Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

Bannasidhe

fisgon wrote: »

We're not actually contemplating the idea that this is real are we?

I mean, I know a lot of this uber catholic publications are beyond parody, but this surely cannot be real. "Catholics are best"? "One in three children born are aborted"? Has to be a wind-up.

Friend of mine received it in the mail - so someone is paying postage.
He is also a well known photographer and it taking the use of the image up with iStock (thanks for that oldrnwisr ) as people infringing copyright gets right up his nose.

If memory serves the address given is actually a vitamin shop with a dojo/meditation space upstairs...

Pherekydes

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If memory serves the address given is actually a vitamin shop with a dojo/meditation space upstairs...

Looking at it again, it actually says I9 (eye 9). Don't know if this means anything down Cork way. :pac:

TheChizler

Well Benedictus is a Christian bookshop at number 9 North Main St. Gonna say that's probably it!

Brian Shanahan

robindch wrote: »

Good to see the woman in the back, where she belongs.

To my addled mind it looks like the woman's head, at least, has been photoshopped into the picture.

Edit: From Oldrnwisr we can see that yes, the woman's head has been photoshopped along with the childs. This strangely enough has been done in an addled attempt to position their heads so they directly look at us. It is addled because now the woman's neck is missing and both heads look badly out of place in the shot and in proportion to their respective bodies.

aloyisious

SW wrote: »

RCC could be shooting themselves in the foot as people might forego a church wedding entirely if they can't also sign the civil documents post ceremony.

Bishops’ threat over non-signing of civil wedding forms

One wonders if the lost income at parish level might force a change of mind. plus a "there's no point in going to church any more, sure they didn't even complete my son/daughter's marriage" thought.

aloyisious

I've just seen a report on facebook about a new case presented to the US Supreme Court. I hope the notion doesn't occur to Iona, Mothers And Fathers Matter, and the phalanx of NO groups showing up here.

A group allegedly representing bisexual men and women in opposite-sex marriages in the U.S. have put a case to the U.S.S.C that granting equality to same-sex couples there on the marriage issue would make their marriages second-class. They also claim in their case that gay men would be denied access to straight marriages and forced into same-sex marriages.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/04/13/same-sex-attracted-men-object-to-gay-marriage/

Hotblack Desiato

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Latest anti-whateveryouarehavingyourself leaflet to raise it's nonsensical head in Cork.

The husband is smiling but... look at his eyes. Look at his dead eyes.

"Oh great, she's pregnant AGAIN. Praise the Lord. :rolleyes: "

"Secretly I wish I was driving on the other carriageway IYKWIM"

alaimacerc

aloyisious wrote: »

I've just seen a report on facebook about a new case presented to the US Supreme Court. I hope the notion doesn't occur to Iona, Mothers And Fathers Matter, and the phalanx of NO groups showing up here.

A group allegedly representing bisexual men and women in opposite-sex marriages in the U.S. have put a case to the U.S.S.C that granting equality to same-sex couples there on the marriage issue would make their marriages second-class. They also claim in their case that gay men would be denied access to straight marriages and forced into same-sex marriages.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/04/13/same-sex-attracted-men-object-to-gay-marriage/

I have the opposite hope. Are you familiar with the phrase "laughed to scorn"? The Yanks might be straight-faced enough to give this one some sort of hearing, but "ya-whaaa?"-ing here would be deafening.

Delirium

Good letter wondering where the "kids need a mammy and daddy" campaigners were in years gone by.

robindch

SW wrote: »

Good letter wondering where the "kids need a mammy and daddy" campaigners were in years gone by.

The Church Knows Best.

Bannasidhe

SW wrote: »

Good letter wondering where the "kids need a mammy and daddy" campaigners were in years gone by.

Was just going to post this. I have to admit it is an excellent point that hadn't occurred to me.

In other news Sonics2k of this parish (:P ) has been making the headlines again. I do think the Yes side should be more proactive in 'using' Sonics as a living, breathing, articulate counter argument to the whole Helen Lovejoy hysteria. There are photos of him with his fiancee and kids on the yesequalitycork FB page that speak volumes but sadly those will really only reach the 'converted'.

smokingman

SW wrote: »

Good letter wondering where the "kids need a mammy and daddy" campaigners were in years gone by.

Thanks for that! Sharing to as many people as I can now.

PopePalpatine

This was a bit of a chilling read during my lunch break: http://www.cracked.com/article_22212_5-ways-coming-out-to-your-family-can-go-horribly-wrong.html

aloyisious

PopePalpatine wrote: »

This was a bit of a chilling read during my lunch break: http://www.cracked.com/article_22212_5-ways-coming-out-to-your-family-can-go-horribly-wrong.html

It seem's that parents think it reflect's something bad about them and their chromosomes, that they were responsible for their child being gay. It take's them an age to get used to the idea that gay people could be the same as them - some never do due to religious brainwashing. It never strikes the brainwashed that their religious teaching say's all creation is by the God they revere, so any reflection made by them damn's him as a incompetent creator.

That ist thought started from an incident at a family party long after I came out to them, when an in-law said to another in-law (in ref to me and my gay nephew) "Well, you know it's not a problem on your side" while I and my sister (nephew's mother) were present seated around the same table. Well needless to say, both of us were struck dumb about the thinking of the in-law. One thing is that there's no bar on me or him from attending family- do's.

Links234

Shockingly good article about transgender kids and teens in the Irish Times: http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/transgender-children-s-minds-cannot-be-aligned-with-their-body-1.2168610

B_Wayne

Meanwhile, David Quinn is going lower and lower with his hard hitting commentary on Marriage Referendum. Questioning LGBT and suicide.
https://twitter.com/DavQuinn/status/587910486861176832

The Black Oil

Doommongering column on the way?

That's a 'please do my homework for me', tweet. If he's that bothered he'd contact some LGBT orgs or mental health researchers.

galljga1

PopePalpatine wrote: »

This was a bit of a chilling read during my lunch break: http://www.cracked.com/article_22212_5-ways-coming-out-to-your-family-can-go-horribly-wrong.html

Yeah, think of the children. You would not come across too many gay parents tossing their children out on the street because they were straight.

galljga1

B_Wayne wrote: »

Meanwhile, David Quinn is going lower and lower with his hard hitting commentary on Marriage Referendum. Questioning LGBT and suicide.
https://twitter.com/DavQuinn/status/587910486861176832

Is anyone aware of a large Irish moron spouting vitriol about an Irish minority?

lazygal

It's weird, his PR training and filter seems to be switched off when he uses the tweet machine and he shows his true colours. He's really not a pleasant man.

alaimacerc

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In other news Sonics2k of this parish (:P ) has been making the headlines again. I do think the Yes side should be more proactive in 'using' Sonics as a living, breathing, articulate counter argument to the whole Helen Lovejoy hysteria. There are photos of him with his fiancee and kids on the yesequalitycork FB page that speak volumes but sadly those will really only reach the 'converted'.

That's from the YEC launch event, right? Which paper's it from? Can't quite make it out from the photo...

alaimacerc

B_Wayne wrote: »

Meanwhile, David Quinn is going lower and lower with his hard hitting commentary on Marriage Referendum. Questioning LGBT and suicide.
https://twitter.com/DavQuinn/status/587910486861176832

Presumably a high suicide rate will "prove" that gay people are "inherently disordered", etc, therefore vote "no". Whereas a low one will "prove", look ma, no homophobia here, 'tis grand, so vote "no"! Bias-confirming column in it for him either way.

B_Wayne

lazygal wrote: »

It's weird, his PR training and filter seems to be switched off when he uses the tweet machine and he shows his true colours. He's really not a pleasant man.

Think it's one of the signs of desperation from no side, I'm concerned about how incredibly nasty it is going to get.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Presumably a high suicide rate will "prove" that gay people are "inherently disordered", etc, therefore vote "no". Whereas a low one will "prove", look ma, no homophobia here, 'tis grand, so vote "no"! Bias-confirming column in it for him either way.

He was actually provided with a a few studies but they weren't adequate for his high standards.

Bannasidhe

alaimacerc wrote: »

That's from the YEC launch event, right? Which paper's it from? Can't quite make it out from the photo...

Evening Echo.

Hotblack Desiato

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Wonder how many people's first reaction on seeing the headline was 'Feckin' Finns should stick to matters in Finland'

Sonics2k

B_Wayne wrote: »

Meanwhile, David Quinn is going lower and lower with his hard hitting commentary on Marriage Referendum. Questioning LGBT and suicide.
https://twitter.com/DavQuinn/status/587910486861176832

The fun part of this sequence of tweets is that he was linked to 2 or 3 studies on this topic, but he claimed the number wasn't high enough. In fact these studies showed the exact opposite of what he wanted.

What he's looking for is a purely Irish study with about 1000 LGBT children and teens, which he isn't going to get. He has been provided with studies from across the EU and US, as well as findings from the ISPCC itself, all of which he continues to ignore.

For the record, I'd encourage the posters here to not resort to calling him or his followers bigots or homophobes, do not attack them, because that is what they want.

Ignore Quinn himself, he is a deeply opinionated man who will not be moved. Instead, speak to his supporters and ask them why they would want to cause hurt to our future generations, why they would deny them such a thing as a simple legal right in the eyes of the state and remind them of this. The referendum does not impact children in any way. Tell them and show them that Quinn is lying to them.

Lastly, do not get caught up in any form of circle jerk about this election being a sure thing, because it is not. Right now we need to speak to our friends and families who are on the fence and are not sure.
We must urge the usual non voters to please attend and make sure they are registered to vote this May.

Do not resort to anger and hate, not when the aim is opposite.

Brian Shanahan

Breda O'Brien was on the Breakfast show on Newstalk, in response to iar-Uachtaráin Mary McAleese's comments on gay marriage being a human right, and gave a really bizzare performance.

First of all there was the usual "won't somebody please think of the children", but when Chris Donoghue pulled her up very short on that (by quoting the whole of the referendum question), she went in a bizzare tangent saying that voting in gay marriage would be prejudiced against gays in civil partnerships. And here was I thinking that we were for gay marriage largely because the other two options, civil partnerships and "get back into that closet you dirty queer you" were prejudicial against the LGBT community. She at one point tried to hector Donoghue with the line "do you think civil partners are second-class citizens?", to which the obvious and true answer is "yes, they don't have the same legal rights or community standing as married couples, you daft besom." Then she seigued back to "won't somebody please think of the children", before ending on a weird and frankly hysterical attempt to paint Chris Donoghue as the person warping the debate in an attempt to clutch at straws. Despite the fact that I ranted at her all the way into work I had a great time listening to her hoist herself by her own petard.

I honestly think the Ionanists are really running scared here, they must have polls conducted showing that they're on a hiding to nothing unless nobody turns up and are really getting desperate. All we need to do is keep everybody motivated, and get our friends and family out to vote and the issue is in the bag, it has that much support.

K4t

Sonics2k wrote: »

For the record, I'd encourage the posters here to not resort to calling him or his followers bigots or homophobes, do not attack them, because that is what they want.

Yes, we should wait until May 23rd for that. If this does pass, the last thing people should do is forget about Quinn, O'Brien and the rest of the controlling theocratic tyrants they associate with. They need to be frozen out of discourse in this country through constant and unrelenting criticism.

robindch

B_Wayne wrote: »

Do not resort to anger and hate, not when the aim is opposite.

Couldn't agree more.

Can't remember whether I mentioned it here or somewhere else online recently, but I can't help but recall Marcus Aurelius' comment:

Marcus Aurelius wrote:

The best revenge is not to be like your enemy.

Links234

Yeah, but people also say that revenge is best served cold. They say revenge is sweet too.

So, after we the referendum, we shall have icecream for revenge.

Brian Shanahan

Links234 wrote: »

Yeah, but people also say that revenge is best served cold. They say revenge is sweet too.

So, after we the referendum, we shall have icecream for revenge.

It is an old Klingon proverb

For some strange reason I am getting a hankering for a very large ham.

Bannasidhe

Links234 wrote: »

Yeah, but people also say that revenge is best served cold. They say revenge is sweet too.

So, after we the referendum, we shall have icecream for revenge.

I fully intend to marry ice cream.

alaimacerc

B_Wayne wrote: »

Think it's one of the signs of desperation from no side, I'm concerned about how incredibly nasty it is going to get.

Look on the bright side: it might motivate the "ah sure it'll pass anyway" yesses to get off their arses. The No side might be strategically better running an "under the radar" campaign. Keep publicity as low as possible, spend the US religious right's money underwriting them to bus the Tridentine vote straight from mass to the polling booth, with cake and tea afterwards.

aloyisious

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

It is an old Klingon proverb

For some strange reason I am getting a hankering for a very large ham.

Why are you hankering after D.Q.?

Sonics2k

K4t wrote: »

Yes, we should wait until May 23rd for that. If this does pass, the last thing people should do is forget about Quinn, O'Brien and the rest of the controlling theocratic tyrants they associate with. They need to be frozen out of discourse in this country through constant and unrelenting criticism.

Funnily enough, I would disagree.

We live in a democracy, where we ensure Freedom of Speech.

Quinn and Iona have the right to hold and cherish their beliefs, they don't however, have a right to force their belief on others. That's what part of this referendum is about, just like the divorce referendum.

I whole heartidly disagree with them, but we should also defend their right to say it without fear of attack. It makes us no better than them.

alaimacerc

Sonics2k wrote: »

Funnily enough, I would disagree.

We live in a democracy, where we ensure Freedom of Speech.

Quinn and Iona have the right to hold and cherish their beliefs, they don't however, have a right to force their belief on others. That's what part of this referendum is about, just like the divorce referendum.

I whole heartidly disagree with them, but we should also defend their right to say it without fear of attack. It makes us no better than them.

I totally agree with you about FoS. What I don't think is that they deserve a bully pulpit. Their views get a prominence they simply don't deserve. Seemingly because of their mysteriously generous levels of funding, their trigger-happy litigiousness, and the inanities of the McKenna judgement.

K4t

Sonics2k wrote: »

We live in a democracy, where we ensure Freedom of Speech. We do thankfully.

Quinn and Iona have the right to hold and cherish their beliefs, they don't however, have a right to force their belief on others. That's what part of this referendum is about, just like the divorce referendum.

I whole heartidly disagree with them, but we should also defend their right to say it without fear of attack. It makes us no better than them.

I am possibly the biggest proponent of freedom of speech on this website so no need to preach to the converted there! Yes they do have that right. And of course they don't have a right to force their beliefs on others, however much they may try and desire to! Though one could say they already do through indoctrination in schools and so on.

Anyway, yes of course, I agree with everything you've said there, except you've slightly misinterpreted my point. By targeting Quinn, O'Brien, IONA et al and criticising and questioning every word that comes out of their mouths and every word they write, we are not infringing their freedom of speech, but merely expressing our own. That includes the right to call them bigots and homophobes and controlling catholic tyrants too if we so wish. None of this impinges on their freedom of speech, or freedom of religion or freedom of anything. It's like everyone in the western world has forgotten that the very freedoms that liberal apologists and religious conservatives are preaching about daily, apply to everyone! Use them! The minority voice must be protected the most in the sense that it must never be suppressed, but that doesn't mean it cannot be, in fact it sometimes should be, criticised and chastised to high heaven!

Brian Shanahan

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Breda O'Brien was on the Breakfast show on Newstalk, in response to iar-Uachtaráin Mary McAleese's comments on gay marriage being a human right, and gave a really bizzare performance.

First of all there was the usual "won't somebody please think of the children", but when Chris Donoghue pulled her up very short on that (by quoting the whole of the referendum question), she went in a bizzare tangent saying that voting in gay marriage would be prejudiced against gays in civil partnerships. And here was I thinking that we were for gay marriage largely because the other two options, civil partnerships and "get back into that closet you dirty queer you" were prejudicial against the LGBT community. She at one point tried to hector Donoghue with the line "do you think civil partners are second-class citizens?", to which the obvious and true answer is "yes, they don't have the same legal rights or community standing as married couples, you daft besom." Then she seigued back to "won't somebody please think of the children", before ending on a weird and frankly hysterical attempt to paint Chris Donoghue as the person warping the debate in an attempt to clutch at straws. Despite the fact that I ranted at her all the way into work I had a great time listening to her hoist herself by her own petard.

I honestly think the Ionanists are really running scared here, they must have polls conducted showing that they're on a hiding to nothing unless nobody turns up and are really getting desperate. All we need to do is keep everybody motivated, and get our friends and family out to vote and the issue is in the bag, it has that much support.

Disappointed by how Chris managed to get himself tangled up badly in this. If he'd sat back a little more she'd have left him enough rope.

Bannasidhe

Dear Mr Quinn.

I will absolutely defend your right to spout nonsense.
Will you defend my right to call it nonsense?

Yours

Libby Lefty.

Shrap

Deleted User wrote: »

Disappointed by how Chris managed to get himself tangled up badly in this. If he'd sat back a little more she'd have left him enough rope.

Yeah, I was hoping he'd just play her a little longer too but I thought he did remarkably well compared to most other interviews I've heard with her where she's rail-roaded the journalist. He caught her out in a good few lies and certainly gave as good as he got. Better than most.

magicbastarder

inda seems to have partially called the church's bluff on handling the legal part of marriage, which seems to have discombobulated them slightly:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0414/693972-same-sex-marriage/

seamus

magicbastarder wrote: »

inda seems to have partially called the church's bluff on handling the legal part of marriage, which seems to have discombobulated them slightly:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0414/693972-same-sex-marriage/

The church seem to be under the impression that people feel a marriage isn't a "real" marriage unless it's done in a church.

This was probably true 30 years ago, but I know from recent experience that it's flipped the opposite way and most people feel that a marriage without the civil ceremony isn't a "real" marriage at all.

One guy I know dragged his family and friends to Italy for a big Italian church wedding. Over the course of the day people discovered that not only was the Italian church wedding not a civil wedding (not uncommon), but they hadn't even scheduled a civil ceremony at home.
Most people were pretty pissed off that they had spent stupid money on what was effectively a big meaningless party. If there's no legal marriage, there's no marriage.

If the church holds firm on this, what they'll find is that their books will become much more quiet as people wait months to get their civil ceremony scheduled.

Sonics2k

K4t wrote: »

I am possibly the biggest proponent of freedom of speech on this website so no need to preach to the converted there! Yes they do have that right. And of course they don't have a right to force their beliefs on others, however much they may try and desire to! Though one could say they already do through indoctrination in schools and so on.

Anyway, yes of course, I agree with everything you've said there, except you've slightly misinterpreted my point. By targeting Quinn, O'Brien, IONA et al and criticising and questioning every word that comes out of their mouths and every word they write, we are not infringing their freedom of speech, but merely expressing our own. That includes the right to call them bigots and homophobes and controlling catholic tyrants too if we so wish. None of this impinges on their freedom of speech, or freedom of religion or freedom of anything. It's like everyone in the western world has forgotten that the very freedoms that liberal apologists and religious conservatives are preaching about daily, apply to everyone! Use them! The minority voice must be protected the most in the sense that it must never be suppressed, but that doesn't mean it cannot be, in fact it sometimes should be, criticised and chastised to high heaven!

Oh please, don't misunderstand me. By all means we should argue and debate them, and call them out on their nonsense, I'm only saying we should attack and insult them as certain people do. It does absolutely no good.

Bannasidhe

Sonics2k wrote: »

Oh please, don't misunderstand me. By all means we should argue and debate them, and call them out on their nonsense, I'm only saying we should attack and insult them as certain people do. It does absolutely no good.

I agree.

Kill them with civility.

oscarBravo

There has to be some way to kill off this "right to a mother and a father" nonsense once and for all.

If such a right existed, then a child of (say) a single parent could sue that parent for failing to marry, and thereby depriving them of their right to one of their parents.

It grinds my gears every time I hear it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

oscarBravo wrote: »

There has to be some way to kill off this "right to a mother and a father" nonsense once and for all.

If such a right existed, then a child of (say) a single parent could sue that parent for failing to marry, and thereby depriving them of their right to one of their parents.

It grinds my gears every time I hear it.

Yeah, but it's all they have without being homophobic.

silverharp

oscarBravo wrote: »

There has to be some way to kill off this "right to a mother and a father" nonsense once and for all.

If such a right existed, then a child of (say) a single parent could sue that parent for failing to marry, and thereby depriving them of their right to one of their parents.

It grinds my gears every time I hear it.

The way I look at it is that kids with at least one gay biological parent wouldn't have been born unless that parent decided to have them . how would putting barriers in the way of their conception protect their rights? Is their logic that that the kid's spirit will move on to the next available Catholic womb?

shruikan2553

oscarBravo wrote: »

There has to be some way to kill off this "right to a mother and a father" nonsense once and for all.

If such a right existed, then a child of (say) a single parent could sue that parent for failing to marry, and thereby depriving them of their right to one of their parents.

It grinds my gears every time I hear it.

A right which only exists if the parents could be gay. It's ok for children to be denied this right otherwise. I have yet to get an answer on how can it be important if it doesn't apply to children who don't have or potentially have same sex parents.

robindch

oscarBravo wrote: »

There has to be some way to kill off this "right to a mother and a father" nonsense once and for all.

"Mr Quinn, this referendum is about ensuring that the civil ceremony of marriage is made available equally to all citizens regardless of their sexual orientation. This referendum is not about children, so I would greatly appreciate if you could stop pretending that it is."

robindch

A guy asks Apple's SIRI a few gay-friendly questions. SIRI's responses aren't quite what you'd expect. Or maybe they are.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-32308428