Gay Marriage an attack on children - IONA

FutureTaoiseach

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2005
Messages
7,980
Website
greatdearleader.blogspot.com
Unbeatable South Derry said:
[quote="Fallen_Angel":523xwxt1]
One if you haven't figured out by now, most of the guys(bullies) in school who went around calling people "gay" were usually gay themselves, that's why there needs to be a more "inclusive" policy in schools that says "it's cool to be gay" etc. That's the way forward and the Catholic schools would also have to get stuck in a put aside their prejudices about "gays" also if something like that was to work :)
Thats news to me! That must mean basically every boy in my school was gay. I don't know what your school was like but at ours anyone who was different was basically never left alone. And at my school anyone playing in the school hurling and football teams could basically do as they pleased (and we did). Anyone with no interest in sport gay, anyone who spent must of his time with the girls gay, anyone who spoke or acted a certain way gay, even the subjects you chose could mark you down. Any way it doesn't really matter who turned out to be gay or not what does matter is the never-ending abuse you can take in school. So in my school if anyone had have been brought up by a same-sex couple we would basically have destroyed their life. Is that what anyone wants for a child?[/quote:523xwxt1]

Good point.
 


returning officer

Active member
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
139
solair said:
A % of the population are gay, that's a given. Why can't they get married?!

What's the big deal?!
The Constitution. It needs a referendum to change it. Some opinion polls say people are in favour, but the issue of the right to apply for adoption (always misquoted as the non-existant right to adopt) drives the support into the negative.

It's about time that they let gay people have some sense of stability in their lives and proper rights to have their relationships legally recognised.
Who are they? Well, it is you and me - and the rest of FF and FG. There are, at most 25 TDs in favour of having a referendum (Greens, Shinners, most(ish) of the Labour party and a few anonymous stragglers from the rest). It will not happen, unless the junior coalition partner makes it a pre-condition of government or a suitable EU case comes along (eg a Spaniard and an Irishman, married in Spain, settled in Ireland, but not allowed to jointly adopt here).

Not giving them this right is discrimination pure and simple.
Whatever of its purity, it is definetly not simple.

And finally, discriminiation is not an evil in itself, (we do it every day - whom do we sit beside on a bus, open doors for some people, to which people we speak), but it is whether it reaches the level of injustice that we should be concerned. Accordingly whether a situation is not equal to another, is beside the point, without an anaysis on equivilance and justice. (eg the non-Irish partner about to be deported, the partner denied access to hospital, or the deceased partner leaving half a house and a huge tax bill).
 

Fallen_Angel

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2005
Messages
33
FutureTaoiseach said:
Unbeatable South Derry said:
[quote="Fallen_Angel":37qpgq3f]
One if you haven't figured out by now, most of the guys(bullies) in school who went around calling people "gay" were usually gay themselves, that's why there needs to be a more "inclusive" policy in schools that says "it's cool to be gay" etc. That's the way forward and the Catholic schools would also have to get stuck in a put aside their prejudices about "gays" also if something like that was to work :)
Thats news to me! That must mean basically every boy in my school was gay. I don't know what your school was like but at ours anyone who was different was basically never left alone. And at my school anyone playing in the school hurling and football teams could basically do as they pleased (and we did). Anyone with no interest in sport gay, anyone who spent must of his time with the girls gay, anyone who spoke or acted a certain way gay, even the subjects you chose could mark you down. Any way it doesn't really matter who turned out to be gay or not what does matter is the never-ending abuse you can take in school. So in my school if anyone had have been brought up by a same-sex couple we would basically have destroyed their life. Is that what anyone wants for a child?
Good point.[/quote:37qpgq3f]

Well at least this is slowly changing, as being gay especially amoungst teenage girls in secondary school seem to be taking it all in their stride. Whereas boys in secondary school seem to be alot slower in following the girls in this.

People will always find something to bully people with, even if you are from an ethnic background(does that mean that all black people should stop having kids just to avoid their kids being bullied in school for being black?)
No its doesn't and the same applies to a loving same-sex couple who are generally are older and more mature ;)
 

DS-147

New member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
2
Unbeatable South Derry said:
[quote="Fallen_Angel":1o3ry461]
One if you haven't figured out by now, most of the guys(bullies) in school who went around calling people "gay" were usually gay themselves, that's why there needs to be a more "inclusive" policy in schools that says "it's cool to be gay" etc. That's the way forward and the Catholic schools would also have to get stuck in a put aside their prejudices about "gays" also if something like that was to work :)
Thats news to me! That must mean basically every boy in my school was gay. I don't know what your school was like but at ours anyone who was different was basically never left alone. And at my school anyone playing in the school hurling and football teams could basically do as they pleased (and we did). Anyone with no interest in sport gay, anyone who spent must of his time with the girls gay, anyone who spoke or acted a certain way gay, even the subjects you chose could mark you down. Any way it doesn't really matter who turned out to be gay or not what does matter is the never-ending abuse you can take in school. So in my school if anyone had have been brought up by a same-sex couple we would basically have destroyed their life. Is that what anyone wants for a child?[/quote:1o3ry461]

Therefore we should teach our children to conform to what you, view as the 'norm'? Rubbish! All your post goes to prove is how much work needs to done to show children it is okay to be different! We cannot let school yard name calling dictate where we go with civil rights in this country. I find it absurd that you would even view this as relevant to the debate!
 

returning officer

Active member
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
139
Some of these type of arguments to do not really counter the weight of Iona's influence on this debate, stoked up by these Equality in Marriage people and their badly thought through, stupidly timed campaign.

Equality is not an end in itself, unless there are just reasons for it. And if it equality in the name used, it is a waste of a referendum. If civil partnership can achieve broadly the same rights and benefits why campaign for Equality in Marriage? What is the real agenda?
 

Twin Towers

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
5,803
This inheritance argument gets me. You can leave your entire earthly possessions to a cat if you so wish. As for marriage look at Paul McCartney and Heather Mills ;)
 

returning officer

Active member
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
139
Twin Towers said:
This inheritance argument gets me. You can leave your entire earthly possessions to a cat if you so wish.
Yep, but imagine if cats didn't have to pay the tax on it but dogs did. The bitches would be in uproar.

This thread is only on page 2 and heading South rapidly and Kal el or White Horse haven't even joined in yet.

Benefits of civil partnership:
1) Stable legal basis for relationships;
2) Firmer foundation for joint applications for adoption;
3) Provision for property, maintenance division if it all goes wrong.
4) Citizen rights to a non-Irish partner.
5) Tax free inheritances from partner.
6) Right to visit in hospitals, or be involved in funeral arrangements.
7) Social welfare or other benefits eg pension.
8) Others I can't recall at the moment

Benefits of Equality in Marriage;
As above, except it sounds better and it provides a higher constitutional standing (there may be some Constititiuonal lawyer who can come up a same-sex Baby Ann case and put this in practical terms).

The difference between the two: one can be delivered by the Summer by the Dail, the other needs, loads of time for a referendum (and a lot of rain in the West on the day).
 

KingKane

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
2,324
Website
www.danielsullivan.ie
Twitter
kingkane
Unbeatable South Derry said:
I have no problem with gay marriage. You do your thing I couldn't care less. But where children are concerned its different. I could go into all sorts of reasons but heres the main 1. Does no one here remember what school was like? Where anybody who was different was picked on. Primary school isn't too bad but imagine after that!
Of course, why didn't we all think of that - children who are different for some reason should go to schools for different children!
 

Fallen_Angel

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2005
Messages
33
returning officer said:
[quote="Twin Towers":1rfru6kc]This inheritance argument gets me. You can leave your entire earthly possessions to a cat if you so wish.
Yep, but imagine if cats didn't have to pay the tax on it but dogs did. The bitches would be in uproar.

This thread is only on page 2 and heading South rapidly and Kal el or White Horse haven't even joined in yet.

Benefits of civil partnership:
1) Stabie basis for relationships;
2) Firmer foundation for joint applications for adoption;
3) Provsion for property, maintenance division if it all goes wrong.
4) Citizen rights to a non-Irish partner.
5) Tax free inheritances from partner
6) Right to visit in hospitals, or be involved in funeral arrangements.
7) Social welfare or other benefits eg pension.
8) Others I can't recall at the moment

Benefits of Equality in Marriage;
As above, except it sounds better and it provides a higher constitutional standing (there may be some Constititiuonal lawyer who can come up a same-sex Baby Ann case and put this in practical terms).

The difference between the two: one can be delivered by the Summer by the Dail, the other needs, loads of time for a referendum (and a lot of rain in the West on the day).[/quote:1rfru6kc]

Both options sound good to me, but how do we know that the Government won't decide to let's say leave out "adoption rights" or something else equally as important ?
 

Fallen_Angel

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2005
Messages
33
KingKane said:
Unbeatable South Derry said:
I have no problem with gay marriage. You do your thing I couldn't care less. But where children are concerned its different. I could go into all sorts of reasons but heres the main 1. Does no one here remember what school was like? Where anybody who was different was picked on. Primary school isn't too bad but imagine after that!
Of course, why didn't we all think of that - children who are different for some reason should go to schools for different children!
Sounds like an Irish solution to an Irish problem. :D
 

returning officer

Active member
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
139
Both options sound good to me, but how do we know that the Government won't decide to let's say leave out "adoption rights" or something else equally as important ?
This is the most important question.

I naively trusted my own government on this, believeng that Civil Partnership would be more along the lines of the Labour parties. But the McDowell influence has carried over and we still hear talk of siblings and carers, and matters not being equivilant to marriage (the problem with the Labour bill was that is adoption asspect went too far and it could be self-ameded legislation).

I'm sorry to say it, but it will be for the Greens to insist in delivery of it, since the FF wing of government scares more easily from the "think of the children argument." However even if an incomplete Civil Partnership bill is brought, it can be later amended, but the important thing is that it is one the Statute book (just like the original Irish solution to an Irish problem)
 

Twin Towers

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
5,803
Unbeatable South Derry said:
I have no problem with gay marriage. You do your thing I couldn't care less. But where children are concerned its different. I could go into all sorts of reasons but heres the main 1. Does no one here remember what school was like? Where anybody who was different was picked on. Primary school isn't too bad but imagine after that!
Perhaps boys of the future will get to sue the state for the trauma of being handed to two gay men for adoption. Sort of queer Magdalen laundry scenario ;)
 

MarD

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
45
Redefining marriage completely to make homosexuals feel included is nonsense. Homosexuals have the right to marry but don't exercise it because of their sexual orientation. redefining marriage to suit adults is state-sanctioned child abuse. On every sociological metric children, on average, who are not brought up their natural parents do less well than children brought up by their natural parents.
As a society we should promote what is best for the betterment of society not simply what pleases the desires of a minority. There are no valid recognised studies comparing two parent hetrosexual upbringings against two homosexuals raising children. ALL studies quoted by the American Medical Associations are flawed in their comparisons. All they show is that children brought up by homosexual partners are no worse of than any other dysfunctional family unit. OR else they are subjective self-assessments that show that children of homosexual partners when interviewed don't 'feel' any different to other children.

The controversies that are now being raised in Australia and other countries about sperm-donor fathers and surrogate mothers should be a lesson for what is down the tracks if this country legitimises adults' desires over children's needs.
 

kerrynorth

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Messages
1,525
There is no point in gays looking for 'gay marriage' as it will require a Constitutional amendment to allow the government to legislate for it. And there virtually a zero chance of a government being brave enough to put the issue to a referendum never mind it actually been passed.
 

smiffy

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2004
Messages
1,279
Website
cedarlounge.wordpress.com
MarD said:
Redefining marriage completely to make homosexuals feel included is nonsense. Homosexuals have the right to marry but don't exercise it because of their sexual orientation. redefining marriage to suit adults is state-sanctioned child abuse. On every sociological metric children, on average, who are not brought up their natural parents do less well than children brought up by their natural parents.
Is anyone actually suggesting that where the opportunity is available for children to be brought up by their natural parents, they shouldn't be? If not, this argument would appear to be a red herring.
 

returning officer

Active member
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
139
kerrynorth said:
There is no point in gays looking for 'gay marriage' as it will require a Constitutional amendment to allow the government to legislate for it. And there virtually a zero chance of a government being brave enough to put the issue to a referendum never mind it actually been passed.
A new lobby group is looking for gay marriage; gays (or perhaps more happily phrased "people who are gay") differ in their views. As it happens, I would agree with you.
 

Fallen_Angel

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2005
Messages
33
MarD said:
Redefining marriage completely to make homosexuals feel included is nonsense. Homosexuals have the right to marry but don't exercise it because of their sexual orientation. redefining marriage to suit adults is state-sanctioned child abuse.
The constitution needs to be changed to reflect the changing nature of modern Irish society as it was written in 1937 at a time when there were no single-parent families in Ireland, the concept of the "Family" has changed utterly and the constitution doesn't protect the rights of non-nuclear families. The Ireland of "comely maiden" dancing at the crossroads is long gone and the constitution needs to be changed.

MarD said:
On every sociological metric children, on average, who are not brought up their natural parents do less well than children brought up by their natural parents.
There are so many single parents out there in Ireland and are you implying that these single parents are not doing the best for their children.
 

Defeated Romanticist

Active member
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
277
Libero said:
Defeated Romanticist said:
Oh oooo...

This is going to turn into one of those types of threads. Well I'd better add my two cents before it reaches page 52.

The Iona institute are ofcourse right. The only reason marraige exists is because of children. That is why the legal consumation is vaginal inter-course. For this reason to allow homosexual couples to "marry" would be an impossibility, like putting a square box into a round hole. It would require a fundemental redefinition of marraige. There is no reason to do this. Nor is there any justification for re-writing history and tradition(which is why we have civil marraige) to do this.

Now ofcourse not everyone who gets married has children by the traditional method or at all. But this does not change the reason for marraige's existance in the first place.
If the reason and the purpose of marriage is all about children, why is the institution of marriage open to those unable to have children?

I accept that the historical norm and tradition dictates that marriage be between a man and a woman. But then, once upon a time, the historical norm and tradition dictated that we didn't marry people of other races and that women were the property of their husbands.

Thankfully, we had the good sense and decency to leave all that behind when changing what the institution of marriage means. And no doubt we were treated at the time to lots of rhetoric about the meaning and purpose of marriage and how this meant the insitution shouldn't change.

Simply pointing to the fact that something is traditional isn't, by itself, much of a reason for keeping it that way.
Your comparison with the Jim crow type laws is not apt. Those type laws were a prevention of an application of marriage to eligible persons. Gay marriage is a fundamental redefinition of the essence of marriage.
As for your argument about elderly or infertile couples, clinically and cynically, one could say that though both are eligible for marriage, such marriages are to an extent a mis-use of marriage. But as the fundamental form is not altered or injured in any way there is no reason to prevent or prohibit them.

FT asked about rights which are denied to gay couples. This is a nonsense argument. If we want to allow gay couples the same rights as married ones, fire away, you do not need to call that marriage. It is not a black or white issue, either we have same sex marriage or ban all types of civil recognition ect. But the term marriage and the institution marriage cannot be used for the reasons already stated.

BTW David, it is perfectly legitimate to talk about multiple marriages and bestial marriages in this context as if we were to fundementally re-define marriage once, why not do it twice?
 


New Threads

Top Bottom