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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Government announce major policy contradiction just to please LGBT
Comments
-
Bobblehats wrote: »It’s one thing if they were born into it, but the impact of discovering this and that it was all self inflicted due to alcoholism (and possibly womanising) can have a detrimental effect on a teenager’s esteem. Whilst their friends may have admiration for their parents, even going on to follow in their footsteps but then I do think knowledge of some dna history might well be beneficial. In case of any hereditary disease
Lots of reasons for low self esteem in teenagers, not least among them, not knowing your background, as evidenced by the trauma suffered by those from whom it was withheld in the past. Alcoholism is not self inflicted, no one chooses to become one, and there is evidence of genetic predisposition also.
In any case, I believe the possibility of any hereditary disease or issue is reason enough for everyone to be able to access their genetic history, easily and most importantly accurately.0 -
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »Exactly what specific right is being taken away from a child under the law change?
You are looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope, and missing the point that campaigners are seeking more change.
And the question to ask is what right of the child is being upheld, and why is the marriage equality referendum being cited instead of the children's referendum?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 33298
You are looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope, and missing the point that campaigners are seeking more change.
And the question to ask is what right of the child is being upheld, and why is the marriage equality referendum being cited instead of the children's referendum?
So, no you can't answer me and your entire reference to "children's rights" was hyperbole.
Couldn't care less what referendum is being cited. It makes no difference to you, makes no difference to the child, and no difference to society.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
You are looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope, and missing the point that campaigners are seeking more change.
And the question to ask is what right of the child is being upheld, and why is the marriage equality referendum being cited instead of the children's referendum?
It’s a fair question, because it wasn’t discussed all that much around the time of the marriage equality referendum, that the Irish Constitution regards the institution of the Family through the institution of Marriage. Basically, children whose parents are unmarried do not have the same recognition and protection in Irish law as the children of parents who are married, as they do not constitute a Family according to how the Family is recognised in the Irish Constitution.
It was hoped at the time of the Children and Family Relationships Bill that this would be addressed before the Act was passed into law, but it wasn’t, and still hasn’t been. It would require a referendum to redefine the Family in Irish law to include children and their parents who are unmarried. It presents something of a conundrum how this could be achieved though when Article 41 is written as -
1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.
2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as
3 1° 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.
It’s an issue for one-parent families also, that the children do not enjoy the same protection and care of the State as the children whose parents are married. That’s how the marriage equality referendum affected the children of gay and lesbian couples who previously were unable to marry and become legally recognised as a family in Irish law.
There have been a couple of interesting cases regarding this issue -
Ruling stresses no such thing as 'de facto family' in law0 -
[Deleted User] wrote: »it does? I am not sure I ever even _saw_ my own birth cert growing up. With the possible exception of needing it to apply for my first passport. I know my kids have not seen theirs either - and the fact we live in a three person relationship their identify would not be represented on it anyway given they have three parents in their life and the cert only registers two.
I really struggle to think of anyone I personally know who has linked their identity growing up to their birth cert in any way at all in my life - let alone what names happen to be on it. In fact children generally seem to have no interest at all in the documents adults rule their world with as they grow up.
Whatever issues I can think of as to why it is a bad idea to mess with the contents of our nations certifications of birth - the sense of identity it gives a growing child is not something I would include on the list. That idea seems as ludicrous to me as the tripe nonsense a few people trot out around here that a kids parents need to be one man and one woman because kids need a male and female "role model". Guess what? They can not support that bull either.
The poster was quoting the official births, deaths and marriages website.0 -
And i'd say, in the strict political sense, Government has always wanted to present that they are doing nothing that impacts on traditional marriages or families. I'm not sure that's actually feasible - but it absolutely leads to the situation you describe, where we define extra protection for the rights of children without specifying how that reduces (as it must) the perogatives of parents.One eyed Jack wrote: »It would require a referendum to redefine the Family in Irish law to include children and their parents who are unmarried. It presents something of a conundrum how this could be achieved ....
There's even a degree of (IMHO) confusion - same sex couples expecting to be able to randomly pull down the perogatives of parents, even as we limit those perogatives. I find that in the way parental medical consent is raised as one of the things they want the unconnected partner to acquire. That has little to do with the rights of the child - doctors routinely overturn the objections of Jehohvah's Witnesses if the parents attempt to obstruct their child's necessary medical care. There's no problem in children getting access to emergency medical care. Are same sex couples looking for the right to obstruct medical care? What is it they want?
Interesting - thanks for the link. It shows the kind of practical situation that can arise, which cannot just be steamrolled over. If a biological father wants access, and there's nothing about him that presents a danger to the child - if his presence is actually good from the child's point of view - how could he be excluded?One eyed Jack wrote: »There have been a couple of interesting cases regarding this issue -
Ruling stresses no such thing as 'de facto family' in law
You can see there's a kind of rosy afterglow from the marriage referendum that make people reluctant to go beyond vague generalities, and actually consider the kinds of awkward situations that life contains.The issue of the “de facto family” previously arose in relation to a lesbian couple who had a baby with the sperm of a male friend. He later sought access to the child, and the couple opposed it, asserting their rights as a “de facto” family. This argument was rejected by the Supreme Court in December 2009, which ruled that such did not exist in Irish law, and that the child had the right to know his biological father.
Anyway, we won't sort it all out today!0 -
And i'd say, in the strict political sense, Government has always wanted to present that they are doing nothing that impacts on traditional marriages or families. I'm not sure that's actually feasible - but it absolutely leads to the situation you describe, where we define extra protection for the rights of children without specifying how that reduces (as it must) the perogatives of parents.
Well, the children’s referendum as it was called, while it didn’t decrease the rights of parents, it increased the ability of the State to protect children, note the changes in the text -
Thirty-first Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland
But that still did not offer children of unmarried parents the same protection in Irish law as the children of married parents. For a Government that you suggest wants to present that they are doing nothing that impacts on traditional marriages and families, I would say quite the opposite, with my point being that they are still falling well short of treating all people as equal before the law - a human right declared in Article 7 of the UDHR -
https://www.humanrights.com/what-are-human-rights/universal-declaration-of-human-rights/articles-01-10.html
As was noted by the Judge in the case I linked to earlier though, Ireland’s Constutional law with regards to the family takes precedence over international law, so the State can effectively continue to drag it’s heels on the matter.There's even a degree of (IMHO) confusion - same sex couples expecting to be able to randomly pull down the perogatives of parents, even as we limit those perogatives. I find that in the way parental medical consent is raised as one of the things they want the unconnected partner to acquire. That has little to do with the rights of the child - doctors routinely overturn the objections of Jehohvah's Witnesses if the parents attempt to obstruct their child's necessary medical care. There's no problem in children getting access to emergency medical care. Are same sex couples looking for the right to obstruct medical care? What is it they want?
I don’t think you’re correct about the medical professions authority to over-ride the will of parents in regards to the welfare of their children without the intervention of the Courts, but that aside, what they want is to enjoy the same regard in law as parents who are legally recognised as their children’s parents already enjoy. To be recognised as a Family without all the unnecessary ‘de facto’ stuff which isn’t recognised in Irish law, but has precedent in international law.Interesting - thanks for the link. It shows the kind of practical situation that can arise, which cannot just be steamrolled over. If a biological father wants access, and there's nothing about him that presents a danger to the child - if his presence is actually good from the child's point of view - how could he be excluded?
Well he can be excluded (married or not) if the Courts determine that it serves the best interests of the child. The same judgement can be made though regardless of the persons relationship to the child, because decisions are based upon as you say acting in the best interests of the child. In most cases the child’s point of view is taken into account, and in some cases they will have someone acting on behalf of their interests - a guardian ad litem is appointed by the Courts. In some cases the child was made a ward of Court before it was even born, but there hasn’t been a case testing that since the referendum on abortion.
There are precedents in Irish law which address some of the issues around AHR and DAHR, but as yet there is no law regulating surrogacy for example, other than it’s unlawful in Ireland, and the person who gives birth is regarded as the child’s mother in Irish law, regardless of the source of the egg donation. It’s the partner in a female same sex relationship relationship who previously was not recognised in law as the child’s parent, is the issue the latest legislation being brought into law attempts to address.You can see there's a kind of rosy afterglow from the marriage referendum that make people reluctant to go beyond vague generalities, and actually consider the kinds of awkward situations that life contains.
Anyway, we won't sort it all out today!
Oh absolutely, and that was one of my main issues with the’Yes’ campaign in the marriage equality referendum, and we’ve even seen it happening in this thread - attempts to avoid any discussion as to the importance of the referendum with regard to children’s welfare and child rights, rather than demonstrating and expressing the positive impact it would have on children whose parents are of the same sex, and were unable to be recognised as a family in Irish law. The Children and Family Relationships Act went some of the way towards addressing that, the introduction of marriage equality into law went a little bit further, but still there is a ways to go and so far the current Government are patting themselves on the back and being held in high esteem for doing all the easy lifting and not making any real effort to protect children and treat all children as equal before the law.0 -
Just to quibble, I actually don't think its possible to increase the ability to intervene without diminishing parental rights.One eyed Jack wrote: »Well, the children’s referendum as it was called, while it didn’t decrease the rights of parents, it increased the ability of the State to protect children,
Just to be clear, what I mean isn't that a doctor can independently override parental authority, its that the Courts do grant applications by doctors that overrule parents in those situations. And that even predates the Children's Referendum.One eyed Jack wrote: »I don’t think you’re correct about the medical professions authority to over-ride the will of parents in regards to the welfare of their children without the intervention of the Courts
As you probably know, the Courts even gave doctors permission to force a blood transfusion on an adult Jehovah's Witness, on grounds that if she died her child would be orphaned.
Indeed, as I said the issue is where the Courts feel there isn't a problem, and contact is beneficial.One eyed Jack wrote: »Well he can be excluded (married or not) if the Courts determine that it serves the best interests of the child.
Which seems to be the situation in that case.0 -
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »A few people have harped on about the "rights of the child" but then shimmed off when asked a very simple question, perhaps you'll have better luck, so here goes:
Exactly what specific right is being taken away from a child under the law change?
Perhaps it's not so much people ''shimmying off'' as people having a life that doesn't involve being online trying to sell manure to people with more common sense and less time than they have. I don't care about the feelings of adults on these matters. All parents should have equal rights, in an ideal world a child would have the names of both biological parents on their birth cert doing otherwise to pander to the moaning of same sex parents is silly. Feelings should have nothing to do with birth certificates. Don't even get me started on this bollocks of changing sex on birth certs, certainly not on kids changing their birth certs.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 33298
... and yet here you are...Perhaps it's not so much people ''shimmying off'' as people having a life that doesn't involve being online....
Ah, the pandering defense. In the same way giving women the vote was "pandering"? And allowing black people enter universities is "pandering"? And allowing gay people to legally marry the person the love is "pandering"?trying to sell manure to people with more common sense and less time than they have. I don't care about the feelings of adults on these matters. All parents should have equal rights, in an ideal world a child would have the names of both biological parents on their birth cert doing otherwise to pander to the moaning of same sex parents is silly.Feelings should have nothing to do with birth certificates. Don't even get me started on this bollocks of changing sex on birth certs, certainly not on kids changing their birth certs.
Feelings like getting frustrated at the idea of other people you feel are don't like sharing the same level as you, and feeling like you have to create a smokescreen to hide the level of discomfort you feel about it?
Because - as I have pointed out and you have not disagreed with - it makes no difference to you, to the child or to society.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
Why have a birth certificate in its current form at all?
A piece of paper with time, date and hospital should do.
Instead of playing games, just get to the natural conclusion.
No need for "parents"0 -
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »... and yet here you are...
Ah, the pandering defense. In the same way giving women the vote was "pandering"? And allowing black people enter universities is "pandering"? And allowing gay people to legally marry the person the love is "pandering"?
Feelings like getting frustrated at the idea of other people you feel are don't like sharing the same level as you, and feeling like you have to create a smokescreen to hide the level of discomfort you feel about it?
Because - as I have pointed out and you have not disagreed with - it makes no difference to you, to the child or to society.
Now you are just being silly. I have made it very clear that all parents regardless of their sexuality, should have equal legal rights. Unlike you my priority is the rights of the child not whether or not a same sex couple can get to dictate reality. A man does not give birth to a child, two men don't create a child, 2 women don't create a child. There is no reason why a same sex couple can't make wonderful parents but reality is what it is and the child is what comes first. Equal rights for all parents regardless of gender or sexuality absolutely, makey uppey nonsense cause of ''feelz'' fook that.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 33298
Bull****.Now you are just being silly. I have made it very clear that all parents regardless of their sexuality, should have equal legal rights.
Unlike you my priority is the rights of the child not whether or not a same sex couple can get to dictate reality.
Again - third time: what specific rights are you refering to?A man does not give birth to a child, two men don't create a child, 2 women don't create a child. There is no reason why a same sex couple can't make wonderful parents but reality is what it is and the child is what comes first. Equal rights for all parents regardless of gender or sexuality absolutely, makey uppey nonsense cause of ''feelz'' fook that.
Again - bull****. You haven't actually disagreed with my synopsis or defended your position. If anything, you're strengthened my belief that you want to have someone beneath you by trying to be condescending and talking down.
Saying the same thing over and over again like a mantra doesn't actually change anything - it just makes you look like you have nothing of substance to say but can't admit it.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
Would it be unreasonable to have a section on a birth cert for biological father and biological mother and then another section for say parent 1, parent 2 etc (if different from biological).
This way the child still has a factual document identifying the 2 people who were responsible for their birth and also the people who they consider their actual parents (which in the majority of cases will be the same people anyway).0 -
We could, but I'd expect we'd have a similar discussion around who goes where and what being named entails.Huntergonzo wrote: »This way the child still has a factual document identifying the 2 people who were responsible for their birth and also the people who they consider their actual parents (which in the majority of cases will be the same people anyway).
And its not all about SSM. Some of it impacts on situations where couples seek outside assistance and take different approaches that end up with a baby - whether IVF through a licenced clinic, or some other route.0 -
Advertisement
-
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »Bull****.
Again - third time: what specific rights are you refering to?
Again - bull****. You haven't actually disagreed with my synopsis or defended your position. If anything, you're strengthened my belief that you want to have someone beneath you by trying to be condescending and talking down.
Saying the same thing over and over again like a mantra doesn't actually change anything - it just makes you look like you have nothing of substance to say but can't admit it.
You genuinely seem like a very disturbed individual, I hope you aren't a parent.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 33298
You genuinely seem like a very disturbed individual, I hope you aren't a parent.
So, two simple questions resulting in three no-answers and now an ad homeinem.
You don't give a **** about children's rights (proven) you just don't believe in equal rights and don't want other people to have them. Also proven.
Only place to go from here is for you to drag it down to the point we're throwing insults at each other, and I don't get dragged into that ****. I've proven what I came to prove and you evidently have no interest in debate. Three chances should be enough for anyone.
I leave you to have one last insult which I will never read. Good night.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
a child (or everyone) should have the right to know their biological parents. A woman who gives birth is presumed to be the biological mother, so her name goes on the birth cert. If married, her husband is presumed to be the biological father.
Maybe this needs to be looked at again to ensure the ones named on the birth cert are the actual biological parents.0 -
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »So, two simple questions resulting in three no-answers and now an ad homeinem.
You don't give a **** about children's rights (proven) you just don't believe in equal rights and don't want other people to have them. Also proven.
Only place to go from here is for you to drag it down to the point we're throwing insults at each other, and I don't get dragged into that ****. I've proven what I came to prove and you evidently have no interest in debate. Three chances should be enough for anyone.
I leave you to have one last insult which I will never read. Good night.
Of course you'll read my post because you wallow in self righteousness and anyone who disagrees with you feeds your victim mentality. You don't want to discuss it with me because I've proved you wrong and you don't like that. I didn't want to insult you. I simply wanted to keep things realistic, you are the one who wants to live in some kind of makey uppey fantasy world were facts are replaced by feelz.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 33298
Huntergonzo wrote: »Would it be unreasonable to have a section on a birth cert for biological father and biological mother and then another section for say parent 1, parent 2 etc (if different from biological).
This way the child still has a factual document identifying the 2 people who were responsible for their birth and also the people who they consider their actual parents (which in the majority of cases will be the same people anyway).
That's what's being proposed. As I said earlier: as long as the child has access to the identity of its birth parents upon adulthood. To not allow for this would for health reasons at the very least, would be negligent.Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »That's what's being proposed. As I said earlier: as long as the child has access to the identity of its birth parents upon adulthood. To not allow for this would for health reasons at the very least, would be negligent.
Well look it, if that's the case then fair enough, I'd have no issue with it.
Biological parents should always be documented on a birth cert where possible. After that, it's fair game.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,063 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 23018
Why don't you read the act in full and see what is actually happening, post 43
I get the impression that quite a few posters here haven't got the slightest idea what they're actually arguing about, and the link in the op did not have nearly enough detail :rolleyes:Moderator: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender, Vegan & Vegetarian
Category Moderator: Social & Fun
0 -
In one sense, you're right. At the risk of sounding like a life coach, isn't discussion better when we approach it in the expectation that the other people know stuff that we don't.Ten of Swords wrote: »Why don't you read the act in full and see what is actually happening, post 43
I get the impression that quite a few posters here haven't got the slightest idea what they're actually arguing about, and the link in the op did not have nearly enough detail :rolleyes:
As I understand it, all the Minister is actually doing now is bringing that piece of legislation into force. However, from what news coverage seems to be saying, there is a campaign to go far beyond that legislation.
The legislation says (as I understand it) that, where all parties have participated in a regulated fertility service - which means everyone's role is known up front, the registration can reflect that fact.
The campaign wants even informal arrangements to be formally recognised. That provokes quite a lot of questions, not the least of which is what happens when folk dispute the detail of the informal arrangement. And I'm not sure the public debate is being sufficiently challenged.
I'm not sure its as simple as that. A UK Government website sayshttps://www.thejournal.ie/readme/parental-rights-lgbt-4878542-Nov2019/
This Act covers same-sex couples who use a non-anonymous donor through an Irish clinic. We tried this and in spite of a lot of different treatments and approaches, it wasn’t successful......
After an expensive and traumatic few years, our friend decided to help us and donate sperm. We were delighted that after two attempts, Gabriela became pregnant and our son Luca was born. ...
It’s frustrating as we have Irish friends in England and Canada who are in the same situation as us but they have full parental rights. Why can’t Ireland just copy their laws?
And, just to be doubly clear, I'm not saying that just because the UK do something, we should follow. I haven't noticed anyone (with any actual mandate) saying we should leave the EU.https://www.gov.uk/legal-rights-for-egg-and-sperm-donors
If you’re a sperm donor, you could be the legal parent of any child born from your donation. ....
If you give birth to a child, you’re always considered the legal mother in UK law even when using a donated egg.0
Advertisement