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

seamus

constance tench wrote: »

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

Go on and tell us how you're going to shoehorn positive law into this discussion.

/gets popcorn

floggg

constance tench wrote: »

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

What relevance has it to your comments?

Perhaps it would be best if you explained what ever point you were trying to make and then we can discuss.

floggg

kunst nugget wrote: »

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 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 about gay people.

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.

I can honestly say that's the stupidest reason to vote against anything ever.

What makes it really dumb is that in trying to show how "cool" you are and that you don't follow the crowd, you are basing your position entirely off what the crowd are in fact doing.

The only you can actually show people you think for yourself is if you engage your brain and actually think about the issue yourself.

OldNotWIse

kunst nugget wrote: »

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 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 about gay people.

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.

Same thing here. I thought the Yes would be a no-brainer. Last Sunday one of our God bothering neighbours took it upon herself to drop into our house with some anti-equality propaganda urging people not to undermine the sanctity of marriage and other such nonsense. I out her back in her box quick enough but I was in shock that people like her are still beating around the place. What right has she to sit in judgment of how others live their lives. When I confronted her about it, she tried to back-peddle and tell me they were articles of interest that I might find a use for in my studies. Bullshít. Told her I wasn't interested in her anti-equality propaganda and not to darken our door again.

galljga1

indy_man wrote: »

I advise you listen to Francis.

I agree completely with his point:

Women should have more of a voice in the church and society and their voice should have weight and authority.

Now, vote yes.

OldNotWIse

seamus wrote: »

Go on and tell us how you're going to shoehorn positive law into this discussion.

/gets popcorn

At least it's not Natural Law :pac:

kylith

kunst nugget wrote: »

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.

floggg wrote: »

I can honestly say that's the stupidest reason to vote against anything ever.

What makes it really dumb is that in trying to show how "cool" you are and that you don't follow the crowd, you are basing your position entirely off what the crowd are in fact doing.

The only you can actually show people you think for yourself is if you engage your brain and actually think about the issue yourself.

Anyone who would actually do this would want to consider how they would feel if they heard people say this in relation to the next referendum that affects them. Petty, childish behaviour. Just admit you're a dickhead and at least be honest about it.

One eyed Jack

constance tench wrote: »

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

Mark Twain

constance tench wrote: »

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

floggg wrote: »

What relevance has it to your comments?

Perhaps it would be best if you explained what ever point you were trying to make and then we can discuss.

I read constance's comment completely differently tbh. It's vague when it's just plonked there like that with no context, but essentially I read it a couple of different ways -

The majority in society are heterosexual, and we should be mindful of the minority who aren't, and in order for everyone in society to be treated equally, we should change the laws that discriminate against people, and give everyone equal opportunity to participate in society.

The other way I took it is that the YES campaign is in the majority, or at least it appears that way, and that's causing complacency among people, a "group think" if you like, that has people only voting yes because everyone else around them is voting yes, but that's not people actually thinking about what they're voting yes FOR. They shouldn't be voting yes just to jump on the latest social media bandwagon, they should be voting yes because this is people we're talking about and it is because we should be treating people equallly in society, not just because "equality" is a trendy buzzword. It should actually mean something.

kylith

galljga1 wrote: »

I agree completely with his point:

Women should have more of a voice in the church and society and their voice should have weight and authority.

Now, vote yes.

So he's going to allow women to be ordained then? Of course he's not. Frankie talks the talk but when it comes to walking the walk he's the same as the rest of them. When he talks about women having more of a voice in the church he means in regard to flower arrangements on the alter and such like, not on any actual topics that would matter, and certainly not to be anywhere near equal to men.

arayess

floggg wrote: »

I can honestly say that's the stupidest reason to vote against anything ever.

What makes it really dumb is that in trying to show how "cool" you are and that you don't follow the crowd, you are basing your position entirely off what the crowd are in fact doing.

The only you can actually show people you think for yourself is if you engage your brain and actually think about the issue yourself.

I find the yes side tiresome with their smugness and the over whelming drive to be as pro SSM as possible on social media. I can just imagine some people fuming cos they're meme for SSM got less likes than their equally worthy pals.

A fella like david quinn cannot speak without vitrol being splashed all over social media against him. Not just "i dislike what he says" but real hateful stuff.

The same people doing this would cry foul if some 3rd world dictator jailed some playright for speaking their mind - most lack the self awareness not to see the contradiction.

But it won't change my vote , it's just painful to witness.

Finally Equality for all - they say.
Lets see the same equality mob row in behind fathers rights, protection for men in family court and getting men a share of the children's allowance.
I'll bet we'll see silence.
Equality when it is fashionable - that's what I say. And that's my gripe.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Same thing here. I thought the Yes would be a no-brainer. Last Sunday one of our God bothering neighbours took it upon herself to drop into our house with some anti-equality propaganda urging people not to undermine the sanctity of marriage and other such nonsense. I out her back in her box quick enough but I was in shock that people like her are still beating around the place. What right has she to sit in judgment of how others live their lives. When I confronted her about it, she tried to back-peddle and tell me they were articles of interest that I might find a use for in my studies. Bullshít. Told her I wasn't interested in her anti-equality propaganda and not to darken our door again.

yet you judged her....:pac:

Ghost Buster

Hyzepher wrote: »

To the No voters

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

They wouldn't. The children issue is a smoke screen. They are against De Gays cos they find it icky.

OldNotWIse

arayess wrote: »

I find the yes side tiresome with their smugness and the over whelming drive to be as pro SSM as possible on social media. I can just imagine some people fuming cos they're meme for SSM got less likes than their equally worthy pals.

A fella like david quinn cannot speak without vitrol being splashed all over social media against him. Not just "i dislike what he says" but real hateful stuff.

The same people doing this would cry foul if some 3rd world dictator jailed some playright for speaking their mind - most lack the self awareness not to see the contradiction.

But it won't change my vote , it's just painful to witness.

Finally Equality for all - they say.
Lets see the same equality mob row in behind fathers rights, protection for men in family court and getting men a share of the children's allowance.
I'll bet we'll see silence.
Equality when it is fashionable - that's what I say. And that's my gripe.

yet you judged her....:pac:

You have an issue with people because they stand up for/make expressions in respect of what they believe in? That statement says more about you than it does about all the Yes supporters put together.

I do support father's rights, and I believe that the law's automatic favouritism of mothers is legally and morally and objectively flawed - imagine that...from a SSM supporting female. :P

The notion of equality as some kind of fashion commodity is silly. I will be voting Yes because I believe the law as it stands does not treat all citizens equally. That is all.

I did not judge her, I reacted to her attempt to tell me who I can and cannot marry. Disagreeing with someone is not the same as judging them you see

OldNotWIse

Ghost Buster wrote: »

They wouldn't. The children issue is a smoke screen. They are against De Gays cos they find it icky.

And you know, there is one sure fire way to make yourself feel better and that is... to keep others down...

One eyed Jack

arayess wrote: »

I find the yes side tiresome with their smugness and the over whelming drive to be as pro SSM as possible on social media. I can just imagine some people fuming cos they're meme for SSM got less likes than their equally worthy pals.

A fella like david quinn cannot speak without vitrol being splashed all over social media against him. Not just "i dislike what he says" but real hateful stuff.

The same people doing this would cry foul if some 3rd world dictator jailed some playright for speaking their mind - most lack the self awareness not to see the contradiction.

But it won't change my vote , it's just painful to witness.

Finally Equality for all - they say.
Lets see the same equality mob row in behind fathers rights, protection for men in family court and getting men a share of the children's allowance.
I'll bet we'll see silence.
Equality when it is fashionable - that's what I say. And that's my gripe.

I think it's just the difference between middle aged conservative yes voters, and the more... enthusiastic (for want of a better word

) younger more liberal yes voters - we're all voting yes for the same reason, equality, but our motivations and our methods are different, and that's why some of yes voters are a pain in the... and some yes voters are a bit more moderate in their support.

yet you judged her....:pac:

I don't think that's a fair comment. If people are putting themselves out there to be judged, then it should come as no surprise that they will be judged. OldNotWise didn't go knocking on that woman's door - it was the other way around. It's the same with David Quinn on social media - nobody goes after DQ until he starts posting crap where he knows it's open to a wide audience.

I'm thinking the same of the YD "hack" tbh - they knew the media would pick up on and publish a story like that, so even though they say they're not directly involved in the campaign, they're still using it to get attention for themselves.

Some of the stuff I read over last night on social media is embarrassing tbh, but it's not surprising, and I think both sides are pulling all sorts of stunts to draw attention to themselves. The YES campaign can't moderate every individual's comments, and some of them are downright nasty and unnecessary, and these people are doing the YES campaign no favours, but on the no side - well, they're just downright pitiful anyway, and I'm surprised by anyone having any sympathy for them. They shouldn't expect any in the first place.

orubiru

arayess wrote: »

I find the yes side tiresome with their smugness and the over whelming drive to be as pro SSM as possible on social media. I can just imagine some people fuming cos they're meme for SSM got less likes than their equally worthy pals.

A fella like david quinn cannot speak without vitrol being splashed all over social media against him. Not just "i dislike what he says" but real hateful stuff.

The same people doing this would cry foul if some 3rd world dictator jailed some playright for speaking their mind - most lack the self awareness not to see the contradiction.

But it won't change my vote , it's just painful to witness.

Finally Equality for all - they say.
Lets see the same equality mob row in behind fathers rights, protection for men in family court and getting men a share of the children's allowance.
I'll bet we'll see silence.
Equality when it is fashionable - that's what I say. And that's my gripe.

Utter nonsense.

So people shouldn't stand up for the rights of others because you find it tiresome?

People can be VERY annoying on social media but so what? If the cause they are supporting is just then surely they can promote it their way and you can promote it yours?

People are annoying. It's a fact of life. You just gotta deal with it.

So what if they are silent on fathers rights or some other subject? You expect someone who supports equality for one group to automatically fight on all fronts for all groups? That's dumb.

If you want to see fathers get more equal rights them campaign for it yourself. People are allowed to support or oppose anything they like, whenever they like, however they like. They should not be immune to criticism though but your criticism is not valid here.

You can't seriously think "well, you campaign for gay rights but you won't campaign for fathers rights so you are a walking contradiction"?

Some people support one cause but not another? So what? If you care about Cause A but everyone is off campaigning for Causes B, C, D etc then why don't you try to recruit them? Try to get them to join your movement instead of whining because, although they want something to change and are off trying to make that happen, they don't want to do it on your terms.

arayess

OldNotWIse wrote: »

You have an issue with people because they stand up for/make expressions in respect of what they believe in? That statement says more about you than it does about all the Yes supporters put together.

I do support father's rights, and I believe that the law's automatic favouritism of mothers is legally and morally and objectively flawed - imagine that...from a SSM supporting female. :P

The notion of equality as some kind of fashion commodity is silly. I will be voting Yes because I believe the law as it stands does not treat all citizens equally. That is all.

I did not judge her, I reacted to her attempt to tell me who I can and cannot marry. Disagreeing with someone is not the same as judging them you see

of course it say more about me - it's my opinion
but since i'm voting yes - I'm part of the yes supporters too so I don't understand who your point makes sense.

You are but one - when a campaign for fathers rights kicks off - let us see how socially cool it is on social media -
lets see if it has the same pazazzz in the media as david quinn versus Panti.
I doubt it - but I'll happily be wrong.

You missed the point on equality - we are being bombarded with campaigns of Equality for this referendum. people who are doubtful of voting yes are questioned "do you not believe in equality"

My point is clear. I am accusing a lot of the most vocal SSM crowd of not being truly champions of equality either. This campaign and the use of the word equality is a social media commodity for many.
I do like the how you wrote that btw..I'll steal that !

I'll happily be wrong but I know I'm not.

arayess

orubiru wrote: »

U.

So what if they are silent on fathers rights or some other subject? You expect someone who supports equality for one group to automatically fight on all fronts for all groups? That's dumb.

ah yes.
they campaign for equality for gay people then - not equality as a whole.
So why harass people and claim they are against equality if it's a singular issue of equality rather than equality in society.

pablomakaveli

I personally think people who say theyre voting No because the Yes side are smug are just using that excuse to hide the fact that theyre actually voting No because they are bigots. Its just a way of disguising their real reasons.

kunst nugget

arayess wrote: »

I find the yes side tiresome with their smugness and the over whelming drive to be as pro SSM as possible on social media. I can just imagine some people fuming cos they're meme for SSM got less likes than their equally worthy pals.

A fella like david quinn cannot speak without vitrol being splashed all over social media against him. Not just "i dislike what he says" but real hateful stuff.

The same people doing this would cry foul if some 3rd world dictator jailed some playright for speaking their mind - most lack the self awareness not to see the contradiction.

But it won't change my vote , it's just painful to witness.

Finally Equality for all - they say.
Lets see the same equality mob row in behind fathers rights, protection for men in family court and getting men a share of the children's allowance.
I'll bet we'll see silence.
Equality when it is fashionable - that's what I say. And that's my gripe.

Tbf, you're talking your perception (you can only guess at the motives of people) of what a minority of people are doing and extrapolating it to cover the majority of people voting Yes. I've linked articles about the marriage referendum - usually ones that clarify any of the issues being debated - and I've posted about my support for equality not for likes but because it's my genuinely held belief.

I've also posted several times about freedom of speech and how we have to allow views we don't agree with - something that seems to draw ire from people who believe freedom of speech should not cover the freedom to offend. My belief is if you suppress viewpoints or opinions, you give them way more power than if you allowed them to be aired in public and allow them to be pulled apart and debated honestly and openly. I might not like the views of David Quinn but he deserves to have a platform just the same as everyone else. I should also have the freedom to call him an arsehole if I so choose (it's not something I bother doing all that much).

I absolutely loathe Twitter mobs jumping on a person for their failings or the views that they hold, the online persecution of the likes of Justine Succo makes me despair of people, but I do think it's a tad different to your example of a third world dictator jailing a playwright. That is state sponsored censorship and suppression.

I've always being in favour of a more balanced view of father's rights in the courts and the fact that the children's allowance is automatically given only to the mother is archaic in this day and age. I agree with everything you say there. I'm unsure why you think people can't be in favour of gay marriage and father's rights.

orubiru

arayess wrote: »

You are but one - when a campaign for fathers rights kicks off - let us see how socially cool it is on social media -
lets see if it has the same pazazzz in the media as david quinn versus Panti.
I doubt it - but I'll happily be wrong.

Then make it cool. Do something instead of complaining.

Making something "socially cool" is a great way to get support and to get stuff done.

You can't expect people to support you "just because". They have their own lives and their own responsibilities and priorities. You have to go after them and capture their hearts and minds and imaginations.

It's not enough to say "You care about A but you don't care about B? Are you some kind of hypocrite?". That's not how this has ever worked.

arayess

kunst nugget wrote: »

I'm unsure why you think people can't be in favour of gay marriage and father's rights.

I don't , to be fair , apologies if you mis understood me.
I'm only saying that the "equality brigade" for SSM arent as interested in real equality as they let on.

The rest of your post is fair enough.

One eyed Jack

arayess wrote: »

ah yes.
they campaign for equality for gay people then - not equality as a whole.
So why harass people and claim they are against equality if it's a singular issue of equality rather than equality in society.

Ahh here, you're missing the point completely. I understand where you're coming from, but if we were to try and wedge in all the areas where inequalities exist in society, we wouldn't get anywhere with any equality. Right now, marriage equality for people who are LGBT is what we are talking about here, and other issues of equality are just that - completely separate issues. Bringing them into this campaign is simply misleading people and distracting them from the issue we are voting on in this referendum and I think it's both unfair and unnecessary to try and muddy the waters like that.

People care about lots of other stuff, but none of that bears any relation to what we're being asked to support in this referendum.

a postere

There's lots of equality issues to be sorted out in Ireland, equality is a two way street.

Going Strong

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I personally think people who say theyre voting No because the Yes side are smug are just using that excuse to hide the fact that theyre actually voting No because they are bigots. Its just a way of disguising their real reasons.

I think it's more posturing from those who won't be voting anyway as they don't see SSM as having any relevance to themselves. That way they can annoy the Yes side and get the No side's hopes up and all for no great effort expended. Win-win.

kunst nugget

arayess wrote: »

I don't , to be fair , apologies if you mis understood me.
I'm only saying that the "equality brigade" for SSM arent as interested in real equality as they let on.

The rest of your post is fair enough.

Tbf, the issue of father's rights is never going to be as high profile because it's not something that is going to need a referendum to sort it out. It's something that will end up being chipped away at in an incremental way through legislation. Something like that is hard to get a groundswell of support behind imo.

a postere

I've found from living in NI that people who like to throw the word bigot around are some of the most bigoted people there are.

orubiru

arayess wrote: »

ah yes.
they campaign for equality for gay people then - not equality as a whole.
So why harass people and claim they are against equality if it's a singular issue of equality rather than equality in society.

Maybe because this issue is about equality and voting "No" is quite clearly a vote against equality.

If I can sit here and say "I am looking forward to marrying my girlfriend, that's gonna be a great day, but I think I'll vote 'No' because I don't think that my brother should be allowed marry his boyfriend" then I am pretty much against equality.

I would be denying them a right that I have, and for no reason other than they have a different sexual preference. I am opposing equality.

There will always be inequality in society. Just because someone picks their battles doesn't mean you couldn't convince them to join your battle. It just means that they don't have time or resources to fight EVERY battle.

a postere

Where's Pantibliss these days when you need him, he seems to have been hidden away from the media ?

kylith

arayess wrote: »

I don't , to be fair , apologies if you mis understood me.
I'm only saying that the "equality brigade" for SSM arent as interested in real equality as they let on.

I disagree with you there. I'm one of the 'equality brigade' for SSM and I would also support rights for single fathers (and men's DV services, and paternal leave, etc, etc) and I would warrant that the majority of people on the Yes side for SSM would be the same. But as already said; this thread and referendum aren't about father's rights so of course we're not going to be discussing it.

It's like going into a thread on the car forum and complaining that they're not talking about horses. They're simply separate issues. You start campaigning for father's rights and I'll be right behind you. I'll sign the petition and stick the banner on FB, no problem.

mailforkev

Nobody that actually believes in equality will vote No just to stick it to the Yes campaign. Anyone that claims that was always voting No anyway but doesn't really want to admit it.

And the reason David Quinn et al get so much vitriol sent their way is due to their shameful and blatant dishonesty and opportunism. They will muddy any waters that they can with unrelated claptrap and pretend statistics.

I also don't even reckon Quinn actually believes half of what he says. He gets paid to peddle his nonsense so will just happily do what the secret donors want him to.