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…1920222425…34

Comments

  • #632
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,945 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    I'd say there's more chance of him marrying one of the IONA lads.


    no harm to keep asking. Perhaps we could organise shifts?


  • #633
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    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.

    Aye, Iona weren't into civil partnerships at all. They only favour civil partnerships now so that they don't have to give gays the marriage (shudder).

    http://www.ionainstitute.eu/index.php?id=425


  • #634
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


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

    You know if you actually engaged in the issue we wouldn't have any reason to call you out for ducking out of debate and ignoring contrary posts.

    I understand that's probably not as big an ego boost as pretending eveybody is out to get you because they are jealous of your intellect.


  • #635
    a postere
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 194 ✭✭a postere


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    I'd say there's more chance of him marrying one of the IONA lads.

    But still be a better chance than poor Pantibliss being allowed onto the Irish media at the minute.

    Surely it's time for a new "Ireland's call" ? It used to be on every 5 minutes . . .

    Maybe their holding out the big panties for the final push ? :D


  • #636
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,705 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    fran17 wrote: »
    I do practice what I preach,thank you very much.Nobody cares anymore about two men getting married


    Clearly that's not true, quite a few people care about two men getting married, which is why they are trying to oppose this referendum being passed.

    thats what civil partnership created.


    Seriously fran, it took me less than five seconds -

    http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/marriage/faqs.html


    Civil partnership is insufficient in many respects to civil marriage.

    You seem to be one of the very few logical people here.


    Don't spread that around, I have a reputation to maintain y'know :pac:

    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.


    One simply has nothing to do with the other though. How many times does that need to be explained to you?

    Two men bringing up a young girl is already a scenario covered by the Children and Family Relationships Bill.

    Two men who choose to get married, will be addressed in the upcoming Referendum on Marriage Equality.

    Would I be happy to see other people happy? Of course, and I'll do anything I can to see that those people are happy, and if the child is happy, and the child's parents are happy, then I'm happy.

    Your position is simply that you want to deny other people that happiness. Why would you want other people to suffer like that? Why would you not want to do everything in your power to try and offer any assistance you can to another human being who is unhappy?

    It's such a bloody simple principle fran that even a child can understand it, so why as a reasonable and mature adult, can you not understand that much?


  • Advertisement
  • #637
    stmol32
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 718 ✭✭✭stmol32


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    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.

    Sorry about that I was a bit vague.
    I know they've done a massive and hilariously transparent about-face on CP and hoped nobody would notice.


  • #638
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Lemme guess, Fran has disappeared now that he has to answer questions...


  • #639
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    One eyed Jack wrote: »


    It's such a bloody simple principle fran that even a child can understand it, so why as a reasonable and mature [/B{adult, can you not understand that much?

    Think you're going to need to provide some evidence to back that one up.


  • #640
    omnithanos
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 710 ✭✭✭omnithanos


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    If they follow the teachings as you say do they also foll...

    Actually no. Fuck it. Can't be bothered going into this one again.

    I'll take that as a yes then.


  • #641
    Muir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 948 ✭✭✭Muir


    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.

    Pretty much what everyone else responded to this, such as ohnonotgmail, kylith and seamus.

    I do respect my mothers views, but what she heard on the radio this morning was completely incorrect. She thought that the vote was on the right of gay people to adopt - it isn't. So she wasn't completely correct and realises this now. Not only does she realise this, but as a Catholic who goes to mass almost every day, she's actually likely going to vote yes because she doesn't see why a gay couple shouldn't be allowed a civil marriage that has nothing to do with the church.


  • Advertisement
  • #642
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    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.
    Why would two men be any worse than one man?
    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?
    In line with their conscience. It's how people should always vote.


  • #643
    stmol32
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 718 ✭✭✭stmol32


    Not going to quote any one in particular here but one of the arguments against seems to be :

    Letting homosexuals marry and adopt = re-defining what a family is.

    I'm a bit sick of arguing why this is patently untrue with people who say this but can't/won't explain why this is so.

    So from now on I'm just going to say it won't change the way a traditional family is because in all gay couples one is always a bit girly and one is always a bit butch.

    Checkmate Quinn - not logical or true but it uses your own worldview.


  • #644
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    fran17 wrote: »
    Cue the fallacies,red herrings and abuse :rolleyes:
    Respond to my post so.

    Point out the fallacies, red herrings and abuse.

    Once again, the evasion tactic comes into play. Pretend you're being subject to abuse and bullying to try and get out of answering questions. Straight out of the Christian playbook.


  • #645
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,705 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    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?


    Your parents are not voting for their own right to equal protection of their family provided by the State, they are voting on other people's right to equal protection of their family by the State. Therefore a yes vote will not actually conflict with the teaching of the church.

    How should a tolerant practicing catholic vote? Well I'm voting yes. I can't tell you or your parents how to vote, but at least now you have been informed that the right to civil marriage equality has no bearing on religion, I would hope that you and your parents would vote yes to giving every citizen and their families the equal protection of the State.


  • #646
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    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?

    I'm no longer a Catholic, but as a Christian who will be voting yes, I'd suggest that like everyone else, you read the arguments, examine your conscience, pray if you feel led to, and make up your own mind. Your vote belongs to you and no one else.


  • #647
    a postere
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 194 ✭✭a postere


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    I'm no longer a Catholic, but as a Christian who will be voting yes, I'd suggest that like everyone else, you read the arguments, examine your conscience, pray if you feel led to, and make up your own mind. Your vote belongs to you and no one else.

    Seems quite hypocritical, but I guess that's nothing new for some Christians. I thought the very essence of Christianity is believing in God's authority rather than their own.


  • #648
    ryand92
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1 ✭ryand92


    Marriage should definitely redefined in our constitution,our constitution is outdated in so many ways, Ireland needs to modernize and equal rights should be given to all people.


  • #649
    a postere
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 194 ✭✭a postere


    ryand92 wrote: »
    Marriage should definitely redefined in our constitution,our constitution is outdated in so many ways, Ireland needs to modernize and equal rights should be given to all people.

    All people, surely you mean just some people, or everyone could get married to everyone and everything.


  • #650
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,705 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    a postere wrote: »
    Seems quite hypocritical, but I guess that's nothing new for some Christians. I thought the very essence of Christianity is believing in God's authority rather than their own.


    What's your own position on the matter actually?

    Will you be voting in favour of giving every citizen in this country the equal protection of the State?

    I only ask because all you've done so far is nitpick at other people's opinions, without offering any opinion of your own. Would you like to actually discuss the issue, or are you happy just to continue to nitpick other people's opinions?


  • #651
    a postere
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 194 ✭✭a postere


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    What's your own position on the matter actually?

    Will you be voting in favour of giving every citizen in this country the equal protection of the State?

    I only ask because all you've done so far is nitpick at other people's opinions, without offering any opinion of your own. Would you like to actually discuss the issue, or are you happy just to continue to nitpick other people's opinions?

    I haven't decided yet and the vote isn't to give "every citizen in this country the equal protection of the State" as you've just tried to claim, its to slightly expand, to only certain types of relationships, civil marriage. A little bit of honesty regarding your campaign would go a lot further.


  • Advertisement
  • #652
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    a postere wrote: »
    Seems quite hypocritical, but I guess that's nothing new for some Christians. I thought the very essence of Christianity is believing in God's authority rather than their own.

    It's hypocritical to say one thing and do another, not sure how my post indicates hypocrisy? Following one's conscience, informed by prayerful consideration isn't hypocritical.


  • #653
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,945 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    a postere wrote: »
    I haven't decided yet, I don't do group think, I do my own thing, and the vote isn't to give "every citizen in this country the equal protection of the State" as you've just tried to claim, its to slightly expand, to only certain types of relationships, the right to marry.

    well thats not quite correct. It simply removes the notion of gender being relevant for a married couple.


  • #654
    circadian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,522 ✭✭✭circadian


    Slightly OT but should I be expecting canvassers at my door for yes/no votes.


  • #655
    a postere
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 194 ✭✭a postere


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    It's hypocritical to say one thing and do another, not sure how my post indicates hypocrisy? Following one's conscience, informed by prayerful consideration isn't hypocritical.

    But Christiany doesn't teach Christians follow "your own conscience" as adam and eve, it explicitly requires you not follow your own authority. Did you never hear of the Kingdom of God ? So it's hypocritical to claim to be a Christian, while claiming to be your own authority instead on moral matters.


  • #656
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    circadian wrote: »
    Slightly OT but should I be expecting canvassers at my door for yes/no votes.

    Haven't seen any yet, I'd be surprised if there was. I don't remember can assess for previous referenda.


  • #657
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Lemme guess, Fran has disappeared now that he has to answer questions...

    He's gone to look up the 5 D's of debate again... Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge.


  • #658
    a postere
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 194 ✭✭a postere


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    well thats not quite correct. It simply removes the notion of gender being relevant for a married couple.

    and yet the poster claimed the vote was to "every citizen in this country the equal protection of the State"


  • #659
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    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?


    Do they follow all the teachings of the Church?


  • #660
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,945 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    a postere wrote: »
    and yet the poster claimed the vote was to "every citizen in this country the equal protection of the State"

    but that is exactly what it does. who do you think it excludes?


  • Advertisement
  • #661
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    circadian wrote: »
    Slightly OT but should I be expecting canvassers at my door for yes/no votes.


    My neighbour might come knocking :P


Advertisement