Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

mailforkev · 17-04-2015 11:13AM

a postere wrote: »

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.

Likewise people who call themselves Christian tend to be the least Christian.

OldNotWIse · 17-04-2015 11:19AM

arayess wrote: »

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.

Just because you are voting yes doesn't mean I will automatically agree with everything you say. You come out and make sweeping statements about all of the yes campaigners based on your sliver of exposure to them through your social media escapades. Bald assertions with little basis.

Again with the "fashionable" statement - I think anybody who votes "fashionably" should rethink whether or not they should even be exercising such a precious democratic right.

I am not really sure why you insist on having an issue with the word "equality". Is it a dirty word or something? What word would you suggest we use to describe denying a right to one cross section of society and affording it to another?

a postere · 17-04-2015 11:19AM

mailforkev wrote: »

Likewise people who call themselves Christian tend to be the least Christian.

Who mentioned Christian ?

fran17 · 17-04-2015 11:22AM

a postere wrote: »

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

That's a very good point.Where is the poster child for the whole campaign?

Muir · 17-04-2015 11:23AM

This morning I was talking to my mam and someone was on the radio talking about how they believe a child should have a mother and a father etc. and that it was bad for a child not to have this. She believed that that was what the referendum was about - that it was on the right of gay people to have/adopt children. I managed to explain it to her but it's sad to think that people vote on things like this while not understanding what it's actually about. Regardless of if my mam or anyone else wants to vote yes or no, I'd hope that they at least know what they're voting on.

floggg · 17-04-2015 11:24AM

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:

That's a lot of words but little substance.

You seem to be assuming motivations or thought processes on behalf of a lot of people here.

I imagine most people intend to vote yes because they see it as the right thing to do. Much like most people aren't racist pricks because they see it as the right way to live.

Memes have little do with it.

You also assume that people's criticism of David Quinn is because they don't want him to be allowed speak. For many of us we would vehemently defend his right to speak.

The problem for DQ is that when he does, we learn that he is a man of little characthers or integrity who knowingly and wilfully deceives, misleads and insults and whose messages and policies are hollow empty rhetoric which doesn't stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever.

You also seem to be completely ignorant of what free speech actually means. Nobody is suppressing his right to speak - they are just using their own right to free speak to refute his lies and show him up for the devious cretin he is.

You also seem to be making assumptions on people views on a range of other issues to. While I'm fully supportive of fathers rights, I'm sure given it is a completely different issue to marriage equality that various people will have different stances. Shock horror.

But instead of complaining that we don't campaign about these issues which may not affect us as directly as marriage equality (I am not a father, have no plans to become one and none of my friends or family are divorced or a single father to my knowledge), why not get up of your arse and organise something for us to get behind.

It took a long hard slog to get the people and politicians of Ireland to embrace marriage equality, but I'm sure there's lessons to be learned for other rights groups from how this campaign is being ran. And I'm sure there are lots of single parents already involved in the marriage equality campaign who would also wish to work on a fathers rights campaign.

But I suspect you really aren't concerned with that issue at all - you just wanted to make a bizarre and baseless attack on Yea campaign supporters and try and paint them as hypocrites.

Unfortunately you have done a terrible job at it, because not only are you arguing about an entirely different issue, you've also completely assumed your basis of criticism.

OldNotWIse · 17-04-2015 11:30AM

Muir wrote: »

This morning I was talking to my mam and someone was on the radio talking about how they believe a child should have a mother and a father etc. and that it was bad for a child not to have this. She believed that that was what the referendum was about - that it was on the right of gay people to have/adopt children. I managed to explain it to her but it's sad to think that people vote on things like this while not understanding what it's actually about. Regardless of if my mam or anyone else wants to vote yes or no, I'd hope that they at least know what they're voting on.

Not only sad, I find it frightening that there are so many people who are going to vote when they don't actually know what they are voting for.

One eyed Jack · 17-04-2015 11:34AM

a postere wrote: »

Who mentioned Christian ?

Some people opposed to marriage equality who identify as Christian are opposed to civil marriage equality and justifying their position using religion.

The fact is that this referendum has nothing to do with religion, and they know it has nothing to do with religion, it is a civil matter. But that still doesn't stop them fuelling the perception among people that all religious people are anything like David Quinn. It's unfortunate that he identifies as Christian, because his behaviour and his attitude is anything but Christian.

It's the same reason I said earlier that some people campaigning for civil marriage equality are doing the campaign no favours, but I'm not going to judge all people who campaign for marriage equality by that standard. The vast, vast majority of people who support marriage equality aren't spiteful and bitter and aren't blinded by their own hatred and insecurity.

5starpool · 17-04-2015 11:45AM

Muir wrote: »

This morning I was talking to my mam and someone was on the radio talking about how they believe a child should have a mother and a father etc. and that it was bad for a child not to have this. She believed that that was what the referendum was about - that it was on the right of gay people to have/adopt children. I managed to explain it to her but it's sad to think that people vote on things like this while not understanding what it's actually about. Regardless of if my mam or anyone else wants to vote yes or no, I'd hope that they at least know what they're voting on.

Obfuscation and talking about things the referendum are clearly not about are the tools the No side are using to persuade the older more conservative voter who would not necessarily be against what the referendum is actually about to vote No. Pretending it's about children is the only tool they have to try and persuade people without resorting to the "it's not natural and god hates it" real line of their reasons.

arayess · 17-04-2015 11:45AM

floggg wrote: »

That's a lot of words but little substance.

You seem to be assuming motivations or thought processes on behalf of a lot of people here.

I imagine most people intend to vote yes because they see it as the right thing to do. Much like most people aren't racist pricks because they see it as the right way to live.

Memes have little do with it.

You also assume that people's criticism of David Quinn is because they don't want him to be allowed speak. For many of us we would vehemently defend his right to speak.

The problem for DQ is that when he does, we learn that he is a man of little characthers or integrity who knowingly and wilfully deceives, misleads and insults and whose messages and policies are hollow empty rhetoric which doesn't stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever.

You also seem to be completely ignorant of what free speech actually means. Nobody is suppressing his right to speak - they are just using their own right to free speak to refute his lies and show him up for the devious cretin he is.

You also seem to be making assumptions on people views on a range of other issues to. While I'm fully supportive of fathers rights, I'm sure given it is a completely different issue to marriage equality that various people will have different stances. Shock horror.

But instead of complaining that we don't campaign about these issues which may not affect us as directly as marriage equality (I am not a father, have no plans to become one and none of my friends or family are divorced or a single father to my knowledge), why not get up of your arse and organise something for us to get behind.

It took a long hard slog to get the people and politicians of Ireland to embrace marriage equality, but I'm sure there's lessons to be learned for other rights groups from how this campaign is being ran. And I'm sure there are lots of single parents already involved in the marriage equality campaign who would also wish to work on a fathers rights campaign.

But I suspect you really aren't concerned with that issue at all - you just wanted to make a bizarre and baseless attack on Yea campaign supporters and try and paint them as hypocrites.

Unfortunately you have done a terrible job at it, because not only are you arguing about an entirely different issue, you've also completely assumed your basis of criticism.

If you say so....
There is a lot in your post that I disagree with but I'm working and to do it justice in a reply would take a while.

a few quick points

I used fathers rights as an example only. But yes it would concern me. I never got involved cos the forthcoming bill looked promising but I believe it's going to be a watered down flop now. I may well do get involved.

and

my understanding of free speech is perfectly fine.
DQ gets critics but he also gets a lot people on social media who want him shut down. You won't have to look hard to see that.

finally - yes i want to attack the yes campaign despite deciding to vote yes. That's ****ing bizarre stuff dude, it's fairly clear I meant some people not all people.

Sorry I can't debate further - I've work to do.

a postere · 17-04-2015 11:45AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Some people opposed to marriage equality who identify as Christian are opposed to civil marriage equality and justifying their position using religion.

The fact is that this referendum has nothing to do with religion, and they know it has nothing to do with religion, it is a civil matter. But that still doesn't stop them fuelling the perception among people that all religious people are anything like David Quinn. It's unfortunate that he identifies as Christian, because his behaviour and his attitude is anything but Christian.

It's the same reason I said earlier that some people campaigning for civil marriage equality are doing the campaign no favours, but I'm not going to judge all people who campaign for marriage equality by that standard. The vast, vast majority of people who support marriage equality aren't spiteful and bitter and aren't blinded by their own hatred and insecurity.

So why are you bringing religion into this ?

fran17 · 17-04-2015 11:50AM

Muir wrote: »

This morning I was talking to my mam and someone was on the radio talking about how they believe a child should have a mother and a father etc. and that it was bad for a child not to have this. She believed that that was what the referendum was about - that it was on the right of gay people to have/adopt children. I managed to explain it to her but it's sad to think that people vote on things like this while not understanding what it's actually about. Regardless of if my mam or anyone else wants to vote yes or no, I'd hope that they at least know what they're voting on.

But do you not see the link between both?
Article 41 3.1 of the constitution 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"

Article 41 1.1 says:

"The state recognises the FAMILY as the natural primary and fundamental UNIT GROUP of society"

This referendum wants to redefine marriage to be without distinction as to one's sex thus your redefining the family unit.Your redefining the family unit because the constitution clearly states that its founded on marriage.The family is the fundamental unit group of society so its logical to conclude that this family units purpose is to reproduce and provide the future generation of this country.This family unit if which will provide this country with its next generation,is as the constitution states "indispensable to the welfare of the nation and the state". Your mother is completely correct in her view and I think,personally,that you should respect that.

ohnonotgmail · 17-04-2015 11:52AM

fran17 wrote: »

But do you not see the link between both?
Article 41 3.1 of the constitution 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"

Article 41 1.1 says:

"The state recognises the FAMILY as the natural primary and fundamental UNIT GROUP of society"

This referendum wants to redefine marriage to be without distinction as to one's sex thus your redefining the family unit.Your redefining the family unit because the constitution clearly states that its founded on marriage.The family is the fundamental unit group of society so its logical to conclude that this family units purpose is to reproduce and provide the future generation of this country.This family unit if which will provide this country with its next generation,is as the constitution states "indispensable to the welfare of the nation and the state". Your mother is completely correct in her view and I think,personally,that you should respect that.

nonsense.

Yeah_Right · 17-04-2015 11:53AM

fran17 wrote: »

But do you not see the link between both?
Article 41 3.1 of the constitution 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"

Article 41 1.1 says:

"The state recognises the FAMILY as the natural primary and fundamental UNIT GROUP of society"

This referendum wants to redefine marriage to be without distinction as to one's sex thus your redefining the family unit.Your redefining the family unit because the constitution clearly states that its founded on marriage.The family is the fundamental unit group of society so its logical to conclude that this family units purpose is to reproduce and provide the future generation of this country.This family unit if which will provide this country with its next generation,is as the constitution states "indispensable to the welfare of the nation and the state". Your mother is completely correct in her view and I think,personally,that you should respect that.

Question for you. A man and woman are in a long term, committed relationship. They live together, have a couple of kids but they never got married. Are they a family?

fran17 · 17-04-2015 11:54AM

Where is panti,Does anyone know?

Last time I read anything in reference to him he stated in an interview about this referendum:

"Whereas our civil partnerships here have a lot of weaknesses in comparison to marriage,especially to do with FAMILIES and CHILDREN,so were even more determined to push ahead"....

fran17 · 17-04-2015 11:55AM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

nonsense.

That's what the constitution states,its there in black and white.

ohnonotgmail · 17-04-2015 11:57AM

fran17 wrote: »

That's what the constitution states,its there in black and white.

i know what the Constitution says. it is your words around it that are nonsense.

kylith · 17-04-2015 11:59AM

fran17 wrote: »

But do you not see the link between both?
Article 41 3.1 of the constitution 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"

Article 41 1.1 says:

"The state recognises the FAMILY as the natural primary and fundamental UNIT GROUP of society"

This referendum wants to redefine marriage to be without distinction as to one's sex thus your redefining the family unit.Your redefining the family unit because the constitution clearly states that its founded on marriage.The family is the fundamental unit group of society so its logical to conclude that this family units purpose is to reproduce and provide the future generation of this country.This family unit if which will provide this country with its next generation,is as the constitution states "indispensable to the welfare of the nation and the state". Your mother is completely correct in her view and I think,personally,that you should respect that.

Nowhere does it define what a FAMIILY is. A FAMILY could be made up of a man and a woman and their kids, two men and their kids, two women and their kids. Without FAMILY being defined in the constitution it can't be redefined.

seamus · 17-04-2015 12:00PM

fran17 wrote: »

The family is the fundamental unit group of society so its logical to conclude that this family units purpose is to reproduce and provide the future generation of this country.

Except that your conclusion is wrong because it has been ruled in court to be wrong.

The constitution does not consider "Family" to refer to reproduction at all.

"Family" in the constitution does not explicitly include children. The constitution does not require nor assume that a "Family" has children.

You could just as easily conclude that as the fundamental unit of society, the purpose of the family is to provide unity and support within society by uniting familes to each other.

Expanding the definition of marriage does not by implication or necessity change the meaning of the word "Family" in the constitution. It will continue to refer to a married couple.

You can claim otherwise all you like, but you'd be wrong.

One eyed Jack · 17-04-2015 12:04PM

a postere wrote: »

So why are you bringing religion into this ?

You didn't even read my post, did you?

I've been trying to keep religion out of it to stop people in the yes campaign from being distracted and attacking religion instead of focussing on supporting civil marriage equality, because this issue is about a change in the constitution that will make a difference in the lives of people regardless of where they stand on religion. Religion has nothing to do with this referendum.

David Quinn and Iona and the some people within the Hierarchy of the Irish RCC are using religion as the basis of their arguments, all the while ignoring the fact that this is a civil matter, and will have no effect on religion.

Anyone using religion, and anyone attacking religion, are completely missing the point of the referendum. This referendum is about a change in civil law, and has no bearing on the laws, canons, tennets or otherwise of any religious denominations in this country.

This referendum is about giving everyone equal opportunity in society and will have no effect on anyone's religious beliefs. Roman Catholics can still be Roman Catholic, Muslims can still adhere to Islam, Quakers can still be Quakers, non-religious people can still be non-religious, Atheists can still be Atheist.

Exactly what it will mean is that everyone will have an equal opportunity to avail of the right to be recognised as a family, protected by the institution of civil marriage. If you choose not to avail of that right, that's completely your own business - nobody will force you to marry a person of the same sex. You don't even have to get married, completely your own business.

But on passing the referendum, at least as a citizen of this country, you will now have the opportunity to avail of that right, should you choose to do so.

ohnonotgmail · 17-04-2015 12:05PM

seamus wrote: »

Except that your conclusion is wrong because it has been ruled in court to be wrong.

The constitution does not consider "Family" to refer to reproduction at all.

"Family" in the constitution does not explicitly include children. The constitution does not require nor assume that a "Family" has children.

You could just as easily conclude that as the fundamental unit of society, the purpose of the family is to provide unity and support within society by uniting familes to each other.

Expanding the definition of marriage does not by implication or necessity change the meaning of the word "Family" in the constitution. It will continue to refer to a married couple.

You can claim otherwise all you like, but you'd be wrong.

or you could have just said "nonsense" like me. It saves you all that typing and is just as likely to make them change their mind.

floggg · 17-04-2015 12:06PM

fran17 wrote: »

That's a very good point.Where is the poster child for the whole campaign?

Where's the answer to my question about this apparent right to a mother and father.

[cue another disappearance from Fran for the next few hours while he pretends the questions were never asked]

Edit - also Panti had links up to about two or three different press pieces she's done over the past two weeks on Facebook (including with innate rational press). She's doing a terrible job at disappearing.

a postere · 17-04-2015 12:06PM

fran17 wrote: »

Where is panti,Does anyone know?

Last time I read anything in reference to him he stated in an interview about this referendum:

"Whereas our civil partnerships here have a lot of weaknesses in comparison to marriage,especially to do with FAMILIES and CHILDREN,so were even more determined to push ahead"....

Pantibliss has been hidden away in preparation for the afters party where he'll be bursting out of a giant pink cake surrounded by legions of BDSM clad supporters, and surrogate wombs, waving adoption application forms.

a postere · 17-04-2015 12:07PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You didn't even read my post, did you?

I've been trying to keep religion out of it to stop people in the yes campaign from being distracted and attacking religion instead of focussing on supporting civil marriage equality, because this issue is about a change in the constitution that will make a difference in the lives of people regardless of where they stand on religion. Religion has nothing to do with this referendum.

David Quinn and Iona and the some people within the Hierarchy of the Irish RCC are using religion as the basis of their arguments, all the while ignoring the fact that this is a civil matter, and will have no effect on religion.

Anyone using religion, and anyone attacking religion, are completely missing the point of the referendum. This referendum is about a change in civil law, and has no bearing on the laws, canons, tennets or otherwise of any religious denominations in this country.

This referendum is about giving everyone equal opportunity in society and will have no effect on anyone's religious beliefs. Roman Catholics can still be Roman Catholic, Muslims can still adhere to Islam, Quakers can still be Quakers, non-religious people can still be non-religious, Atheists can still be Atheist.

Exactly what it will mean is that everyone will have an equal opportunity to avail of the right to be recognised as a family, protected by the institution of civil marriage. If you choose not to avail of that right, that's completely your own business - nobody will force you to marry a person of the same sex. You don't even have to get married, completely your own business.

But on passing the referendum, at least as a citizen of this country, you will now have the opportunity to avail of that right, should you choose to do so.

and yet still on and on and on about religion . . . yawn

The Dark Side · 17-04-2015 12:07PM

Don't see why people are getting so agitated by this issue.

It's going to be a landslide victory for the 'Yes' side.

The State's progress towards secularism has been painfully slow but relentless nonetheless.

fran17 · 17-04-2015 12:07PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i know what the Constitution says. it is your words around it that are nonsense.

See this is precisely why nobody comes to this forum to debate any issue regarding homosexuality.There is a constant group,whatever the equivalent to the shinnerbots would be,who have there list of points and answers to issues which lead all debates into a cul de sac.I have spoken in private to quite a few who feel the exact same.Many don't because of the abuse they receive and others,like me,don't engage anymore because its pointless.
Just today people have been called:
Bigoted
Dumb
Homophobes
Stupid
God botherer
Dickheads

constance tench · 17-04-2015 12:12PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Ave Sodalis · 17-04-2015 12:15PM

The Dark Side wrote: »

Don't see why people are getting so agitated by this issue.

It's going to be a landslide victory for the 'Yes' side.

The State's progress towards secularism has been painfully slow but relentless nonetheless.

But it's this that's going to cause the referendum to fail. People assuming that it'll be a landslide are less likely to go vote. Would love if it was a landslide but I don't think it will be that easy.

shruikan2553 · 17-04-2015 12:16PM

fran17 wrote: »

See this is precisely why nobody comes to this forum to debate any issue regarding homosexuality.There is a constant group,whatever the equivalent to the shinnerbots would be,who have there list of points and answers to issues which lead all debates into a cul de sac.I have spoken in private to quite a few who feel the exact same.Many don't because of the abuse they receive and others,like me,don't engage anymore because its pointless.
Just today people have been called:
Bigoted
Dumb
Homophobes
Stupid
God botherer
Dickheads

The reason nobody debates with you is because it's pointless. You make claims, said claims are proven wrong or pointless. You then disappear for awhile before returning to spout the same crap.

fran17 · 17-04-2015 12:16PM

floggg wrote: »

Where's the answer to my question about this apparent right to a mother and father.

[cue another disappearance from Fran for the next few hours while he pretends the questions were never asked]

Edit - also Panti had links up to about two or three different press pieces she's done over the past two weeks on Facebook (including with innate rational press). She's doing a terrible job at disappearing.

Sure your legal brain,in conjunction with your sexuality,does not permit the computation of a right to a mam and dad in a childs life floggg.This is unfortunate but i'll tell you something,the overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland,and humanity,understand the meaning of this and its your flaw to correct.

Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

Comments