nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

indy_man

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.

Find more posts tagged with

iona lick me gee

Quick Links

Comments

Ave Sodalis

orubiru wrote: »

Right, but you did say "any version will do" or something like that.

So I find myself again questioning why you didn't look up the quote yourself in the first place and why you moved the goalposts when you didn't like the answer.

I am not saying that there is only one interpretation. I am pretty sure that it is deliberately vague but that lesbians fall under their umbrella of "stuff God doesn't want you to do".

I say that the passage I provided confirms this. You say otherwise. I don't think we can really change each others opinions.

He didn't move the goalposts though. He asked where the Bible condemns lesbians, you gave a bunch of quotes that could mean anything, he tells you this. There's no goalpost moving there.

orubiru

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I find it just creepy in general that other people are concerning themselves so much with what couples are doing in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Can I politley request that such people kindly fúck off out of other people's business. I mean, it's just...weird to be concerning yourself with the sex acts of others Are your own sex lives so lacking? Or are you just perverts?

I wouldn't say it's THAT weird.

A lot of fiction is concerned with the sexual relationships of the characters. Tabloid newspapers and Reality TV are massively popular and "sexual relations" is always a major element there. I've also heard that they have this thing called "pornography" on the internet and a lot of people really like to watch that stuff.

So I'd say it's pretty normal actually. Well, maybe "normal" is the wrong word.

Why though? I have no idea.

galljga1

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I find it just creepy in general that other people are concerning themselves so much with what couples are doing in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Can I politley request that such people kindly fúck off out of other people's business. I mean, it's just...weird to be concerning yourself with the sex acts of others Are your own sex lives so lacking? Or are you just perverts?

No sex life at the moment and a pervert.

ohnonotgmail

orubiru wrote: »

Right, but you did say "any version will do" or something like that.

So I find myself again questioning why you didn't look up the quote yourself in the first place and why you moved the goalposts when you didn't like the answer.

I am not saying that there is only one interpretation. I am pretty sure that it is deliberately vague but that lesbians fall under their umbrella of "stuff God doesn't want you to do".

I say that the passage I provided confirms this. You say otherwise. I don't think we can really change each others opinions.

just as a counterpoint to that verse that you think condemns lesbians let me give you another :

“Do not press me to leave you or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go; where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you!” (Ruth 1:16-17)

sound familiar? looks a lot like the marriage vows doesnt it? Curiously it is spoken by one woman to another, Ruth to Naomi. and this is not mere friendship. it uses the same word (dabaq) that genesis uses to describe adams relationship to eve. this whole bible thing is fierce confusing altogether.

One eyed Jack

orubiru wrote: »

Are you for real?

Well I sure as hell ain't imaginary :pac:

Seriously though:

Almost every single person I know about who has a strong opinion against same sex marriage is religious and the main reason for their objection is based on their religion. Some of them try to disguise that fact but for the most part their religion is responsible for their view on this subject.

If it's true that almost every single person you know who has a strong opinion against same sex marriage is religious (I'm not doubting your claim, I'm always open to possibilities), then you just haven't met enough people. Your sample size is too small, just like people here who claim all their friends on social media support same sex marriage. That a group of people who think the same way would graduate towards each other is hardly surprising, but if you go outside your own circle of friends, you'll very soon see that quite a number of people don't feel any need to use religion or any reason to justify their objections to same sex marriage.

They just don't like people who are different from them in any way, LGBT or otherwise. Some people have no qualms whatsoever about trying to disguise their misanthropy - they just don't like people, full stop, and then there's a spectrum of hatred where people who are LGBT just happen to be top of that list. For other people, it's religious people happens to be top of their lists.

Civil marriage equality itself OBVIOUSLY has nothing to do with religion but the reasons why people are being denied civil marriage equality is pretty much all down to religion. You can't see that?

No I can't see that, and I've explained why - religion itself is nothing more than an idea. It's how human beings use religion that makes it either a positive or negative influence in their lives or the lives of other people. The reason why people are being denied civil marriage equality is completely down to other people's insecurity. How they choose to rationalise and justify their insecurity is their own business, but they should have no right to project their insecurities onto other people.

Politicians could legislate for civil marriage equality in this country in the morning if they really wanted to, they have the power to do that, just as they did with the Children and Families Bill. But they won't do it because they're too cowardly and too afraid for their own political careers to do it. It's that one step too far for them, because despite all the support for people who are LGBT we see on social media and people saying all the right things, the fact is that when those people go into the booth on May 22nd, they don't have anyone to answer to but themselves. They don't have to present reasonable arguments or any of the rest of that nonsense, they just have to tick "no", and come out smiling and say "I voted yes anyway", because who the hell is going to be any the wiser?

orubiru

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Politicians could legislate for civil marriage equality in this country in the morning if they really wanted to, they have the power to do that, just as they did with the Children and Families Bill. But they won't do it because they're too cowardly and too afraid for their own political careers to do it.

I agree but why do you think this is? Why are they afraid? Who is going to come along and hinder their political careers?

You made a lot of good points by the way. Sorry for not responding to each one but I do agree with you that it's peoples insecurity that is causing them to deny rights to others.

Where we differ, I suppose, is I would say that here in Ireland it is religion that fosters and encourages the peoples insecurity and prejudice and, as a result of this, opinions on the same-sex marriage referendum are linked to religion.

I don't think it's realistic to say that it has nothing to do with religion.

galljga1

orubiru wrote: »

I agree but why do you think this is? Why are they afraid? Who is going to come along and hinder their political careers?

You made a lot of good points by the way. Sorry for not responding to each one but I do agree with you that it's peoples insecurity that is causing them to deny rights to others.

Where we differ, I suppose, is I would say that here in Ireland it is religion that fosters and encourages the peoples insecurity and prejudice and, as a result of this, opinions on the same-sex marriage referendum are linked to religion.

I don't think it's realistic to say that it has nothing to do with religion.

I agree with both of you.
Is there anything currently in the constitution that stops two people, regardless of gender from getting married? If you take it on it's own, my opinion is that there is not.

catallus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

.... this whole bible thing is fierce confusing altogether.

It's even more confusing when you don't know that Naomi was Ruth's mother in law; it is only two chapters on when Ruth does actually get married, to a man, no less!

So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife. And he went in to her, and the Lord gave her conception, and she bore a son.

Ruth 4:13

Ave Sodalis

catallus wrote: »

It's even more confusing when you don't know that Naomi was Ruth's mother in law; it is only two chapters on when Ruth does actually get married, to a man, no less!

Ruth 4:13

Sounds like Ruth had some serious issues...

ohnonotgmail

catallus wrote: »

It's even more confusing when you don't know that Naomi was Ruth's mother in law; it is only two chapters on when Ruth does actually get married, to a man, no less!

Ruth 4:13

Boaz was just the baby-daddy. nothing more.

OldNotWIse

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

maybe they're not getting enough

Well they do say that those who talk about it most....:pac:

OldNotWIse

orubiru wrote: »

I wouldn't say it's THAT weird.

A lot of fiction is concerned with the sexual relationships of the characters. Tabloid newspapers and Reality TV are massively popular and "sexual relations" is always a major element there. I've also heard that they have this thing called "pornography" on the internet and a lot of people really like to watch that stuff.

So I'd say it's pretty normal actually. Well, maybe "normal" is the wrong word.

Why though? I have no idea.

What's on TV or in the tabloids (neither of which provide any more amusement for me than watching an emulsion dry on a wall), is not quite the same as what goes on in the privacy of someone's bedroom. The former are put out there for public gratification - the latter involves consensual sexual activity between two adults - something which they do not invite the rest of the world to concern itself with.

Genghiz Cohen

David Quinn, most slappable face in Ireland?

galljga1

catallus wrote: »

It's even more confusing when you don't know that Naomi was Ruth's mother in law; it is only two chapters on when Ruth does actually get married, to a man, no less!

Ruth 4:13

Yes, Ruth was already a daughter in law to Naomi by her marriage to Mahon who was at that time deceased. Boaz was related to Naomi's husband and due to the custom of the time, the offspring from the union continued on the lineage of Naomi's dead husband.

Now square that one but remember, think of the children.

OldNotWIse

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

David Quinn, most slappable face in Ireland?

He looks like Garfield's owner :P

galljga1

OldNotWIse wrote: »

He looks like Garfield's owner :P

I won't be able to watch Garfield again.

One eyed Jack

orubiru wrote: »

I agree but why do you think this is? Why are they afraid? Who is going to come along and hinder their political careers?

Politicians are afraid for their political careers because the people who elect them don't like anything which challenges their world view, so politicians lie through their teeth to get elected, but they know they can only go so far. It's not the RCC Hierarchy is a threat to politicians, it's the fact that politicians themselves represent some of the worst hypocrisy and prejudices in the people that elect them. They are, after all, public representatives. They represent over seven million people. Seven million, I don't think anyone has that many friends on their social media pages.

You made a lot of good points by the way. Sorry for not responding to each one but I do agree with you that it's peoples insecurity that is causing them to deny rights to others.

Where we differ, I suppose, is I would say that here in Ireland it is religion that fosters and encourages the peoples insecurity and prejudice and, as a result of this, opinions on the same-sex marriage referendum are linked to religion.

The funny thing is, that if I were to count among people I've met who identify as religious/non-religious, which demographic would be more supportive of LGBT people, people who are religious come out on top by a vast margin. That's why I said that people who are non-religious aren't just non-religious, but they are anti-religion and anti-LGBT, anti-disability, anti-unemployed, anti-unmarried parents... anti- well, anti lots of things really. Thankfully, they are in a small minority when you extrapolate out these views to a wider society.

The point I'm making is that it isn't just religion fuels people's prejudices, it's never been religion. Religion was and still is, just the excuse some people use to justify their prejudices. Many more people simply don't need a reason, as it turns out - they just hate everyone who doesn't think or isn't the same as they are or upsets their world view of the way society should revolve around them.

I don't think it's realistic to say that it has nothing to do with religion.

Are there people who link their prejudice and hatred to religion? Of course there are, but not nearly as many as you might think. They're definitely only a small minority in my experience, thankfully.

Bannasidhe

fran17 wrote: »

Yes all the faiths condemn homosexuality but this is the teaching of the scriptures.

Fran.

You know this is a lie.
I know you know it is a lie because I, personally, provided you with ample evidence to refute this statement on more than one occasion.

Actually, the last time you repeated this lie I asked you if this did not contravene a certain commandment about baring false witness and you declined to answer on that occasion.

Now here you are, spreading falsehood again...

galljga1

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Fran.

You know this is a lie.
I know you know it is a lie because I, personally, provided you with ample evidence to refute this statement on more than one occasion.

Actually, the last time you repeated this lie I asked you if this did not contravene a certain commandment about baring false witness and you declined to answer on that occasion.

Now here you are, spreading falsehood again...

Fran declined to comment? Hmmm.

Paramite Pie

S.O wrote: »

http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/17/dear-gay-community-your-kids-are-hurting/

Another is a 21 yr old woman ( Amy ) spoke openly on radio in Australia recently about being her experience brought up and raised by same sex lesbian parents.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/adults-raised-gay-couples-speak-out-against-gay-marriage-federal-court

To anyone who supports adoption rights for same sex couples just what would you say to those people raised in same sex households who now have a negative view about the issue as adults ?

I know exactly what I'd say RE the 2nd link; they had horrible parents.

I have a friend who grew up with a single, straight mum. Everynight or most nights her mum would go out to 'find her a new father'. Her mum had a changing roster of partners, and an emotionally fragile mother who took the break-ups quite hard, often staying in bed for days. The poor girl could never get her mothers attention and often had fend for herself & look after her mother.

She swears that she's never going to get married or have kids, and she herself as abandonment issues. So does that mean that all straight parents are bad parents? What would you say to her when you plan to have kids yourself? Why do you continue to support straight parents? The answer is that you obviously had a better upbringing, and you know how good parents can be.

Go to some of the rough estates across the country and you'll find lot's of that happening. Parents should be careful about introducing new partners and sleepovers. There's no guarantee that the kids in those links would've had more stability if their lousy parents were straight.

The first link is more complex by far. I'll probably address it again further in another post. It seems that Amy had no extended family, particularly no Grandfathers or Uncles or at least they weren't mentioned. I believe all kids need role models of both genders. A straight person may be confused by their sexuality if they have no-one to ask about the opposite sex or dating advice. Amy's parents may have been rejected by her family and in their minds the straight community, and passed along those abandonment issues. A family is more than two parents, it's grandparents, uncles & aunts who can all provide advice, comfort & support. Also it wouldn't surprise if some gay activists had children to make a statement and that's detrimental to a child. These kids were raised in a vacuum by parents with either a superiority or isolationist complex.

I sympathize severely with these kids, but as people become more accepting of their gay relatives, gay parents will have more support and I believe their kids will have have healthy upbringing. Since I've also read positive stories my overall opinion has not changed, but broadened. I've also realised the extraordinary influence my extended family had on me, since I came out to them first.

Penn

Exactly. Neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality makes someone a good parent, nor does being raised by any combination of parents or single parents mean you won't have a negative view of your own upbringing and experiences.

Being a man doesn't make someone a good father.
Being a woman doesn't make someone a good mother.
Being married doesn't make two people ideal parents.
Having heterosexual parents doesn't mean you'll never be bullied.
Having homosexual parents doesn't mean you'll definitely be bullied.

Experiences, parental ability and upbringings all vary to different degrees. What matters are the individuals involved, not their sexuality or marital status. That's why LGBT people shouldn't be treated differently in any such regard due to their sexual or gender orientation.

OldNotWIse

galljga1 wrote: »

I won't be able to watch Garfield again.

I think the cat was "one of them" anyway...

fran17

Fine Gael director of elections for the upcoming referendum,Simon Coveney,announces that the children of Ireland do NOT have the right to a mother and father.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/coveney-says-right-to-mother-and-father-is-not-that-simple-1.2175893

He attempts to defend this outrageous statement by using single parents to make his point.The problem is Simon,there are many children who are living in families that do not contain a mam and dad but these family situations were not designed by the state.This referendum is attempting to design a mam/dad void family if successful.Its grossly ironic that a government minister of this state,where in the constitution it boldly says:
"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"
is attacking the very same constitution he swore to uphold.

ohnonotgmail

fran17 wrote: »

Fine Gael director of elections for the upcoming referendum,Simon Coveney,announces that the children of Ireland do NOT have the right to a mother and father.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/coveney-says-right-to-mother-and-father-is-not-that-simple-1.2175893

He attempts to defend this outrageous statement by using single parents to make his point.The problem is Simon,there are many children who are living in families that do not contain a mam and dad but these family situations were not designed by the state.This referendum is attempting to design a mam/dad void family if successful.Its grossly ironic that a government minister of this state,where in the constitution it boldly says:
"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"
is attacking the very same constitution he swore to uphold.

This referendum is attempting to design a mam/dad void family if successful

i think you will find that we already have that. and it is nothing to do with the gays or this referendum anyway.

Every child does have a mother and father. unless there are some assisted pregnancy procedures that are really weird.

If you insist that every child has a right to live with their mother and father then what do you do with families that dont have a mother and father? should the children be taken away from them?

seamus

Children don't have the right to a mother and a father. That's a fact. It's not written in any constitution, or UN document or EU document. Such a "right" does not exist anywhere, because it would be moronic.

It's an invented right to try and argue an invented point.

What Coveney says is entirely accurate. And this referendum will not change the current status of the mother/father/parent/family/child in the constitution regardless of the outcome. That's a fact.

One eyed Jack

fran17 wrote: »

Fine Gael director of elections for the upcoming referendum,Simon Coveney,announces that the children of Ireland do NOT have the right to a mother and father.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/coveney-says-right-to-mother-and-father-is-not-that-simple-1.2175893

He attempts to defend this outrageous statement by using single parents to make his point.The problem is Simon,there are many children who are living in families that do not contain a mam and dad but these family situations were not designed by the state.This referendum is attempting to design a mam/dad void family if successful.Its grossly ironic that a government minister of this state,where in the constitution it boldly says:
"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"
is attacking the very same constitution he swore to uphold.

Irony, coming from yourself now fran in all fairness :pac:

Seriously though, the only thing in any danger here is you putting your eye out with that crankshaft you're using to try and wind people up.

You've actually gone so far now that you're not just posting fiction any more, you're posting facts, unknown to yourself, because I'm pretty sure that wasn't your intention.

galljga1

fran17 wrote: »

Fine Gael director of elections for the upcoming referendum,Simon Coveney,announces that the children of Ireland do NOT have the right to a mother and father.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/coveney-says-right-to-mother-and-father-is-not-that-simple-1.2175893

He attempts to defend this outrageous statement by using single parents to make his point.The problem is Simon,there are many children who are living in families that do not contain a mam and dad but these family situations were not designed by the state.This referendum is attempting to design a mam/dad void family if successful.Its grossly ironic that a government minister of this state,where in the constitution it boldly says:
"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"
is attacking the very same constitution he swore to uphold.

The only thing outrageous is this post. I do not expect a reply as you seem to rant and run but just in case, how is two men marrying or two women marrying going to make a negative change to any child's life. Please note the word change.

floggg

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Fran.

You know this is a lie.
I know you know it is a lie because I, personally, provided you with ample evidence to refute this statement on more than one occasion.

Actually, the last time you repeated this lie I asked you if this did not contravene a certain commandment about baring false witness and you declined to answer on that occasion.

Now here you are, spreading falsehood again...

Your mistake is thinking Fran acknowledges the existence of anything which disagrees with his chosen workd view.

Edit - I know I made the same mistake below.

Daith

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You're missing a subtle but key point here. Family being founded on marriage is not equivalent to family being the sole purpose of marriage.

A key point is that the Irish courts have ruled that a married couple is a family precisely so they could deny a married couple the right to have a child while both were in prison.

So you have a right to found a family when you marry because you are a family when you marry.

floggg

fran17 wrote: »

Fine Gael director of elections for the upcoming referendum,Simon Coveney,announces that the children of Ireland do NOT have the right to a mother and father.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/coveney-says-right-to-mother-and-father-is-not-that-simple-1.2175893

He attempts to defend this outrageous statement by using single parents to make his point.The problem is Simon,there are many children who are living in families that do not contain a mam and dad but these family situations were not designed by the state.This referendum is attempting to design a mam/dad void family if successful.Its grossly ironic that a government minister of this state,where in the constitution it boldly says:
"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"
is attacking the very same constitution he swore to uphold.

Why don't you explain what this right is Fran and how it is to be vindicated so?

If such a right exists why does the state allow single people adopt? Is the state violating that right?