Still Waters No Longer Running, Derp.

Nodin

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So a mother and father separate and the mother is given full custody by a judge. Mother marries a second man and now the second man might have more legal claim to the child than the biological father. Waters problem is that now the second partner of the mother might be the same gender as the mother... that's just a complicated version of the 'children need male and female parents' argument.

I give John a C- for this assignment. He obfuscated the issue but he didn't use any big words.

Hey when's Waters coming out anyway?

Waters described a hypothetical situation in which a heterosexual marriage with children could end and one parent could be cut off from their children because a judge has given full custody to their ex-spouse and their new gay husband or wife. He envisages situations, he explained, where a gay step parent could be given a superior status to a biological parent.

http://www.thejournal.ie/john-waters-first-families-first-2082634-May2015/

But just because somebody has custody of the child doesn't mean the parent is "cut off" from said child? Surely that would require a court order, which would hardly be issued for the craic - there'd need to be evidence of a threat to the child or something surely?


"superior status" - no idea what that's supposed to get at, save the fact that whoever is co-habiting with the parent who has custody will be around the child more often, which would be the case be they straight, gay, bi, transgender or from Cavan.

Shrap

Nodin wrote: »

"superior status" - no idea what that's supposed to get at, save the fact that whoever is co-habiting with the parent who has custody will be around the child more often, which would be the case be they straight, gay, bi, transgender or from Cavan.

Well exactly. In the case of my youngest, in my view my bf has "superior status" compared youngest's father as he pays him far more attention than his father does, and supports me (and by default, the entire family) way more. I would have preferred that my youngest got to see his father more, but it's his call unfortunately. Over the years he's cut his time with my youngest by 2/3rds and has only himself to blame for his drop in "status" as a significant role model in his own son's life.

Ps. bf isn't even co-habiting with us. Is just here when he can be and when needed.

Vivisectus

Smiley92a wrote: »

Saw their launch on the six one news this evening. Much talk about the terrible ramifications of the amendment (I think the word 'chaos' was mentioned a few times) but no specifics.

There's never any specifics.

Oh, and I saw that MAFM youtube ad today. Now the Tara Flynn parody makes sense. It's very clever. You could watch the first 30 seconds and think it was one of those neutral public information broadcasts.

That really bothered me - the RTE piece on them just had them saying that terrible things would happen unless the amendment they propose was enacted... and then totally did not include the details of the amendment, making this just another piece of no-side scaremongering.

Really terrible reporting from RTE there.

El_Duderino 09

Nodin wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/john-waters-first-families-first-2082634-May2015/

But just because somebody has custody of the child doesn't mean the parent is "cut off" from said child? Surely that would require a court order, which would hardly be issued for the craic - there'd need to be evidence of a threat to the child or something

I'm going to listen to the interview again but the point he was making is that the constitution refers to the 'natural family' and this referendum will take us away from the natural family and will render that part of the constitution redundant. Therefore the natural family and biological parent, will end up with less rights than they currently have.

Does anyone know if I have interpreted the point correctly and if he is correct?

galljga1

Nodin wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/john-waters-first-families-first-2082634-May2015/

But just because somebody has custody of the child doesn't mean the parent is "cut off" from said child? Surely that would require a court order, which would hardly be issued for the craic - there'd need to be evidence of a threat to the child or something surely?


"superior status" - no idea what that's supposed to get at, save the fact that whoever is co-habiting with the parent who has custody will be around the child more often, which would be the case be they straight, gay, bi, transgender or from Cavan.

Not Cavan again. When will this persecution stop?

El_Duderino 09

There were 2 points he made where he used very precise wording and I was wondering if he did it deliberately or not.

He said it's illegal to deface election posters. Is it illegal to deface referendum posters?

Secondly he said the gardai have come out in favour of a yes vote. The interviewer corrected him and said one garda group was in favour of the yes vote and they were reprimanded by garda command. Waters didn't want to allow the point to be clarified. Those 2 points stuck in my mind as points which sound great but he didn't want to explore them.

Any ideas?

recedite

robindch wrote: »

John is unhappy this fine day. And wants the nation to join him.

http://www.thejournal.ie/john-waters-first-families-first-2082634-May2015/

Waters described a hypothetical situation in which a heterosexual marriage with children could end and one parent could be cut off from their children because a judge has given full custody to their ex-spouse and their new gay husband or wife. He envisages situations, he explained, where a gay step parent could be given a superior status to a biological parent.
He said these kinds of dilemmas would be facilitated by a combination of a Yes vote and the Child and Family Relationships Bill.

If JW is correct in his assessment that some wicked stepfather/stepmother type figure could deny child access to the innocent biological parent, then the legislation around child and family relationships needs to looked at. Either way, it's nothing to do with SSM.
Unless he thinks that the scenario is OK if the step-parent is straight, but not OK if he/she is gay.

CramCycle

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Does anyone know if I have interpreted the point correctly and if he is correct?

I don't think he is correct, at least not the way he is representing it. The constitution just refers to family, it's JW who refers to the natural family.

Legislation already takes care of the issues he refers to, amendments to this legislation is the only way to address any issues he has, if they are there anymore once the most recent legislation in this area in enforced.

TL:DR he is incorrect in that it affects the family in no way negatively, worst case scenario it gives some families more security. Everyone outside of that is dealt with by legislation.

recedite

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

There were 2 points he made where he used very precise wording and I was wondering if he did it deliberately or not.

He said it's illegal to deface election posters. Is it illegal to deface referendum posters?

Secondly he said the gardai have come out in favour of a yes vote. The interviewer corrected him and said one garda group was in favour of the yes vote and they were reprimanded by garda command. Waters didn't want to allow the point to be clarified. Those 2 points stuck in my mind as points which sound great but he didn't want to explore them.

Any ideas?

On posters, they would be classed as "litter" except that the litter laws allow them to be up around election/referendum time.
Therefore they remain the property of the owner, so defacing them would be criminal damage. The same as damaging a parked car in a public place.

The GRA is not AGS (An Garda Siochana) It represents its members, but not all Gardai are members.

recedite

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'm going to listen to the interview again but the point he was making is that the constitution refers to the 'natural family' ....Does anyone know if I have interpreted the point correctly and if he is correct?

Here's what is in the Constitution

CONSTITUTION OF IRELAND – BUNREACHT NA h&#201 wrote: »

The Family
Article 41
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 indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.
2. 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.
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.
2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution......

Note that it does not refer to "the natural family" or say that the family unit must consist of one male, plus one female, plus x number of children.

It has been argued over the years by people like JW that the word "family" is defined as a man+woman+children but the Irish Constitution does not define the word. It does however say that the family is founded on marriage. Hence we are having a referendum to clarify whether a gay couple can form a proper family, accessed through their marriage.

An unmarried couple with kids, or a single parent family is still not a proper family though, according to the Constitution. Presumably a married couple without kids is a family, or at least a family-in-waiting. The whole Article 41 needs updating really, but its probably best not to conflate the different issues involved. And seeing as unmarried families are not being discriminated against (already getting the same tax and social welfare options etc.) and they also have the option to marry if they want, then its probably best to leave that aspect of the Constitution alone, for the moment anyway.
Its outdated stuff from the DeValera era, but harmless nonsense. Similar to the mother being the one asked to stay at home. That stuff is not politically correct these days, but so long as the TD's don't legislate for it, nobody seems to care. In theory the govt. could announce at the next budget that only married couples in which the woman stayed at home could claim a joint tax credit, and nobody could say it was unconstitutional. It won't happen though, because it would be unpopular.

Vivisectus

I did not realize that the Irish constitution is quite so sexist. Shocking!

Vivisectus

lol whoop swrong thrad!

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

And seeing as unmarried families are not being discriminated against (already getting the same tax and social welfare options etc.)

Not quite. For SW purposes, cohabiting couples are treated as if they are married.
For tax purposes, a cohabiting couple is treated as two single people, so if one isn't earning or not earning enough to use up their tax allowances/bands fully, then they lose out compared to a married couple who can share them (although since 'individualisation' the full bands/allowances are no longer transferrable in full to the working spouse.)

recedite

oldrnwisr wrote: »

The last census shows that in total there were 215,315 lone parent families. Out of these, just 29,031 were single fathers. Also given that 124,765 families had just one child, the number of children being raised by single fathers is unlikely to be much more than 30,000.

And yet, there he was on RTE's Prime Time last night, merrily pulling his "500,000 single fathers raising children in Ireland today" figure straight of his ass again.

Somebody should have pulled him up on it. He wouldn't have got away with masquerading such unfounded nonsense as "a statistic" in Pat Kenny's day :pac:

I do feel a bit sorry for JW at the moment, he seems very conflicted. He finds himself thrown into the No Gay Marriage campaign as some kind of champion for the Ionanists, where he is expected to argue that kids need a father and a mother.
On the other hand, he also has his own personal cause celebre; the single fathers, which he seems incapable of putting to one side, even temporarily.

MaxWig

recedite wrote: »

I do feel a bit sorry for JW at the moment, he seems very conflicted. He finds himself thrown into the No Gay Marriage campaign as some kind of champion for the Ionanists, where he is expected to argue that kids need a father and a mother.
On the other hand, he also has his own personal cause celebre; the single fathers, which he seems incapable of putting to one side, even temporarily.

No conflict there (for him).

He always argued that a child needed access to both.

His view on single fathers was that children were being damaged by being isolated from one parent, by another.

I'll give him that

recedite

Well then, shouldn't JW be advising these 500,000 single fathers to go out and find themselves a wife? Or will only the biological mother do?
Which kind of puts his co-panellist David Quinn in a pickle, with his adopted kids.

El_Duderino 09

The single parents against gay marriage are really highlighting their own inadequacy. Claiming a child needs to be raised by parents of both genders is crazy given that single parents are only offering single gender parenting.

In other words, if they were right then a gay couple would offer the same deal only better.

Maybe waters should b campaigning against single gender parenting.

Shrap

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The single parents against gay marriage are really highlighting their own inadequacy. Claiming a child needs to be raised by parents of both genders is crazy given that single parents are only offering single gender parenting.

In other words, if they were right then a gay couple would offer the same deal only better.

Maybe waters should b campaigning against single gender parenting.

WHUT???! Is this a thing? A group I've missed? Please enlighten me. Seriously, I will be upset if these people (as an alliance) exist, so I need to know (signed "token single parent resident predominately in A&A").


Edit: Having looked up "single parents against gay marriage", I have decided it's as much of a "thing" as "gay parents against gay marriage". Petra Conroy/John Waters as "all the single parents" is similar I'm sure, to Keith Mills/Paddy Manning being "all the gays".

I implore you, please choose your generalisations with greater care. Not speaking for ALL single parents here, but I'm well sick of being everybody's football when it suits them. Thanks.

El_Duderino 09

Shrap wrote: »

WHUT???! Is this a thing? A group I've missed? Please enlighten me. Seriously, I will be upset if these people (as an alliance) exist, so I need to know (signed "token single parent resident predominately in A&A").


Edit: Having looked up "single parents against gay marriage", I have decided it's as much of a "thing" as "gay parents against gay marriage".

I implore you, please choose your generalisations with greater care. Not speaking for ALL single parents here, but I'm well sick of being everybody's football when it suits them. Thanks.

Appologies. I'm referring to individual single parents who are opposed to gay marriage. Not a formal group. The woman on the late late show debate, John waters and a poster named SweetMaggie. They each claimed that gays shouldn't raise children because children need parents of both genders.

If you accept their argument it would also count against single parents as they are offering single gender parenting too.

P.S. I don't accept their argument.

Shrap

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Appologies. I'm referring to individual single parents who are opposed to gay marriage. Not a formal group. The woman on the late late show debate, John waters and a poster named SweetMaggie. They each claimed that gays shouldn't raise children because children need parents of both genders.

If you accept their argument it would also count against single parents as they are offering single gender parenting too.

P.S. I don't accept their argument.

Thanks, appreciate the apology because it's not the first "the single parents are being stupid now" post today.

Yes they are individuals. At this stage I think they're distinct enough to call them by their names and also distinct enough to lump them in with the self-hating gays (all two of them) and call them self-hating single parents (three of them, seemingly). Most of us (to my knowledge, and thankfully) are proud of ourselves for doing better than we did within the parental relationships.

Vivisectus

Well, since the Ionians are not bigots (they keep saying that they are not!), we can only assume they will go after single parents next. The fact that they got interested in a childs right to parents of two different genders JUST when there was a gay marriage referendum on was just a coincidence.

MaxWig

Vivisectus wrote: »

Well, since the Ionians are not bigots (they keep saying that they are not!), we can only assume they will go after single parents next. The fact that they got interested in a childs right to parents of two different genders JUST when there was a gay marriage referendum on was just a coincidence.

Again, and I know I'm in danger of the mob here, but Waters cannot be accused of that.

He's been on about it for years. Years and years.

To the point where he was ridiculed for it. Broken record etc.

Vivisectus

Really? Waters feels we should make single fatherhood more diificult?

MaxWig

Vivisectus wrote: »

Really? Waters feels we should make single fatherhood more diificult?

Waters, in light of the difficulties many single fathers face/faced in relation to access to their children argued that it was a travesty that a child would be denied access to a biological parent - the father in the cases he was referring to.

lazygal

MaxWig wrote: »

Waters, in light of the difficulties many single fathers face/faced in relation to access to their children argued that it was a travesty that a child would be denied access to a biological parent - the father in the cases he was referring to.

Well then he should have been mad as hell at David Quinn, who's adopted two children from another country, robbing them of their right to their biological mother and father.

Vivisectus

MaxWig wrote: »

Waters, in light of the difficulties many single fathers face/faced in relation to access to their children argued that it was a travesty that a child would be denied access to a biological parent - the father in the cases he was referring to.

So he has not in fact been speaking out against single fatherhood, which could be seen as denying a child the right to parents of both genders?

MaxWig

lazygal wrote: »

Well then he should have been mad as hell at David Quinn, who's adopted two children from another country, robbing them of their right to their biological mother and father.

go on......

haha

MaxWig

Vivisectus wrote: »

So he has not in fact been speaking out against single fatherhood, which could be seen as denying a child the right to parents of both genders?

Just pointing out that Waters did not take a 'sudden' interest in this.

Try to put his face out of your head.

I am not Waters.

I repeat. I am not Waters.

Vivisectus

MaxWig wrote: »

Just pointing out that Waters did not take a 'sudden' interest in this.

Try to put his face out of your head.

I am not Waters.

I repeat. I am not Waters.

Really? Damn and I had the pitchforks and torches all ready and everything ;P

Nodin

MaxWig wrote: »

Just pointing out that Waters did not take a 'sudden' interest in this.

Try to put his face out of your head.

I am not Waters.

I repeat. I am not Waters.

No, your posts are far too concise and you seem to understand all the words you use.