• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Gay Marriage an attack on children - IONA


Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,265
Website
www.politics.ie
Twitter
davidcochrane
A new organisation launches today called Marriage Equality, campaigning for the law to be changed to allow for civil marriage for gay couples.

The Iona Institute, responding to the launch today, have called Gay Marriage an "attack on the right of a child to have a mother and father".

Iona Institute's David Quinn said:
Recognising same-sex marriage would be an attack on the right of children to a mother and father. Marriage is a social institution directed primarily, though not exclusively, towards the welfare of children. Through social, financial and legal supports it seeks to ensure that as many children as possible are raised by their mothers and fathers. For this reason it is intrinsically heterosexual. It recognises the reality that all children have a biological mother and father, have a right to a mother and father and need a mother and father.
 


Kevin Doyle

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2007
Messages
11,066
A stunningly backward development.
 

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,991
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
I disagree with IONA. I agree that children should have a mother and father in their lives though, but I feel that this news is nonetheless a reminder that a radical minority in the gay community, by insisting on the extension of straight-marriage rights and benefits related to parenting, are inadvertently providing the Religious Right with 'ammunition' against gay partnership rights including marriage. Most of my gay friends share my view that rearing children is for mothers and fathers. I support a form of gay partnership/marriage without involving child-rearing benefits/rights in it. Children need a mother and a father. Having 2 fathers would only lead to the children being mercilessly teased by other children. As a gay person myself I cannot be accused of homophobia in this regard. I resent how a few ultras in the gay community alienate the straight community by making unrealistic demands.
 
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
29
Recognising same-sex marriage would be an attack on the right of children to a mother and father
What a load of backwards tripe, from this insufferable sh*t.

Does Herr Quinn believe that the existence of single motherhood (or fatherhood) constitutes a similar attack? Should the State confiscate all of these children and place them in the care of married couples? (straight ones, naturally)
 

CookieMonster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
34,695
Compound Fracture said:
Recognising same-sex marriage would be an attack on the right of children to a mother and father
What a load of backwards tripe, from this insufferable sh*t.

Does Herr Quinn believe that the existence of single motherhood (or fatherhood) constitutes a similar attack? Should the State confiscate all of these children and place them in the care of married couples? (straight ones, naturally)
I wouldn't put such a measure past them.
 

Riadach

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
12,847
If it is an absolute right, who then should the children of single parents sue because their rights havebeen violated?
 
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
29
This statement is almost as shocking as the letters to the Times from another IONA caveman, who effectively said that all homosexual relationships are based on sex and sex alone (ie. love, commitment etc. are alien concepts to all those awful queers)
 

ibis

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 12, 2005
Messages
12,359
David Cochrane said:
A new organisation launches today called Marriage Equality, campaigning for the law to be changed to allow for civil marriage for gay couples.

The Iona Institute, responding to the launch today, have called Gay Marriage an "attack on the right of a child to have a mother and father".

[quote="Iona Institute's David Quinn":nudzahbb]Recognising same-sex marriage would be an attack on the right of children to a mother and father. Marriage is a social institution directed primarily, though not exclusively, towards the welfare of children. Through social, financial and legal supports it seeks to ensure that as many children as possible are raised by their mothers and fathers. For this reason it is intrinsically heterosexual. It recognises the reality that all children have a biological mother and father, have a right to a mother and father and need a mother and father.
[/quote:nudzahbb]

Talk about circular reasoning - "children have a right to a father and mother, therefore marriage is heterosexual, therefore it's not for gay people, because they're not heterosexual". At what point does one demonstrate that children have a right to "a mother and a father", and what impact would it have on our father-unfriendly divorce settlements? Does that mean that if my wife died the state would give me money to replace her, or does it only apply to natural mothers? If so, do orphans lack such rights?

Conservative reflexology.
 

stretchneil

Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
39
More ****ing nonsense from Quinn. I was at the MarriagEquality launch this morning, and it was excellent, with the Oak Room of the Mansion House absolutely packed, with a good 50 people crammed into standing room at the back.

There's one very interesting counter-argument to this constant focussing on children that I've heard a few times recently. If gay people should not be allowed to marry because that could lead to a situation where children are being brought up by same-sex parents, what do the religious right propose to do about the numerous cases around the state where this is already the case? For example, Orla Howard, her partner and their children were interviewed for the Trib yesterday, and the children in particular spoke eloquently about their love for both parents.
 

KingKane

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
2,325
Website
www.danielsullivan.ie
Twitter
kingkane
Are the IONA institute going to come out against God for the existence of death which is surely an attack on the right of a child to have a mother and father?

And to the best of my knowledge we've not gotten to the stage of being able to create children without a male and female input to the process so all children have a mother and father at some point.
 

Twin Towers

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
5,882
FutureTaoiseach said:
Children need a mother and a father. Having 2 fathers would only lead to the children being mercilessly teased by other children. As a gay person myself I cannot be accused of homophobia in this regard. I resent how a few ultras in the gay community alienate the straight community by making unrealistic demands.
Too true. And very honest (as usual) of you to say so FT.
 

CookieMonster

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
34,695
Twin Towers said:
FutureTaoiseach said:
Children need a mother and a father. Having 2 fathers would only lead to the children being mercilessly teased by other children. As a gay person myself I cannot be accused of homophobia in this regard. I resent how a few ultras in the gay community alienate the straight community by making unrealistic demands.
Too true. And very honest (as usual) of you to say so FT.
I suppose, by that logic, we should ban ugly people from having children or people with red hair from having children, or poor people or people who don't buy the latest mobile phones or trainers or cars?
Perhaps we should go a step beyond this and ban people from other areas moving and putting their children in different schools because they would be slagged mercilessly for having a "funny accent".
 

Twin Towers

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
5,882
CookieMonster said:
I suppose, by that logic, we should ban ugly people from having children or people with red hair from having children, or poor people or people who don't buy the latest mobile phones or trainers or cars?
Perhaps we should go a step beyond this and ban people from other areas moving and putting their children in different schools because they would be slagged mercilessly for having a "funny accent".
:roll: :roll: :roll:
 

The OD

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
11,411
If Mr Quinn wants to talk rights, then a childs right to a safe, happy, stable and loving environment is the preeminent right of a child.

Arguments like FT's above about the child being teased should always be made in the context of the alternatives available to a child like short term fostering and care which are really not viable options if you want to uphold the rights I list above.

I do hold that you will have teasing and so forth if you have two same sex parents - you will also get teasing if you are black or asian in a predominantly white area or school, you will get teasing if you're ginger, if your dad drives a honda 50 or if you are unusually tall/fat/skinny or ugly.

Kids will always pick out some reason to tease other kids and the argument based on the teasing just doesnt hold water with me for one as a reason to deny same sex marriage.
 
9

905

Compound Fracture said:
This statement is almost as shocking as the letters to the Times from another IONA caveman, who effectively said that all homosexual relationships are based on sex and sex alone (ie. love, commitment etc. are alien concepts to all those awful queers)
I've always been impressed (against my better judgement) by their argument that co-habiting siblings should have the right to adoption, seeing as sex is all that seperates such people from homosexuals in a loving partnership. Feel free to set me straight on that one.
 

NeilW

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
4,634
905 said:
Compound Fracture said:
This statement is almost as shocking as the letters to the Times from another IONA caveman, who effectively said that all homosexual relationships are based on sex and sex alone (ie. love, commitment etc. are alien concepts to all those awful queers)
I've always been impressed (against my better judgement) by their argument that co-habiting siblings should have the right to adoption, seeing as sex is all that seperates such people from homosexuals in a loving partnership. Feel free to set me straight on that one.
Surely sex is all that separates such people from heterosexuals in a loving partnership too?

Anyone wanting to argue that two siblings should have the right to adopt children together would get a good audience I'm sure. Though I think it's a different subject to the one being discussed here.
 

popper

Active member
Joined
Oct 4, 2004
Messages
297
CookieMonster said:
Twin Towers said:
FutureTaoiseach said:
Children need a mother and a father. Having 2 fathers would only lead to the children being mercilessly teased by other children. As a gay person myself I cannot be accused of homophobia in this regard. I resent how a few ultras in the gay community alienate the straight community by making unrealistic demands.
Too true. And very honest (as usual) of you to say so FT.
I suppose, by that logic, we should ban ugly people from having children or people with red hair from having children, or poor people or people who don't buy the latest mobile phones or trainers or cars?
Perhaps we should go a step beyond this and ban people from other areas moving and putting their children in different schools because they would be slagged mercilessly for having a "funny accent".
No-one has to ban a gay couple from having children together. It is impossible. The only way they can have children is if one of them already has children and has custody - something I have no objection to whatsoever if that is felt to be the best environment for the child and with the child's consent; surrogacy or adoption.

Gay adoption is a demand of extremists - most gay people I know don't support it - based on a spurious "right" to have children who have no say in the issue and who will may very well have their life opportunities damaged if they are placed in such a setting.
 
9

905

NeilW said:
905 said:
Compound Fracture said:
This statement is almost as shocking as the letters to the Times from another IONA caveman, who effectively said that all homosexual relationships are based on sex and sex alone (ie. love, commitment etc. are alien concepts to all those awful queers)
I've always been impressed (against my better judgement) by their argument that co-habiting siblings should have the right to adoption, seeing as sex is all that seperates such people from homosexuals in a loving partnership. Feel free to set me straight on that one.
Surely sex is all that separates such people from heterosexuals in a loving partnership too?
Emm... no, I meant same-sex siblings. Brother and brother, what seperates them from a pair of gay men? It is relevant I'm afraid because the IONA institute keep bringing it up and I haven't heard a good response yet.
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
4,265
Website
www.politics.ie
Twitter
davidcochrane
Sorry guys, but this isn't a stupid debate about brothers and sisters getting married, adopting or any other ridiculous nonsense. Get a grip, and stay on topic.
 

DS-147

New member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
2
The OD said:
If Mr Quinn wants to talk rights, then a childs right to a safe, happy, stable and loving environment is the preeminent right of a child.

Arguments like FT's above about the child being teased should always be made in the context of the alternatives available to a child like short term fostering and care which are really not viable options if you want to uphold the rights I list above.

I do hold that you will have teasing and so forth if you have two same sex parents - you will also get teasing if you are black or asian in a predominantly white area or school, you will get teasing if you're ginger, if your dad drives a honda 50 or if you are unusually tall/fat/skinny or ugly.

Kids will always pick out some reason to tease other kids and the argument based on the teasing just doesnt hold water with me for one as a reason to deny same sex marriage.
I agree with the above comment completely. The other thing to remember is that the onus is not on parents to try and make sure that their children are not teased by trying to make them as 'normal' as possible, so as to minimize the things that they are teased about. The onus is on the parents of all children to educate about inclusion and tolerance in their lives.
I think a bully will find a reason to bully if they want to. It says more about the type of homelife they come from than it does about the child who is being bullied.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top