Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

lazygal · 21-05-2015 1:14pm

http://theweek.com/articles/556203/defense-natural-family

Ugh. Breda's son tweeted this tripe earlier. The writer manages to use the abandoned baby, named Maria, as some sort of apocalyptic premonition of what'll happen if the gays get marriage rights. Ben thinks this is "the best" marriage referendum thing he's read, which says a lot about his point of view.

robindch · 21-05-2015 1:22pm

lazygal wrote: »

Breda's son tweeted this tripe earlier.

One can almost sense jealousy that some random internet guy was able to "donate(d) a few cups of the stuff".

Penn · 21-05-2015 1:24pm

lazygal wrote: »

http://theweek.com/articles/556203/defense-natural-family

Ugh. Breda's son tweeted this tripe earlier. The writer manages to use the abandoned baby, named Maria, as some sort of apocalyptic premonition of what'll happen if the gays get marriage rights. Ben thinks this is "the best" marriage referendum thing he's read, which says a lot about his point of view.

Baby Marie was left in a shopping bag by the side of the road, and the authorities are scrambling in blind, astonished ignorance to rebuild a family for her. This is the perfect image for a society that has let the market and state usurp the role of mother and father — in the name of freedom, and according to commercial logic.

And Baby Marie, to be sure, was perfectly free herself, sitting in that shopping bag: free from the authority of tradition that put parents and their children in the same home; free from the taboos that held families together; free to be abused by strangers; and free to die alone in a world that doesn't really care either way.

And yet, it was Baby Marie's mother who most likely left her there. Funny that, isn't it? Almost as if neither being a woman nor being the biological mother automatically makes someone a good mother.

Bannasidhe · 21-05-2015 1:24pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57JP1bmS4Ho

seamus · 21-05-2015 1:31pm

Bad Horse wrote: »

And yet, it was Baby Marie's mother who most likely left her there. Funny that, isn't it? Almost as if neither being a woman nor being the biological mother automatically makes someone a good mother.

I think what I find funny is that my mother-in-law (who's a lovely woman but can't shake the religious shackles) as we were discussing this case was lamenting the fact that nowhere exists any more that you can go to if you're "in trouble", cos "you know, in the past, you could go to the Holy Sisters or a church. Now there's nowhere to go".

While I initially though she was referring to help with family planning and crisis pregnancies (so I mentioned Cura, etc), it only dawned on me afterwards that she was talking about the lack of places to just leave your child and run away.

And this is pretty much what Mr Dougherty misses in his article. He seems to claim that society has allowed "the family" to crumble, forgetting that the church and states' attitudes towards "the family" were so reprehensible that cases like Baby Maria were commonplace, if not routine.

Baby Maria is national news because it's so rare nowadays, not because society has crumbled, but in fact for the exact opposite reason.

lazygal · 21-05-2015 1:36pm

There's always going to be abandoned babies, even in societies with free access to abortion, excellent social supports and no stigma around the circumstances of pregnancy. There's myriad factors that make someone abandon a baby, anything from mental health problems to not knowing you were pregnant to awful cases of incest. I remember reading of cases of infanticide in the 1930s onwards after the Tuam grave story broke and in 'the good old days' it seems to me babies were a lot more disposable than they are now. At least baby Maria isn't stuck in a mother and baby home being 'cared' for by people who couldn't care less.

aloyisious · 21-05-2015 3:28pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

Kevin Myers on Pat Kenny now, arguing that homosexual unions will not be valid because they can't consummate them (in the same way heterosexuals can).

He's in favour of SSM, but is voting against it.

Go figure...

T'is amazing that Iona, or at least Tom Finegan from MFM, did not see that massive legal loophole int the wording of the amendment, and point it out to everyone... Then again, that apparent lapse in concentration by Iona may show that there is no legal angle at all to consumnation (as it might have applied to children) and therefore not applicable. Legally it's about the first time the newly married couple have sex, and that's it. Argument literally f.....d. Edit....Consumnate mean's the couple having sex on the 1st occasion after they get married, so if they have sex.... Maybe the definition of whom can consumnate will have to be altered slightly in the legal textbooks.

Penn · 21-05-2015 3:40pm

aloyisious wrote: »

T'is amazing that Iona, or at least Tom Finegan from MFM, did not see that massive legal loophole int the wording of the amendment, and point it out to everyone... Then again, that apparent lapse in concentration by Iona may show that there is no legal angle at all to consumnation (as it might have applied to children) and therefore not applicable. Legally it's about the first time the newly married couple have sex, and that's it. Argument literally f.....d.

No, Iona have noticed it too. In Quinn's arguments about the two male friends in New Zealand who got married as a joke, he's saying that it means any two people will be able to get married in Ireland and it won't have to be assumed that the marriage has been "consummated". So even if male and female friends get married as a joke, it'll still be assumed that they consummated it. Which is a leap of logic so great the Incredible Hulk saw it happen and said "PUNY MAN LEAP MORE THAN HULK!"

seamus · 21-05-2015 3:49pm

Bad Horse wrote: »

No, Iona have noticed it too. In Quinn's arguments about the two male friends in New Zealand who got married as a joke, he's saying that it means any two people will be able to get married in Ireland and it won't have to be assumed that the marriage has been "consummated". So even if male and female friends get married as a joke, it'll still be assumed that they consummated it. Which is a leap of logic so great the Incredible Hulk saw it happen and said "PUNY MAN LEAP MORE THAN HULK!"

I suspect they've kept pretty quiet about it because it's nothing new. Plenty of couples get married in the knowledge that consummation cannot occur, yet nobody is crying that we don't have a special law for then.

If someone entered any marriage, Ssm or otherwise, in full knowlege that consummation could not happen, then an application for nullity on that basis would be swiftly dismissed and derided by the judge.

Shrap · 21-05-2015 5:39pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57JP1bmS4Ho

I like her. There is much hope for our country yet :cool:

ShooterSF · 21-05-2015 6:06pm

horseburger wrote: »

The group We Are Church Ireland is not saying that. It is calling for a change to the Catholic Church leaders stance on homosexuality and other issues.

Brendan Butler of We Are Church Ireland discusses this in this video at the 48 minute mark, where he says their aim is to challenge "objectionable teachings in our Catholic Church", for example that a homosexual person has an intrinsic disorder. He said it was a "total disgrace for such a thing to be said about another person".

But that's my point. They are campaigning to the church leaders to change their stance but that doesn't change the stance of their god does it? It just hides it. Hide's their god's view on the subject because they don't agree with it. Unless they are claiming that the opinions of their omniscient deity are changeable by human debate. Yes it won't be the first time but the notion of human beings, lest they be prophets, debating changing the teachings of a church is absurd because the teachings are based on the views and rules of a supernatural being.

The Black Oil · 21-05-2015 6:37pm

We're gonna need a bigger vote.

Bannasidhe · 21-05-2015 6:40pm

And a drink

11350559_10205813078659509_3767070934125883766_n.jpg?oh=4048e7f97a2133a56555a2638bfb711d&oe=560860E2

Shrap · 21-05-2015 7:17pm

ICE CREAM by Aidan Strangeman

Breda and her friends have ice cream. A boy called Colm doesn't have ice cream. He asks can he have some ice cream please? Breda says no because if Colm has ice cream it will ruin ice cream for all the other kids forever and ever Amen.

Breda's ice cream is a 99. They're Yummy.

She says that ice cream was made for putting Flakes into. Colm is confused. Lots of the kids have ice cream without Flakes and Colm actually has some Flakes so why can't he have ice cream, pretty please and stuff?

Breda says no because Colm only has cones and you need a cone AND a scoop like Breda's to make the best ever 99. Colm's 99 would be wonky and no he can't have a lend of her scoop that's icky everyone says so thank you very much.

Jim says that if Colm has a 99 it will sexualise the Flakes like with that woman in the bath in the ad that Jim thinks about a lot. Colm doesn't know what sexualise means and is confused.

David says that Colm already has frozen yoghurt which is almost the same as ice cream and why can't he be happy with that?

Colm says David didn't want Colm to have the frozen yoghurt yesterday but David says yesterday was forever ago and anyway it was just the flavour of Frozen Yoghurt he didn't want Colm having.

David likes to talk so he talks and talks for ages and ages.

Then a teacher walks by and says that letting Colm have ice cream won't affect anyone else's ice cream or Flakes or anything but it's still up to them if they want to give Colm ice cream or not.

The teacher leaves and a boy called Ronan calls the teacher a liar

Fidelma says she needs more time to think about whether Colm should have ice cream or not even though all the other kids know she'd never ever want Colm to have ice cream even if she had six squillion years to think about it.

Colm asks for for the ice cream again pretty pretty pretty please so Breda calls over her new friend Keith who used to fight David for Frozen Yoghurt but they're all pals now and grand and stuff. The frozen yoghurt is good enough for boys like us says Keith.

A boy called Paddy is very very angry. Paddy runs over and shouts about how he doesn't want ice cream and about how it's unfair that he's not allowed to shout about how much he doesn't want ice cream. I don't want ice cream Colm so you shouldn't says Paddy very very very angrily.

Colm asks for ice cream one more time pretty pretty on my knees I'm the best boy there's ever been please he says.

David has a pen pal in America who says he knows lots and lots of people like Colm and his friends even though he doesn't and that people like Colm and Colm's friends are not the best boys ever and don't ever deserve Ice cream.

Colm says that they're all just being mean and Breda starts to cry and says that she is being bullied. Breda's friends say that Colm doesn't deserve ice cream for being such a stupid silly bully and they walk away.

Colm stands on his own in the playground.

There are lots of other kids running around him eating ice cream pretending he's not there.

Laughed and cried at this one. Reminds me of Seán & Maire, or Micí & Ríra, or whoever the feck they used to teach us Gaeilge.

Delirium · 21-05-2015 7:47pm

for a crew that frequently cried "censorship" and had "don't be silenced" posters, they sure aren't shy of it themselves.

https://twitter.com/karlypants/status/601458009567465473

Brian Shanahan · 21-05-2015 8:03pm

Well they finally showed their true colours, in Limerick at least, with their latest poster.

Bright yeller and black it is emblazoned with the stirring rallying cry:

"DON'T BE SILENCED

VOTE NO"

With the stupid heart shape in the O of vote, as if pretending to be touchy feely will in any way disguise the true nature of their campaign and what drives it, homophobia.

Frank Bullitt · 21-05-2015 8:08pm

Ill be sending good vibes to everyone from Vancouver. I wish I could help more guys, but i'll be gunning for you all.

I firmly believe we are at the eve of a great day for Ireland, I really do.

Vote yes.

Woodville56 · 21-05-2015 8:38pm

And how many undecided supporters did the Yes side win over with their abusive name calling in the name of equality ? Anyone who dared challenge the Yes dogma was labelled idiotic, stupid, cretinous, homophobic etc. Some way to win friends and influence people! Won't be forgotten either, long after the dust on this referendum has settled. Many thousands of our citizens will exercise their democratic right tomorrow on voting against this referendum, in no small way influenced by the disgraceful conduct of elements of the Yes side. And I'm not invoking children, surrogacy excuses etc as a reason for my no vote - for me it's been mainly about the dilution of Article 41, making it meaningless and open to numerous interpretations and whims of the judiciary and legislature, depending on which way the liberal wind is blowing in years to come. It's also been about the way the Kenny/Burton government have thrown their full energies (and that of their minions in certain state funded quangos and organizations ) into supporting this cause, while so many other inequalities need to be addressed. Some behaviors on both sides of the debate have been less than edifying, but to those who think abusive name calling will gain the big respect they demand by a Yes majority tomorrow, the reality is that those whom they label as idiots, stupid, imbeciles etc , will still be their neighbors, work colleagues and acquaintances the day after and the day after etc, attitudes just won't be won over with a Yes vote and the manner of winning may well leave a lot of work for the LGBT community to do in order to achieve the broad and universal acceptance they think this campaign result may bring them.

Not a NSA agent · 21-05-2015 8:44pm

Woodville56 wrote: »

And how many undecided supporters did the Yes side win over with their abusive name calling in the name of equality ? Anyone who dared challenge the Yes dogma was labelled idiotic, stupid, cretinous, homophobic etc. Some way to win friends and influence people! Won't be forgotten either, long after the dust on this referendum has settled. Many thousands of our citizens will exercise their democratic right tomorrow on voting against this referendum, in no small way influenced by the disgraceful conduct of elements of the Yes side. And I'm not invoking children, surrogacy excuses etc as a reason for my no vote - for me it's been mainly about the dilution of Article 41, making it meaningless and open to numerous interpretations and whims of the judiciary and legislature, depending on which way the liberal wind is blowing in years to come. It's also been about the way the Kenny/Burton government have thrown their full energies (and that of their minions in certain state funded quangos and organizations ) into supporting this cause, while so many other inequalities need to be addressed. Some behaviors on both sides of the debate have been less than edifying, but to those who think abusive name calling will gain the big respect they demand by a Yes majority tomorrow, the reality is that those whom they label as idiots, stupid, imbeciles etc , will still be their neighbors, work colleagues and acquaintances the day after and the day after etc, attitudes just won't be won over with a Yes vote and the manner of winning may well leave a lot of work for the LGBT community to do in order to achieve the broad and universal acceptance they think this campaign result may bring them.

I've been told that because Im voting yes im just giving in to bullying, stupid, trying to be cool, just following group think and theres probably been others too.

Then theres the stuff said about gay people, they're inferior, unfit parents, pedophiles etc etc.

Quit with the victim complex princess.

People will move on with their lives after this and stop caring.

Woodville56 · 21-05-2015 8:49pm

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

I've been told that because Im voting yes im just giving in to bullying, stupid, trying to be cool, just following group think and theres probably been others too.

Then theres the stuff said about gay people, they're inferior, unfit parents, pedophiles etc etc.

Quit with the victim complex princess.

People will move on with their lives after this and stop caring.

And there's been me hearing for the past months how LGBT people were the victims in all of this ? Yeah, life will go on next week but seems like it's ok for the gay community to feel aggrieved at being name called but it's petty for those who have been verbally abused by supporters of the same gay community to feel similarly aggrieved ?

Kiwi in IE · 21-05-2015 8:50pm

Woodville56 wrote: »

And how many undecided supporters did the Yes side win over with their abusive name calling in the name of equality ? Anyone who dared challenge the Yes dogma was labelled idiotic, stupid, cretinous, homophobic etc. Some way to win friends and influence people! Won't be forgotten either, long after the dust on this referendum has settled. Many thousands of our citizens will exercise their democratic right tomorrow on voting against this referendum, in no small way influenced by the disgraceful conduct of elements of the Yes side. And I'm not invoking children, surrogacy excuses etc as a reason for my no vote - for me it's been mainly about the dilution of Article 41, making it meaningless and open to numerous interpretations and whims of the judiciary and legislature, depending on which way the liberal wind is blowing in years to come. It's also been about the way the Kenny/Burton government have thrown their full energies (and that of their minions in certain state funded quangos and organizations ) into supporting this cause, while so many other inequalities need to be addressed. Some behaviors on both sides of the debate have been less than edifying, but to those who think abusive name calling will gain the big respect they demand by a Yes majority tomorrow, the reality is that those whom they label as idiots, stupid, imbeciles etc , will still be their neighbors, work colleagues and acquaintances the day after and the day after etc, attitudes just won't be won over with a Yes vote and the manner of winning may well leave a lot of work for the LGBT community to do in order to achieve the broad and universal acceptance they think this campaign result may bring them.

There is so much bollocks here I don't know where to start.

You say you are not invoking the children and surrogacy red herrings but you have decided to go with 'I don't like the government. Vote No'. Good for you!

Not a NSA agent · 21-05-2015 8:54pm

Woodville56 wrote: »

And there's been me hearing for the past months how LGBT people were the victims in all of this ?

According to the no campaign no voters are the victims. The poor things have been called homophobic. They've been silenced with 50% time allocated to them and lots of youtube ads

If I had to choose being being called homophobic by people on the internet or having my rights restricted by people who think im a dysfunctional child molester I know which I would choose.

PopePalpatine · 21-05-2015 8:57pm

Woodville56 wrote: »

And there's been me hearing for the past months how LGBT people were the victims in all of this ?

On my way home from work, I saw a poster on the Cabra Road with the words "God says NO, Nature says NO!"

Yesterday on Henry St, there was a nutjob Christian a communion wafer's width away from blowing himself up in Pantibar screaming in people's faces about sodomites.

And yet you think you have a hard time of it.

Woodville56 · 21-05-2015 9:01pm

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

There is so much bollocks here I don't know where to start.

You say you are not invoking the children and surrogacy red herrings but you have decided to go with 'I don't like the government. Vote No'. Good for you!

I've said that I'm voting no primarily because of the ambiguity created by an amended Section 41 of our constitution, whereby the concepts of marriage and family are laid bare to open interpretation of the legislature without further reference to the people - that's what I'm objecting to , nothing to do with children, surrogacy, adoption or LGBT equality. Perhaps playing fast and loose with our constitution may all be a load of "bollocks" to you but some of us place more value on our constitution !

Zubeneschamali · 21-05-2015 9:09pm

Woodville56 wrote: »

some of us place more value on our constitution !

Like the Law Society? The Constitutional Convention? The head of the Independent Referendum Commission?

Kiwi in IE · 21-05-2015 9:09pm

Woodville56 wrote: »

I've said that I'm voting no primarily because of the ambiguity created by an amended Section 41 of our constitution, whereby the concepts of marriage and family are laid bare to open interpretation of the legislature without further reference to the people - that's what I'm objecting to , nothing to do with children, surrogacy, adoption or LGBT equality. Perhaps playing fast and loose with our constitution may all be a load of "bollocks" to you but some of us place more value on our constitution !

The wording proposes to amend the Constitution by inserting a new section stating: “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.”

The wording of the Ammendment is pretty clear. What exactly will be open to interpretation?

Woodville56 · 21-05-2015 9:22pm

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

The wording proposes to amend the Constitution by inserting a new section stating: “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.”

The wording of the Ammendment is pretty clear. What exactly will be open to interpretation?

Can you guarantee how a future Supreme Court may choose to interpret what constitutes a marriage or family with reference to an amended Section 41 ? - I'd venture to say no one can , and that's the problem I've got with this amendment , nothing to do with children, surrogacy etc and noting to do with gay equality, which I totally agree with and would support in a referendum that didn't involve creating uncertainty and ambiguity in Section 41. Future decisions of the Supreme Court in this area at a future time are independent of the referendum commission, the other legal agencies etc so it's a bit misleading of them to predict with any certainty the future decisions of a Supreme Court.

Kiwi in IE · 21-05-2015 9:31pm

Woodville56 wrote: »

Can you guarantee how a future Supreme Court may choose to interpret what constitutes a marriage or family with reference to an amended Section 41 ? - I'd venture to say no one can , and that's the problem I've got with this amendment , nothing to do with children, surrogacy etc and noting to do with gay equality, which I totally agree with and would support in a referendum that didn't involve creating uncertainty and ambiguity in Section 41. Future decisions of the Supreme Court in this area at a future time are independent of the referendum commission, the other legal agencies etc so it's a bit misleading of them to predict with any certainty the future decisions of a Supreme Court.

I'd say they will interpret it to mean that couples of the same gender can marry? What other scenarios do you envision from the proposed Ammendment? I can't really see any other options of interpretation from the sentence that is to be added.

smokingman · 21-05-2015 9:44pm

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I'd say they will interpret it to mean that couples of the same gender can marry? What other scenarios do you envision from the proposed Ammendment? I can't really see any other options of interpretation from the sentence that is to be added.

The lizard people obviously have to be involved here....

Frank Bullitt · 21-05-2015 10:11pm

A little something I have written from here in Canada, I do feel rather helpless not being able to vote, so I am trying to express my support as best as I can.

This is the eve of what could well be a truly remarkable day in Irelands history. The people of Ireland have the opportunity to show the world that we, as a nation, have moved forward.

Voting Yes doesn’t just mean giving LGBT people the right to marry, it is recognizing them as an equal, as they should be.

This whole campaign has been had nothing but smoke and mirrors from the No side, using fabricated scenarios and lies about what this will do if it is passed. Voting yes will not mean redefining marriage, it means opening it to your fellow citizens, to show and express their love along side everyone else who decides to get married. It won’t have any bearing on adoption, surrogacy, children’s rights or parenting.

This is one thing I wish I could vote for, to be able to help my gay and lesbian friends in Ireland become an equal with other citizens. Believe me if I were in Ireland, you would be getting my vote, so the best I can do is give you my support from Canada, and let you know I will be gunning for you over the next few days, as I have been during this whole campaign. You also have support from my Canadian friends and colleagues, who wish you all the best on this milestone event.

Please, vote for common sense. Vote Yes.

To anyone who will be directly affected by the vote tomorrow, I got your back, as do my Canadian buddies here.

Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

Comments