Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

TheChizler

aloyisious wrote: »

I heard Breda today dragging the "children will be denied their mothers" angle into the debate on the surrogacy bill that the Govt is bringing to the Dail. She was referring to the woman who had carried the baby in her womb, not the biological mother.

I'd love to hear her make that argument in front of David Quinn, how could that not apply to adopted children?

aloyisious

lazygal wrote: »

Not to mention that she's referring to things that she doesn't know are in the bill, or if they are, how they are being addressed. The sooner the ancillary bills are passed, the better.
I'm also hoping people will get tired of the same faces and voices on the no side. Its the same five or six people all the time.

I mused on Breda's statement, following the "the traditional family is best for children" argument to it's dated logical conclusion, assuming that she does believe in what the Iona Institute believe and profess. The dad and the child would not be allowed meet as they were only biologically linked and he was not married to the surrogate. The baby would be taken into care to be adopted by a traditional family as it was born outside wedlock and the surrogate would be put to work in a laundry. I had wondered if there might be an "arranged" marriage.

PS, sorry if you reread my post above and see changes to it. I must have accidentally posted the copy I was working on. I had included a longer version of the above para about Breda's statement.

alaimacerc

TheChizler wrote: »

I'd love to hear her make that argument in front of David Quinn, how could that not apply to adopted children?

</Hand-wringing about unfortunate circumstances>

The Ionas, et al, feel comfortable with attacking surrogacy because, though it's essentially the same situation as adoption, it's "premeditated".

aloyisious

This from facebook: Wording of the Gov't bill on Children and Family Relationships... http://jrnl.ie/1943129

There's a discussion between Ray and an expert on surrogancy, maternity and genetics now. The chat is due to the Gov't bill on surrogancy

alaimacerc

iwantmydinner wrote: »

I think this is starting to happen already, to be honest. I definitely think the usual Iona suspects will become almost white noise to all but their core supporters... Maybe that's wishful thinking, but it seems to stand to reason that the same people saying the same idiotic things over and over will be tuned out.

The "usual suspects" effect is so strong that my dearest hope is that we'll eventually either run out of social conservative issues for them to be last man standing on (while all the political parties fall on the "yes" side). Or else the McKenna judgement will be revisited...

lazygal

alaimacerc wrote: »

</Hand-wringing about unfortunate circumstances>

The Ionas, et al, feel comfortable with attacking surrogacy because, though it's essentially the same situation as adoption, it's "premeditated".

That's how they dance around abortion, its not abortion if it means saving a woman's life, its a termination and so sad, so very sad, but not abortion. They are obsessed with the intent behind why people do things, rather than accepting that people will do things they don't like and outlawing them doesn't stop people doing them. Why don't they campaign for all IVF treatment to be banned in Ireland, given that Breda was nearly crying about the poor wombless frozen embryos this morning?

alaimacerc

lazygal wrote: »

http://www.inarchive.com/page/2011-08-03/http:/www.sbpost.ie/archives/2005/0710/adoption-the-agony-and-the-ecstasy-6248.html

I found this from the tweet machine. David Quinn is quoted in it regarding adoption law. He stated his preference was to adopt a child under the age of one. Is this him being adult centred about his reproductive rights, something he accuses others who have families the non Mammy and Daddy way of acting?

I'm sure he'd seek to argue the "bonding" issue was also (or even "primarily") in the child's interests, too.

What I found especially striking was his "is there nothing to be said for a two-tier adoption system with the people 'going private' getting speedier treatment?" line of argument. Which is a remarkably "I have the cash, memememe, screw everyone else" way of acting, all right...

aloyisious

Bureaucratic inertia = meaning checking that the prospective parents are fit for the purpose. I wonder if David would expect to be hit up with that quote of his.

lazygal

It doesn't sound very child centred to suggest that those with money be able to avail of quicker processes to separate children from their natural parents and bring them to a different country.

aloyisious

lazygal wrote: »

It doesn't sound very child centred to suggest that those with money be able to avail of quicker processes to separate children from their natural parents and bring them to a different country.

Well, there are a lot of well-heeled right-wing Christians in the US desperate to save children form the gay peril. Our country does have a record of arranging Irish children for US adoptions.

aloyisious

Have listened to Keith Mills on Prime-Time (the gay man from the group - mothers and fathers) saying he believes that gay men should not be allowed adopt children as it would deny children access to their fathers and mothers. Keith believes that on those grounds that gay men are no good as adoptive parents for children.

Ronan Mullen is on now saying that the law will put adults first and children second, quoting reports to "prove" that a male nd a female parent were necessary for the proper upbringing of children to back up his claims. The programme organizers have edited the show to pop up experts from the world of childcare and adoption to counter (in off-show sections) that what Ronan was saying was not correct. Colm has called him out on what he said and told him that he accepted Ronan was not lying but was mistaken in what he was saying, or words to that effect.

Ronan is now bringing up Elton John and his adopting children, plus the German laws on surrogacy and adoption. I must say that I haven't heard of Mothers and Fathers (as a group) before.

PopePalpatine

Well of course Colm wouldn't accuse Ronan of lying, you don't want to lose voters by being nasty to the other side. /s

Brian Shanahan

lazygal wrote: »

It doesn't sound very child centred to suggest that those with money be able to avail of quicker processes to separate children from their natural parents and bring them to a different country.

It is however a very catholic position. And David's sole goal in life is to force everybody else to adopt the catholic position, no matter how evil it is.

@Aloyisious, you haven't heard of that group because they are one of those pop-up, here today gone tomorrow, fly all their activists in from Amurrika, groups that Iona is so infatuated with setting up in the hopes that people think that their teeny tiny homophobic, misogynistic, anti-civil rights minority is actually bigger than it is.

alaimacerc

Watching the Mullen off disk now. What're they teaching in the NUI that anyone votes for this person?

PopePalpatine

I'd actually like to know how he gets elected, too, and what the last few NUI Seanad elections were like.

Going Strong

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'd actually like to know how he gets elected, too, and what the last few NUI Seanad elections were like.

Mainly, I think because so few vote. I know three people with an NUI vote who've never once actually used them. "Oh, I forgot." seems to be the stock response.

Brian Shanahan

Going Strong wrote: »

Mainly, I think because so few vote. I know three people with an NUI vote who've never once actually used them. "Oh, I forgot." seems to be the stock response.

The Seanad elections are so badly advertised that unless you were asking a group of panel Senator, I'd expect you'd get nobody with a clue when the next one was to take place.

Then you've got the problem that there are a number of political appointees, which in the common perception morphs into a decisive number as regards balance of power, thus leading to the perception that it is simply an echo chamber for the government of the day.

And this is further reinforced by the fact that the Seanad is a powerless empty talking shop*. It's the place where people who are too useless to be given a proper political role, but are too awkard (or know where the bodies are) to be shafted (the old Irish solution of promotion by virtue of incompetence) are put, it's where the cranks go, it's where the basically decent people who love their own voices and want an easy platform to speak from (I'm looking at you David Norris) go, it's where the tokens go. From the start there was never any love for the Seanad, it was a cynical political manoeuvre.

*There are two possible uses for an Upper House in a parliamentary system, a) empty talking shop (what we hav), b) retardant to the democratic process (what the US has, and what the US Senate was expressly set up to do). Neither of those purposes are actually good, and that is why I voted for it's abolishment in the referendum.

aloyisious

This item isn't about marriage or equality, it's a health and safety notice for LGBT folk in Cork...

Gay Cork has lifted and pasted (on facebook) an article from The Irish Examiner re a gang attacking LGBT folk in Cork. The report say's that the gang has both men and women in it, using the net and other sources to post ads/draw people into traps

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland...ks-313132.html

PopePalpatine

I was hoping that sort of stuff wouldn't make its way from the likes of Russia and Deep South backwaters to here.

jobbridge4life

aloyisious wrote: »

This item isn't about marriage or equality, it's a health and safety notice for LGBT folk in Cork...

Gay Cork has lifted and pasted (on facebook) an article from The Irish Examiner re a gang attacking LGBT folk in Cork. The report say's that the gang has both men and women in it, using the net and other sources to post ads/draw people into traps

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland...ks-313132.html

May they be caught swiftly, brought to justice and reform.

Pherekydes

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I was hoping that sort of stuff wouldn't make its way from the likes of Russia and Deep South backwaters to here.

Cork is a deep south backwater. :pac:

The Black Oil

The 'Mothers and Fathers Matter' group, oh that's some clever marketing right there. That's all you've to say to close down debate (:p) mammies and daddies, first and foremost. End of discussion.

What I find problematic with the No side is that they're so obsessed with definitions, what's 'best', 'right', creating distractions, being iffy with social science data, and so on, they appear (to me) to do little to illuminate issues that affect everyone. Families fall apart for all sorts of social, personal and financial reasons. Other than individual responsibility, and leaving aside the gender make up families, we should all be working towards solving these problems and boosting the resilience and life skills of children, regardless of the orientation of their parents.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/children-s-charities-say-family-law-bill-will-bring-better-equality-1.2107660
David Quinn of the Iona Institute is among the members of the group’s advisory committee. The group argues that the Bill “in effect commodifies children” and undermines the status of marriage in the Constitution.

Well, to paraphrase the response of a man called Ted, 'that child was just resting in my account'.

silverharp

Would it be fair to call Iona etc. Pre conception abortionists? It appears they want to prevent children being born that otherwise wouldn't exist only for ivf or a gay parent trying to be a genetic parent .

aloyisious

silverharp wrote: »

Would it be fair to call Iona etc. Pre conception abortionists? It appears they want to prevent children being born that otherwise wouldn't exist only for ivf or a gay parent trying to be a genetic parent .

Pre-conception abortionists, nice wording. No life extant = nothing to kill. No un-natural pro-creation or conception. Iona wouldn't disagree with it's teachings.

shruikan2553

The Black Oil wrote: »

The 'Mothers and Fathers Matter' group, oh that's some clever marketing right there. That's all you've to say to close down debate (:p) mammies and daddies, first and foremost. End of discussion.

What I find problematic with the No side is that they're so obsessed with definitions, what's 'best', 'right', creating distractions, being iffy with social science data, and so on, they appear (to me) to do little to illuminate issues that affect everyone. Families fall apart for all sorts of social, personal and financial reasons. Other than individual responsibility, and leaving aside the gender make up families, we should all be working towards solving these problems and boosting the resilience and life skills of children, regardless of the orientation of their parents.



Well, to paraphrase the response of a man called Ted, 'that child was just resting in my account'.

Arent more Iona members involved in that group? Its like putting your name down twice so you can say "well this other group who just happens to have the same members as us agrees we are right"

alaimacerc

Pherekydes wrote: »

Cork is a deep south backwater. :pac:

More like a south deep underwater, on days like today.

WoolyJumper

Pherekydes wrote: »

Cork is a deep south backwater. :pac:

alaimacerc wrote: »

More like a south deep underwater, on days like today.

Ah now, say what you want about us gays but leave Carrrk outta this, like.

aloyisious

From the Irish (formerly Cork) Examiner: http://www.irishexaminer.com/analysis/the-fight-for-gay-marriage-is-only-the-start-of-a-long-struggle-313385.html

The article contain's at least one interesting view from conservative elements on how SSM could be beneficial to the public purse, eg: social welfare costs being shifted to the private household.

Zubeneschamali

aloyisious wrote: »

From the Irish (formerly Cork) Examiner: http://www.irishexaminer.com/analysis/the-fight-for-gay-marriage-is-only-the-start-of-a-long-struggle-313385.html

it may also reinforce a neoliberal agenda of privatising care for the elderly, the sick, children, and the dependent, and thus foreclose possibilities of moving beyond the limits of marriage as the primary structure for ensuring care.

I think the good doctor's train of thought jumped the tracks here.

aloyisious

It does seem like "racing down the track" thinking, making a leap into the theoretical future. I suppose that's what the professor was doing, musing on how an introduction of SSM might make people think differently about how civil society goes about it's daily business and how it'll "open the box" further on such thinking, like that affecting people in employment by the thinking behind laws introduced to protect ethos. I've entered another Irish Examiner link to a separate article on employment and ethos on the "Full rights for the LGBT community" thread so it could be debated fully there.

The Black Oil

Tut tut, there's Fintan O' Toole being all Irish Timesy...

I'm glad someone in the mainstream media has picked up on this. It's been all over social media, even before the debate kicked off. Tiresome persecution complex.

Fintan O’Toole: attempt to divide us into pro- and anti-family

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-attempt-to-divide-us-into-pro-and-anti-family-1.2106247

Those who oppose same-sex marriage imagine a lost holy Catholic Ireland in which “the family” was perfectly secure until nasty liberals came along and started to undermine it. Yet if you actually read article 41, you will find its tone already imbued with portents of doom: the State pledges not just to support marriage but to “protect it against attack”. Who was attacking marriage in Ireland in 1937? The answer is not the rational one – nobody at all. It lies in the persecution mania that is inextricable from the conservative mindset. Marriage is always under attack from something – contraception, adoption laws, divorce, sexual permissiveness, “dirty” books, “immoral” films. Same-sex couples are just the latest conspirators, but if it wasn’t them it would be somebody else.

Annasopra

aloyisious wrote: »

It seem's to me that if there are any more TV debates between the YES and NO sides, it'd be a good idea that the YES side bring copies of the various bills (surrogacy, child and family relationship etc) with particular attention to the current law on child adoption, so that if anyone from the NO side tries to drag those issues into that of SSM, the YES side can show the law as it applies now and will apply when the bills are enacted and definitively disprove the false statements being made by the NO side that bringing SSM into a fact of law hurt children.

Bring (if possible) the wording of the referendum as well so any false claims made by the NO side can be refuted by asking the NO side to show where what they claim is in it's wording. Carry the fight to them, prove live on air that they are bluffers or are knowingly liars.

I completely disagree. Discussing abstract pieces of paper and laws doesnt win voters over. Noel Whelan explains this.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/marriage-equality-referendum-campaign-it-s-time-to-get-personal-1.2109931

Smiley92a

Anyone read Brenda's IT article today? Was it just me or was she arguing against adoption entirely?

lazygal

Smiley92a wrote: »

Anyone read Brenda's IT article today? Was it just me or was she arguing against adoption entirely?

If she is someone should tell David Quinn who thinks people with money should be able to pay to bypass the adoption vetting process.

Bannasidhe

Smiley92a wrote: »

Anyone read Brenda's IT article today? Was it just me or was she arguing against adoption entirely?

I twitted a question to Sean O Rourke when she was doing precisely that on Radio One last week asking why Iona advocated women pregnant as a result of rape should carry the child to term and then give it up for adoption when Breda was so obviously opposed to 'children being handed over' but strangely received no response.

Nodin

Smiley92a wrote: »

Anyone read Brenda's IT article today? Was it just me or was she arguing against adoption entirely?

tis not in the free on-line site, unfortunately. It would be interesting if this opposition was a new found thing. You'd have to ask, having no notion in the world, as to why.

aloyisious

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I completely disagree. Discussing abstract pieces of paper and laws doesnt win voters over. Noel Whelan explains this.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/marriage-equality-referendum-campaign-it-s-time-to-get-personal-1.2109931

I agree there is a benefit in bringing personal life experiences to the attention of the public when the nay-sayers start rabbitting-on and msileading the voter on reality. Colm O'Gorman and that FF Mayor who lashed the FF Minister out of it in regard to how the Church treated him as a child, then as an adult in court, show the good of that.

I meant keep calling them out on the facts in the planned new laws, as distinct from what they falsely claim the laws intend to cause. Ronan Mullen get's my goat when he rabbit's on sprouting his rubbish. leterally catch him out in a straight lie instead, toss the law on the table (in paper-format) in front of him and ask him to show everyone there where it say's what he claims is in it. Destroy his credibility live on air so he won't be of use to them on that format again.

smokingman

Anyone know if this "Alliance" crowd are another Iona shadow?
http://www.joe.ie/news/these-leaflets-handed-out-against-same-sex-marriage-will-beggar-belief/485864?utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=onsite_share

Nodin

smokingman wrote: »

Anyone know if this "Alliance" crowd are another Iona shadow?
http://www.joe.ie/news/these-leaflets-handed-out-against-same-sex-marriage-will-beggar-belief/485864?utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=onsite_share

Separate though they travel the same path I think.
http://bocktherobber.com/2015/02/gays-die-young-says-insane-irish-catholic-group/

Zubeneschamali

smokingman wrote: »

Anyone know if this "Alliance" crowd are another Iona shadow?

Their website appears to be hosed: www.adfam.ie

Perhaps they should pray to the Holy Spirit to give them some swap space.

smokingman

Looks like it's owned by Anthony Murphy of Athy, who also runs the Catholic voice paper. He's the guy that wanted a school board member in Athy to be sacked because she said she was in favour of letting gay people marry.

aloyisious

A link to a S/Indo article, good piece debunking an Institutional belief... http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/is-it-going-to-be-hello-marriage-equality-bye-bye-mammy-31011309.html.

I disclaim responsibility for the photo image...

TheChizler

aloyisious wrote: »

A link to a S/Indo article, good piece debunking an Institutional belief... http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/is-it-going-to-be-hello-marriage-equality-bye-bye-mammy-31011309.html.

I disclaim responsibility for the photo image...

One comment quite heavy in the ironing:

Just because some journalist or other says something is true, it doesn't mean it is true. If you believe this fairy story you'll believe anything. Rewriting the Bible is a stretch of the imagination too far and totally unbelievable and nonsensical.

shruikan2553

TheChizler wrote: »

One comment quite heavy in the ironing:

Poe's law, or the reverse of it are very common in this referendum.

aloyisious

If I hadn't gone looking for the quote about the journalist, I wouldn't have seen Brigid-11's and Robert25's comments about Carol "Well anyone that has to quote someone from the 13th century to make an argument in the 21st century has already lost the argument" and wondered if they didn't see the irony of people opposing SSM using the oldest book in the world (if one believes in the one God) to base their argument on. MariaVic trump's it with this -
Any way Ms. hunt seems to be unaware that gay marriage is illegal!,

PopePalpatine

smokingman wrote: »

Looks like it's owned by Anthony Murphy of Athy, who also runs the Catholic voice paper. He's the guy that wanted a school board member in Athy to be sacked because she said she was in favour of letting gay people marry.

I swear that it seems like some regulars on t'udder forum (including one who was recently banned) write for that fascistic rag.

robindch

Archdiocese warn against referendum leaflets in churches

Diarmuid Martin is tightening up on groups using churches as outlets for campaigning literature.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/archdiocese-warn-against-referendum-leaflets-in-churches-1.2114017

Irish Times wrote:

Dublin’s Catholic archdiocese has advised priests that, in the context of forthcoming referendums, churches are not appropriate places to distribute campaign literature and that in no circumstance should they be distributed through schools. A statement on the Irish Catholic Bishops’ Conference website says that “experience has shown that during political campaigns, churches, because of their public accessibility, are prone to the placement of political and campaigning literature.

“In light of the announcement that some referendums will be held later this year, parishes are reminded that churches are not appropriate places for the distribution of literature of a purely electoral or campaigning nature, during referendums or election campaigns. Every effort should be made to ensure that churches are not used for the dissemination of campaign literature from any source.”

It says that “parish priests and rectors of churches are responsible for verifying the appropriateness of any publications which are on sale or distributed gratis in their churches or grounds. Campaign material should in no circumstance be distributed through schools.” Where parish publications in general are concerned it advises “newsletters distributed in the name of a parish community should not be used as a vehicle for the expression of personal views.”

It adds that “the focus of any parish newsletter or web and social media should be to circulate information on liturgies, parish events, parish contacts, death notices, and charitable events concerning the local parish community and the wider archdiocese.” When publishing information or images concerning named individuals it points out “it is best practice to seek their permission in advance. Publication of details such as addresses and mobile phone numbers should be avoided, where possible, if necessary it must be done with consent.”

On publishing images of children under the age of 18 it says “permission must be sought from a parent or guardian. It is good practice to clarify this with parents/guardians at the time of the authorised photo being taken. Images of children should not be published along with their full names.” It advises that “the parish priest or administrator, or a nominee of his choice, should exercise editorial control over the parish newsletter and other media platforms.”

Where there may be doubt over any of these matters, it says the local diocesan communications office is available to advise further “about the nature of an article or post submitted for publication in print or on line.”

TheChizler

robindch wrote: »

Archdiocese warn against referendum leaflets in churches

Diarmuid Martin is tightening up on groups using churches as outlets for campaigning literature.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/archdiocese-warn-against-referendum-leaflets-in-churches-1.2114017

Diarmuid Martin always struck me as someone with his head screwed on the right direction at least, fair play for pointing out that political stuff isn't appropriate in a religious context, pity it doesn't work the other way round.

aloyisious

Senator Fidelma Healey-Eames (formerly of FG which she left because of her religious-based ethics) has declared she will run as an Indo in the next election, won't join with Lucinda's new party, will talk with other Indo's who's policy she likes. Wonder would Ronan be the partner she's looking for?

Cabaal

Amazed nobody's posted this



http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/02/21/the-leaflet-of-hate/