Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

1…1516182021…34

Comments

  • #512
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    fran17 wrote: »
    Your correct.The entire no campaign has been based on positivity.

    Fran, you are more than entitled to your belief that Homosexuals are not equal to Heterosexuals and should not get married.

    But please do not stoop to blatant lies about the No campaign. Their entire claim is based on negativity and misleading people. Claims of abused children, teens and a dark and evil future.

    They have made no positive claims at all.


  • #513
    Neyite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,947 ✭✭✭✭Neyite


    fran17 wrote: »
    I guess its ok to break the law then.The end justifies the means.

    It's Youth Defence. They should recognise underhand and dubious tactics fairly well, I'd say.


  • #514
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    fran17 wrote: »
    Well the entire yes campaign has been based thus far on negativity and nasty attempts to ridicule people so it looks like they have now progressed to illegality.

    There are two problems with what you just posted fran.

    Firstly, we don't know whether the website was actually hacked or not and if it was hacked we don't know who is responsible for this action. So you can't claim that it was done by the "yes campaign" because it could just as easily have been something organised by the no campaign as a means to portray the yes side in a negative light. Also, the actions of one individual or group thereof does not represent the views of the entire yes campaign. So tarring all of us with the same brush without finding out whether or not we condone such an action (I don't btw) is dishonest.

    Secondly, your claim about the entire yes campaign being based on negativity rings slightly hollow. For example, I have posted twice previously in this thread, here and here (in case you missed them) each time explaining why the no side arguments are deeply flawed. I have not been negative or abusive in either post and yet nobody on the no side has even acknowledged these arguments. So your claims sound slightly disingenuous when you don't engage in actual debate which is conducted without negativity.


  • #515
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    I don't agree with what was done as it gives ammo for the likes of yourself but to suggest that the Yes campaign has been purely about negativity when the cornerstone of the No campaign is to ensure that one section of society is treated less equal than the rest of us is daft.

    That's the only reason you do not agree with this devious illegal act?
    It serves only to undermine the yes campaign and its legitimacy.Wonder how many will publicly condemn it.


  • #516
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    fran17 wrote: »
    That's the only reason you do not agree with this devious illegal act?
    It serves only to undermine the yes campaign and its legitimacy.Wonder how many will publicly condemn it.


    It's not exactly the most heinous crime in the history of the state Fran. It's actually almost polite.


  • Advertisement
  • #517
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    fran17 wrote: »
    That's the only reason you do not agree with this devious illegal act?
    It serves only to undermine the yes campaign and its legitimacy.Wonder how many will publicly condemn it.

    Illegal act? Probably. Devious? Ffs, it's a practical joke at the expense of Youth Defence, nothing more. I don't agree with it like I said because all it really does is let YD play the martyr card. On a par with exposing innocent kids to a picture of an 18 week aborted fetus on posters or parking a billboard truck outside the Rape Crisis Centre, it's a pretty mild and inoffensive joke.


  • #518
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    You're kinda right Fran. The No side are mostly saying that "gay people are...", and the Yes side have to spend most of the time calling the No side out on their ridiculous stance by saying "gay people aren't...". So technically, the No side are saying positive statements. I'm sure that's what you meant


  • #519
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    fran17 wrote: »
    I guess its ok to break the law then.The end justifies the means.

    It's the Eight Commandment I believe which forbids baring false witness...
    An example of this would be saying something like 'all faiths oppose homosexuality' even when you have been shown evidence that this is false.

    Does your end justify your means then?



    Can we have a referendum to ban people who haven't actually read The Prince from quoting it?


  • #520
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    fran17 wrote: »
    Well the entire yes campaign has been based thus far on negativity and nasty attempts to ridicule people so it looks like they have now progressed to illegality.

    Lol.

    Fran, since your here care explaining about this right to a mother and father and how it is to be vindicated?

    Edit - now I understand his rant at me a few days ago. Asking Fran to explain himself really is the best way to shut him up.


  • #521
    seenitall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,734 ✭✭✭seenitall


    floggg wrote: »
    I do agree with that to a certain extent, and I don't think she can distance herself from the policies entirely. But she's not somebody who is actively involved in her parish and wouldn't be a religious mass attendee (so to speak).

    I guess you have to be reasonable in your expectation in what ordinary people can do. I would think a yes vote will be a big message, but perhaps we should expect more stuff like walk outs from mass if there is objectionable sermons or letter writing campaigns etc.

    But at the end of the day, if they aren't personally attacked there is only so much people are realistically going to do.

    Agreed, that's reasonable and realistic. I'll be happy as a clam with a yes vote to this... for now. :)

    Auld AH is always good for posting a bit of a rant anyway! :D


  • Advertisement
  • #522
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Just out of curiosity, if the Iona Institute say that we shouldn't listen to the forrinders like Twitter does that mean we should ignore the Pope as well?


  • #523
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    Just out of curiosity, if the Iona Institute say that we shouldn't listen to the forrinders like Twitter does that mean we should ignore the Pope as well?

    Or their American donors...


  • #524
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    Just out of curiosity, if the Iona Institute say that we shouldn't listen to the forrinders like Twitter does that mean we should ignore the Pope as well?
    There's an international organisation with shady money issues operating at an entrenched level in our state funded school system. Maybe Iona could comment on that and whether state money should be used for indoctrination?


  • #525
    pl4ichjgy17zwd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,053 ✭✭✭pl4ichjgy17zwd


    Funny how I see the outrage of the alleged 'hack' but nothing about the defaced pro-equality murals.


  • #526
    folamh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 787 ✭✭✭folamh


    I listened to this video with an open mind because ad hominem dismissals are silly (omg David Quinn's opinion is invalid lulz). From what I heard, he didn't present any actual reasons not to have SSM. His just said that SSM and traditional marriage aren't the same and that men and women are different, and reiterated that point a number of times.

    I think it's important to point out that passing the bill is about more than just legal equity: it contributes to a culture of acceptance and destigmatization. It seems more likely that children would be bullied in an environment where homosexuals are stigmatized to the degree that they are now, than in a situation where their parents' marriage was perfectly legal and (hopefully in about 5-10 years) normal.

    I also think that Quinn's focus on the sexual aspect of marriage is misguided (not to mention ironic). "What would consummate the marriage of two people of the same sex?" The notion of consummation has always seemed weird and slightly creepy to me. I think it should be removed as an imperative to legitimize a couple's marriage.


  • #527
    folamh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 787 ✭✭✭folamh


    fran17 wrote: »
    That's the only reason you do not agree with this devious illegal act?
    It serves only to undermine the yes campaign and its legitimacy.Wonder how many will publicly condemn it.

    I don't agree with what the individual did but it's hardly a big deal, man. If an Iona supporter did the same to a Yes campaign website, I'd roll my eyes and move on.


  • #528
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Just saw this online https://darraghmccauley.wordpress.com/2015/04/16/173/ if I caught someone dropping one through my door is lose the head with them!


  • #529
    Dave_The_Sheep
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,496 ✭✭✭Dave_The_Sheep


    Why does the title of this thread include something to do with children, when the marriage equality referendum isn't about that?

    Of course, it's because the No side want to muddy the waters and have it so that this isn't about equality in people's minds, it's about homosexual couples adopting or otherwise parenting children. It's the only way they have a hope in hell of winning, by changing the goalposts.


  • #530
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »
    Why does the title of this thread include something to do with children, when the marriage equality referendum isn't about that?

    Of course, it's because the No side want to muddy the waters and have it so that this isn't about equality in people's minds, it's about homosexual couples adopting or otherwise parenting children. It's the only way they have a hope in hell of winning, by changing the goalposts.

    Even at that, they can adopt or parent children without marriage. They're 100% wrong in every sense of the word with what they're saying.


  • #531
    Fat Christy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,866 ✭✭✭Fat Christy


    What a load of codswallop. I wasn't raised by either of my parents. I was raised by my great aunt and my uncle who happened to be staying there at the time. I wouldn't have it any other way to be honest. Someone can give birth to you/conceive you, whatever, it still doesn't make them a parent.

    From my own personal experience, I would rather have had 2 daddies or 2 mammies that would take care of me properly than my own biological parents.


  • Advertisement
  • #532
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    Just out of curiosity, if the Iona Institute say that we shouldn't listen to the forrinders like Twitter does that mean we should ignore the Pope as well?

    No - we should only ignore them if they say things we don't like.

    On the Claire Byrne debate, Iona and their buddy Keith complained about Colin Farrell involving himself because he was an Irish man living and working in LA, and then wheeled out that English born and resident loon ball who thinks gay marriage should be banned because her heterosexually married parents used a sperm donor.

    Moral o the story - Iona are [expletive deleted]


  • #533
    pl4ichjgy17zwd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,053 ✭✭✭pl4ichjgy17zwd


    Marriage has been redefined even throughout the bible:

    http://i.imgur.com/DIOXnGI.jpg


  • #534
    indy_man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 378 ✭✭indy_man


    I advise you listen to Francis.



  • #535
    constance tench
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 862 ✭✭✭constance tench


    'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.'

    Mark Twain


  • #536
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    constance tench wrote: »
    'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.'

    Mark Twain

    So do I take you're supporting slavery now. Just to be edgy like? :rolleyes:


  • #537
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    indy_man wrote: »
    I advise you listen to Francis.


    A man in a dress lecturing about gender identity?

    If he's the Argentian version of Panti, I think we'll keep the original.


  • #538
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    indy_man wrote: »
    I advise you listen to Francis.


    That has nothing to do with gay marriage...


  • #539
    constance tench
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 862 ✭✭✭constance tench


    floggg wrote: »
    So do I take you're supporting slavery now. Just to be edgy like? :rolleyes:

    Quite the contrary to your assertion. Are you aware of what positive law is?


  • #540
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    constance tench wrote: »
    Quite the contrary to your assertion. Are you aware of what positive law is?


    In this context, are you referring to the separation of law and morality?


  • Advertisement
  • #541
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    floggg wrote: »
    So do I take you're supporting slavery now. Just to be edgy like? :rolleyes:

    I heard Hugh Linehan from the Irish Times express much the same thing on Newstalk the other day. He said he felt like voting No just because he thought the Yes side was so smug and the curmudgeon in him wanted to stick it to them.

    Tbh, maybe if you're really only exposed to people who say they'll vote Yes you can become a bit complacent about the whole thing and in a way I think it shows how far we've come as a nation since homosexuality was decriminalised only 22 years ago. I've someone close to me, an uncle, who is completely bigoted about homosexuals and quite vociferous in their support of the No vote. To them, homosexuals are perverts and and in essence the same as paedophiles. I've seen homophobia being bandied about a lot over the last while in relation to this referendum but this person is a true homophobe. It would absolutely kill me to think that this referendum might not pass if support keeps growing for the No side and somebody like that could feel vindicated about their opinions of gay people because he feels the majority of people in Ireland think the same as him.

    Vote No if you have a problem with giving equality to gay people if that's how you feel but voting No because too many people are voting Yes is completely inexcusable in my book.


Advertisement