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…1819212324…34

Comments

  • #602
    a postere
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 194 ✭✭a postere


    sup_dude wrote: »
    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.

    Why do you not believe the poll figures ? ;)


  • #603
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,705 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    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


    Would you prefer if people were grateful to you for denying them the equal protection of the State or something?

    Honestly. It simply beggars belief that you aren't willing to understand why people are angry and why people are frustrated. You're calling for tolerance for yourself, while proclaiming that you should somehow be entitled to a free pass for being intolerant of other people.

    Seriously fran, practice what you preach, and you'll find that people treat you with respect when you treat them with respect. If you don't treat other people with respect, then you shouldn't be surprised and your words about tolerance ring hollow when you're not willing to practice what you preach.


  • #604
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    arayess wrote: »
    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.

    You're right - you're position is bizarre.

    It's a little rich of you to criticise the yes Campaign for not getting involved in fathers rights if you haven't.

    By your logic, does that mean you are also not interested in equality?

    And excuse me if I don't get too animated about vague references to stupid people saying stupid things on Twitter. Isn't that the whole point of Twitter?


  • #605
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    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.

    I think the many single parent, same sex, non-marital and blended household all over the country redefined family long ago.

    Do you not think they are just as much a family's as a marital family?


  • #606
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    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

    You don't engage anymore? Really? On that note, where's your complaints about the No side calling homosexuals paedophiles, lesser citizens and so on?


  • Advertisement
  • #607
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    a postere wrote: »
    Why do you not believe the poll figures ? ;)

    Because there's a difference between a poll and people actually going out to vote. Always has been.


  • #608
    Hammer Archer
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 11,593 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hammer Archer


    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
    Masterclass in irony is this post.

    If you actually want to debate, how about you answer seamus' post above, or oldrnwisr's many posts, or the countless others well reasoned posts directed for your attention?
    You won't do so though. Like almost every No voter, you would much rather ignore them, spout the same lies over and over again, and then scream to high heaven about being "silenced".


  • #609
    a postere
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 194 ✭✭a postere


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Because there's a difference between a poll and people actually going out to vote. Always has been.

    Far from "always has been ", not if the polls are accurate in the first place.
    A great many polls have been absolutely spot on over the years.


  • #610
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    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"....

    Never mind Panti - care to comment on your own flagrant flaunting of the 8th Commandment which is a central to the Faith you claim to espouse?


  • #611
    a postere
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 194 ✭✭a postere


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Never mind Panti

    ? Now there's a turn up for the books ? I thought Pantibliss would be front and center ?
    Why has he been hidden away / silenced ? and by whom ?


  • Advertisement
  • #612
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Would you prefer if people were grateful to you for denying them the equal protection of the State or something?

    Honestly. It simply beggars belief that you aren't willing to understand why people are angry and why people are frustrated. You're calling for tolerance for yourself, while proclaiming that you should somehow be entitled to a free pass for being intolerant of other people.

    Seriously fran, practice what you preach, and you'll find that people treat you with respect when you treat them with respect. If you don't treat other people with respect, then you shouldn't be surprised and your words about tolerance ring hollow when you're not willing to practice what you preach.

    I do practice what I preach,thank you very much.Nobody cares anymore about two men getting married,thats what civil partnership created.You seem to be one of the very few logical people here.Regarding the constitutions definition on marriage being what the family is founded on,Would you be perfectly happy to see a two male family bringing up a young girl? honestly.


  • #613
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    fran17 wrote: »
    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.

    Then it should be quite simple for your explain to me what this right is, how it is to be vindicated and how the ability of single people adopt is compatible with this right.

    A smug and condescending attitude doesn't really have the desired effect if you can't even articulate what it is your claiming as a fact.


  • #614
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    a postere wrote: »
    Far from "always has been ", not if the polls are accurate in the first place.
    A great many polls have been absolutely spot on over the years.

    Maybe, but the truth of the matter is, if the referendum is going to fail then it will be because of a lack of voters. If those who don't really mind either way don't think they're needed, they most likely won't vote.


  • #615
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    fran17 wrote: »
    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.

    I trust you can prove that highlighted bit baring in mine this :

    You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. It was said to the men of old, "You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn."
    Catechism of the Catholic Church - The eighth commandment
    www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a8.htm

    'False witness' = 'lying' by the way.
    You're welcome.


  • #616
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    fran17 wrote: »
    I do practice what I preach,thank you very much.Nobody cares anymore about two men getting married,thats what civil partnership created.You seem to be one of the very few logical people here.Regarding the constitutions definition on marriage being what the family is founded on,Would you be perfectly happy to see a two male family bringing up a young girl? honestly.

    American Academy of Pediatrics
    American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
    American Psychiatric Association
    American Psychological Association
    American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy
    American Psychoanalytic Association
    National Association of Social Workers
    Child Welfare League of America
    North American Council on Adoptable Children
    Canadian Psychological Association
    Australian Psychological Society
    ISPCC

    Are all ok with it, you should inform them of what you know. All their information must be wrong. What will we do about the young girls who are being raised by 2 men that you wish to deny her a family?


  • #617
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    a postere wrote: »
    ? Now there's a turn up for the books ? I thought Pantibliss would be front and center ?
    Why has he been hidden away / silenced ? and by whom ?

    Hello new poster.

    There is a handy device called 'google' - if you use it to search Panti Bliss or Rory O'Neill you will find your question answered.

    Failing that perhaps you would like to visit the Conspiracy Theories forum and ask them to comment on the silencing of a person who was featured in an article in The Guardian just a few days ago.


  • #618
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    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.
    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    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.
    sup_dude wrote: »
    You don't engage anymore? Really? On that note, where's your complaints about the No side calling homosexuals paedophiles, lesser citizens and so on?
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Never mind Panti - care to comment on your own flagrant flaunting of the 8th Commandment which is a central to the Faith you claim to espouse?

    I see the message has been sent and the playbook is open.Cue the fallacies,red herrings and abuse :rolleyes:


  • #619
    a postere
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 194 ✭✭a postere


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Hello new poster.

    There is a handy device called 'google' - if you use it to search Panti Bliss or Rory O'Neill you will find your question answered.

    Failing that perhaps you would like to visit the Conspiracy Theories forum and ask them to comment on the silencing of a person who was featured in an article in The Guardian just a few days ago.

    Why's he not allowed on Irish media though ?


  • #620
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    fran17 wrote: »
    I see the message has been sent and the playbook is open.Cue the fallacies,red herrings and abuse :rolleyes:

    Prove me wrong by explaining this then. Without fallacies, red herrings or abuse ;)
    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    American Academy of Pediatrics
    American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
    American Psychiatric Association
    American Psychological Association
    American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy
    American Psychoanalytic Association
    National Association of Social Workers
    Child Welfare League of America
    North American Council on Adoptable Children
    Canadian Psychological Association
    Australian Psychological Society
    ISPCC

    Are all ok with it, you should inform them of what you know. All their information must be wrong. What will we do about the young girls who are being raised by 2 men that you wish to deny her a family?

    The EU court of human rights said same sex couples have the right to adopt children. Why do you wish to take away peoples rights fran?


  • #621
    omnithanos
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 710 ✭✭✭omnithanos


    My parents will be voting no because they follow the teaching of the church.
    How should a tolerant practicing catholic who believes in equality vote?


  • Advertisement
  • #622
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    fran17 wrote: »
    I see the message has been sent and the playbook is open.Cue the fallacies,red herrings and abuse :rolleyes:

    oh dear... I don't think St Peter is going to accept a rolleyes defence tbh.


  • #623
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    fran17 wrote: »
    I see the message has been sent and the playbook is open.Cue the fallacies,red herrings and abuse :rolleyes:

    Mind answering the questions in the posts you quoted? Or is me asking abuse?


  • #624
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    a postere wrote: »
    ? Now there's a turn up for the books ? I thought Pantibliss would be front and center ?
    Why has he been hidden away / silenced ? and by whom ?

    Panti has been sent away for reneducation.I doubt he'll return before the 22nd.


  • #625
    stmol32
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 718 ✭✭✭stmol32


    "You see people often say, ‘this is like giving the right of a black person to marry a white person because, in certain American states and in South Africa inter-racial marriage is banned and they try to compare this to that, or they try to say it’s like the American south where they had segregation or South Africa where they had apartheid but when blacks were given equal rights, nobody else’s rights were affected. So it was completely fair and acceptable and defensible.

    There was nobody…when a black person could sit anywhere they liked on a bus or use any drink fountain or go to any school or get married to whom they liked, nobody else’s rights were affected – least of all the rights of children."

    Actually he's completely wrong about this.
    Once black people didn't have to move to the back it affected white peoples right to effectively reserved seating on all public transport i.e. they might have to stand where they wouldn't have before.

    Unlike marriage equality, where nobody else's marriage is affected.

    Unless he means there won't be as many reception venues available to different sex couples?
    But then that situation already exists with civil union which, as we all know now, Iona never had a problem with at all.


  • #626
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,945 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    fran17 wrote: »
    Panti has been sent away for reneducation.I doubt he'll return before the 22nd.

    how about answering some of the direct questions you have been asked?


  • #627
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    a postere wrote: »
    Why's he not allowed on Irish media though ?

    because they are homophobes?

    :pac:


  • #628
    a postere
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 194 ✭✭a postere


    omnithanos wrote: »
    My parents will be voting no because they follow the teaching of the church.
    How should a tolerant practicing catholic who believes in equality vote?

    Depends how they want to live afterwards. Don't stick your neck out for your beliefs, and exercise your right to vote whatever way you want, if you want to live free from future harassment seems to be the 'social' message being pushed. What they are not being told is no matter what way they vote, they will not escape same.


  • #629
    a postere
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 194 ✭✭a postere


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    because they are homophobes?

    :pac:

    Must be, poor Pantibliss and he used to be so popular with the Irish media.


  • #630
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    fran17 wrote: »
    I do practice what I preach,thank you very much.Nobody cares anymore about two men getting married,thats what civil partnership created.You seem to be one of the very few logical people here.Regarding the constitutions definition on marriage being what the family is founded on,Would you be perfectly happy to see a two male family bringing up a young girl? honestly.

    That really is a loads of codswallop.

    You know full well that CP isn't marriage, as evidenced by your reference to constitutonal marriage and your desire to exclude same sex couples from it.

    Also, newsflash Fran. Not only are there male couples bringing up girls (both in Ireland and abroad), together with their children they do indeed form families.

    You know full well by now that the referendum result won't change that - only how that couples relationship will be seen as a matter of law.

    You also known well by now that the issue of children has already been dealt with in separate legislation.

    So the referendum won't have any bearing whatsoever on whether two men might raise a child - it will only affect how you get to label and describe the resulting family (and it is a family as much as you might wish otherwise) and use those labels to stigmatise.


  • Advertisement
  • #631
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    stmol32 wrote: »
    "You see people often say, ‘this is like giving the right of a black person to marry a white person because, in certain American states and in South Africa inter-racial marriage is banned and they try to compare this to that, or they try to say it’s like the American south where they had segregation or South Africa where they had apartheid but when blacks were given equal rights, nobody else’s rights were affected. So it was completely fair and acceptable and defensible.

    There was nobody…when a black person could sit anywhere they liked on a bus or use any drink fountain or go to any school or get married to whom they liked, nobody else’s rights were affected – least of all the rights of children."

    Actually he's completely wrong about this.
    Once black people didn't have to move to the back it affected white peoples right to effectively reserved seating on all public transport i.e. they might have to stand where they wouldn't have before.

    Unlike marriage equality, where nobody else's marriage is affected.

    Unless he means there won't be as many reception venues available to different sex couples?
    But then that situation already exists with civil union which, as we all know now, Iona never had a problem with at all.

    Actually when civil partnerships were brought in Iona and friends were against it and complained about how it was damaging to marriage or some other nonsense. They have only recently started claiming they were all for it.


Advertisement