays aren't special, it's not just the bum sex they take issue with, women and women's sexuality seems to have been the first and main victim, those not willing or fit enough to churn out babies every year. Those who had the cheek to want financial independance by working for a living. Those who didnt stick to a very ridge sexual line. Those not willing to shut up while they were beaten.

I really don't get it, even if I followed all of the instructions of ISIS or David Quinn or whoever, I have no faith, so I'd just be play acting but I suspect they don't really care about that because their actions are about control not spreading the Good News.

ohnonotgmail · 14-04-2015 05:00PM

Bad Horse wrote: »

...

Quinn and the Ionaists are no dummies. I despise their tactics and objectives, but they're playing the best cards they can.

am i the only person who always reads that as onanists and has to do a double take?

right, just me so. i'll get me coat.

OldNotWIse · 14-04-2015 05:02PM

kevin12345 wrote: »

Exactly and it's not like all gay people are proclaiming all over the media that they want children as soon as they get married? They don't need to, that bill has been passed - it's done, SS couples can now apply to formally adopt a child, nothing No voters can do to change this. All is being asked for is MARRIAGE equality, who's to even say that all gay people want to have children? I am sick of hearing it being used as an excuse to vote no in this referendum.

And another thing that they seem to forget is that being gay doesn't make you infertile. If I want to have a child, I'll have one. I don't need to rob one from a straight person

Not to mention the fact that all these hypotherical babies do not actually exist. There are very few babies for adoption now.

Hyzepher · 14-04-2015 05:14PM

To the No voters

If same sex couples were allowed to marry but were forbidden to have children would you vote Yes?

galljga1 · 14-04-2015 05:27PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

am i the only person who always reads that as onanists and has to do a double take?

right, just me so. i'll get me coat.

I am in two minds about the compatibility of ionaists with onanists.

They could both come under the general heading of w&nkers.

One eyed Jack · 14-04-2015 06:24PM

floggg wrote: »

I'll be honest, I don't know what to make of your posts a lot of times. I think your heart is generally in the right place, you seem to share many of the same macro beliefs as I do on equality etc, but sometimes your way of approaching things or your thought processes on specific issues just makes me thing "what the ****?"

I don't mean that in a critical way, you seem like a good person and even where we disagree you've at least thought about the issue and have some substance behind your position - even if I disagree with the premise).

But I can see sometimes why people take you up completely wrong on these issues or assume you might be on the other side of things (including myself).

I'll just ask one simple question then -

What the hell has civil marriage equality got to do with religion?

I had a long reply written out about the massive level of support among young people between the ages of 13 and 17 for their classmates and friends who are LGBT, and they don't give a damn about religion, they're more aware of what this referendum would mean for them and their friends than most bloody adults I talk to who start whining on about anything from their children not being prepared for confirmation (the shìt really hits the fan if they're denied their day out, either that or communion or a wedding or christening!), to fcuking water charges. They literally could not give a damn about civil marriage equality, or they support the idea in theory, but can't be arsed to vote for it.

All that I see going on here on Boards is any time DQ or some other wind-up merchant with a religious bent opens their mouths, you get the same anti-religious shìte posted every fcuking time. I personally don't give a shìt who posts what tbh, but none of it has much to do with civil marriage equality, and attacking DQ and the RCC is like bringing a pea shooter to a gun fight - they don't give a fcuk either.

People here have suggested that people who don't know what they're voting on should stay at home, well that would mean probably nobody except those who aren't entitled to vote by virtue of their age, would be the only people qualified to vote! We sure as hell ain't voting on religion, but reading through this thread and many previous threads about civil marriage equality, anyone would think that's exactly what we're voting on!

Frank Bullitt · 14-04-2015 08:00PM

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/iona-institutes-breda-obrien-on-civil-marriage-referendum-i-want-every-child-to-have-a-mary-and-martin-a-mother-and-father-31141712.html

Breda O'Brien weighs in with more absolute tripe on the matter.

The Ionas position on this is morally reprehensible. It is an ant-LGBT movement masquerading as a children's rights organization.

Simply have the balls and courage to say you don't like homosexuals, don't bring children into it to bolster your opinion on the public.

The Black Oil · 14-04-2015 09:54PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Why are people still making this all about children?

It's pretty much the only card they can play. It's a narrative (imo) that plays to emotion, concern, to some extent that a certain type of family is optimal and the inference that traditional families will somehow be treated differently (no longer viewed as unique) should the referendum be passed.

Regardless of whether the ISPCC had taken a position on the referendum or not, I'm glad they are there. I was aware that they get thousands of calls each year. I had no idea this many (29,000) concerned sexuality. I'm sure some might argue they are using children to express a political view, and one should be a little wary of all lobbying groups that claim to speak for children (more so if they don't work with them), but in this case they are not doing so to promote 'what if?' type scenarios. They have experience and provide kids with a safe space to talk and access support.

Annasopra · 14-04-2015 11:24PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

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...

It's winnable but certainly not won.

It will be tight! Like all referenda the polls will harden in the next few weeks.

fran17 · 15-04-2015 08:51AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'll just ask one simple question then -

What the hell has civil marriage equality got to do with religion?

I had a long reply written out about the massive level of support among young people between the ages of 13 and 17 for their classmates and friends who are LGBT, and they don't give a damn about religion, they're more aware of what this referendum would mean for them and their friends than most bloody adults I talk to who start whining on about anything from their children not being prepared for confirmation (the shìt really hits the fan if they're denied their day out, either that or communion or a wedding or christening!), to fcuking water charges. They literally could not give a damn about civil marriage equality, or they support the idea in theory, but can't be arsed to vote for it.

All that I see going on here on Boards is any time DQ or some other wind-up merchant with a religious bent opens their mouths, you get the same anti-religious shìte posted every fcuking time. I personally don't give a shìt who posts what tbh, but none of it has much to do with civil marriage equality, and attacking DQ and the RCC is like bringing a pea shooter to a gun fight - they don't give a fcuk either.

People here have suggested that people who don't know what they're voting on should stay at home, well that would mean probably nobody except those who aren't entitled to vote by virtue of their age, would be the only people qualified to vote! We sure as hell ain't voting on religion, but reading through this thread and many previous threads about civil marriage equality, anyone would think that's exactly what we're voting on!

That question has been asked and wondered by many now,Why is the yes campaign so eager to maintain a link between any issue regarding children and the Church?
Daily now in the media,the state controlled media on this issue,there is constant reference to this referendum and the church.This is completely out of balance,this referendum is in part about redefining marriage,but the church has virtually remainded neutral on the issue and is not actively campaigning.However,this is,and has been the trump card for many years now for the lgbtq movement.Of course they will not acknowledge it publicly but of course also the dogs on the street know this.The lgbtq movement has always,because of the Bible's teachings,blamed society's non acceptance of homosexuality on the faiths.Yes all the faiths condemn homosexuality but this is the teaching of the scriptures.The child abuse scandals in the church,which I want to make clear disgusted me completely and I condemn it unequivocally,has been used without fail in all media outlets,social or otherwise,as the number one response to any issue regarding children where the church has been involved.Many people would say it should be used and they have a valid point but it should never be used to deflect from the most important issue which always is the welfare of our nations children.This referendum is in one sense the perfect storm for the lgbtq lobby as it involves attempted redefinition of both religious beliefs and the family/parenting of the child.

Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

Comments