Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

robindch

An Indopundit approves of McAleese's comments:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/mary-mcaleeses-divine-intervention-on-the-side-of-the-angels-in-samesex-debate-31144046.html

magicbastarder

a rather petulant howl from bruce arnold, which the examiner bizarrely seemed to think was worth publishing:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/a-mistaken-venture-into-major-change-323750.html

Penn

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.

It's easily disproven, but they're going to keep repeating it regardless because it's a good soundbite and will help put doubt and fear in people's minds. It's scaremongering. It's all they have.

seamus

Bad Horse wrote: »

It's easily disproven, but they're going to keep repeating it regardless because it's a good soundbite and will help put doubt and fear in people's minds. It's scaremongering. It's all they have.

It's an appeal to emotion. The vast majority of people grew up with a mother and a father and had a happy childhood. So it's an easy fallacy to lean on because *not* having both a mother and a father is unfamiliar to most people, and therefore lies in the scary land of uncertainty.

galljga1

magicbastarder wrote: »

a rather petulant howl from bruce arnold, which the examiner bizarrely seemed to think was worth publishing:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/a-mistaken-venture-into-major-change-323750.html

An utter arrogant twat.

magicbastarder

well worth watching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZVD0eBQ3LE

aloyisious

I can't find the exact page to copy and paste, but today's Irish Independent (on the opposite page to the opinion piece on Mary McAleese's statement) has an opinion piece about Bruce's opinion piece from last week, pointing out the errors in Bruce's piece.

robindch

magicbastarder wrote: »

a rather petulant howl from bruce arnold, which the examiner bizarrely seemed to think was worth publishing

Nothing "rather" about that petulance. Nice of him to take the time out to remind us that he's been shouting from the back pew about politicians for over fifty years. Remind us twice :rolleyes:

Penn

aloyisious wrote: »

I can't find the exact page to copy and paste, but today's Irish Independent (on the opposite page to the opinion piece on Mary McAleese's statement) has an opinion piece about Bruce's opinion piece from last week, pointing out the errors in Bruce's piece.

They managed to fit it all onto one page? Amazing.

galljga1

robindch wrote: »

Nothing "rather" about that petulance. Nice of him to take the time out to remind us that he's been shouting from the back pew about politicians for over fifty years. Remind us twice :rolleyes:

Mickey Rooney?

Shrap

magicbastarder wrote: »

a rather petulant howl from bruce arnold, which the examiner bizarrely seemed to think was worth publishing:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/a-mistaken-venture-into-major-change-323750.html

"Waaaah, I thought you were my friends, waaaah! Why won't anyone reply to my letters? I'm going to tell on all of you, waaaaah, etc."

I'm thinking this new age of Bruce Arnold comments could be the very public beginnings of a "second childhood", tbh. Not pretty.

wp_rathead

His argument is that Simon Coveny shouldn't be in charge of FG Yes Campaign cause he is a minister and that he was probably pressured into it..
He should save some tin foil for the sandwiches

CptMackey

In todays examiner there is an article about how the Muslim council , the Quakers, Presbyterian and some Catholic priests want their views on same sex marriage to be taken into account and for a clause to be put in so as not to have views imposed on their religious beliefs.

Are they for real. It's ok for them to impose their beliefs on everybody but they are being discriminated against if we have marriage equality

magicbastarder

what exclusions are they asking for? the SSM referendum will not force them to change their views.

Bannasidhe

CptMackey wrote: »

In todays examiner there is an article about how the Muslim council , the Quakers, Presbyterian and some Catholic priests want their views on same sex marriage to be taken into account and for a clause to be put in so as not to have views imposed on their religious beliefs.

Are they for real. It's ok for them to impose their beliefs on everybody but they are being discriminated against if we have marriage equality

The Quakers?
That does surprise me.

Delirium

CptMackey wrote: »

In todays examiner there is an article about how the Muslim council , the Quakers, Presbyterian and some Catholic priests want their views on same sex marriage to be taken into account and for a clause to be put in so as not to have views imposed on their religious beliefs.

Are they for real. It's ok for them to impose their beliefs on everybody but they are being discriminated against if we have marriage equality

Link to story on the Examiner site

The Irish Council of Imams, Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland, and individual members of the Reformed Presbyterian and Quaker churches made the call in a petition sent to Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald in recent days.



The document states that the religious bodies disagree strongly with the proposed “aggressive secularism” constitutional changes. It was written after a number of recent controversial cases of businesses refusing gay couples as customers.


While noting the referendum has been framed as being about freedom of expression, the petition says, if passed under its current wording, the changes would discriminate against people opposed to gay marriage for religious reasons who will “risk prosecution” if they hold firm to their beliefs “in employment, worship or social interaction”.


“We the under-signed, for reasons of faith, consider the state of marriage the exclusive province of a man and a woman. This is the understanding of all revealed religions,” a petition reads.


The petition, at www.citizengo.org, has been signed almost 200 times since it began on April 4 by groups including the Islamic Cultural Centre of Ireland, the Irish Council of Imams, the Galway branch of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Mr Kimball and individual Catholic clergy.

(continues in link above)

Bannasidhe

SW wrote: »

Link to story on the Examiner site

So it's an ecumenical matter...

:pac:

CptMackey

magicbastarder wrote: »

what exclusions are they asking for? the SSM referendum will not force them to change their views.

From what I can gleam from it they want the right to discriminate

galljga1

SW wrote: »

Link to story on the Examiner site

So they feel they will be discriminated against for discriminatory behaviour?

magicbastarder

CptMackey wrote: »

From what I can gleam from it they want the right to discriminate

in what context though?
if they want to discriminate by not allowing same sex marriage in their churches, that's not a fight anyone is too concerned about.

Zubeneschamali

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Quakers? That does surprise me.

Just one Quaker so far. The article notes that the Quakers as a group have not backed the petition. The Quaker in question is perhaps not the full six-pack:

Mr Kimball said the petition — which has yet to be backed or rejected by his church — does not infringe on gay people’s rights to be served by businesses or treated the same as others, but “draws the line” at asking religious people to “legitimatise” specific gay marriage requests.The Quaker said if the clause was included it would convince a large number of no voters to support the referendum as their rights will be protected from what he claimed is “aggressive secularism”.Citing concerns over recent incidents involving a Northern Irish bakery and a printers in Dublin which were criticised for refusing gay couples, he said there are examples of an “orchestrated campaign” by gay groups to force people to hide their views.

So it doesn't infringe on your rights to be served by a business the same as everyone else, it just allows businesses to refuse to serve you if they don't like gay marriage???

aloyisious

This is for site admin. I've been plagued all day by McAfee site safety notices whenever I've opened this thread, asking me why I've been diverted to a site which is unsafe (not, I hasten to point out, boards.ie, but another site - something ending with the word live). Has anyone else been plagued with a hack or spam-worm while opening threads here. I opened boards up on another page to get the other site name from McAfee and was presented with a warning about being diverted to hotchat, whatever that is. My system was OK last night & the problem began today shortly after I opened a facebook page about some teenage (13) kid in Donegal who's Mum came out to him as lesbian. I opened on F/B first before boards.ie. I'm having no problem on F/B. I'm wondering since McAfee started sending the warnings has boards been under attack today.

I'm closing down now for a few hours while I get techies to look at my laptop, will open up again later. Ta, TTFN.

Benny_Cake

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Just one Quaker so far. The article notes that the Quakers as a group have not backed the petition.

This. Nearly crashed the car when I heard the person referred to being interviewed on Morning Ireland. In fact, the chances of Irish Quakers as a body taking one position or the other are slim given there are different views on the subject. I have the distinct impression that the pro-Yes side are in the majority although that could be the circles I'm mixing in. I wouldn't be surprised to see statements being issued at the regional level though.

There is no way to introduce a conscience clause in any consistent way. It's a licence to discriminate against a group simply because you don't like something about them and I could see it being used as cover for discrimination against the traveller community, interfaith couples...etc,etc.

Shrap

Benny_Cake wrote: »

There is no way to introduce a conscience clause in any consistent way. It's a licence to discriminate against a group simply because you don't like something about them and I could see it being used as cover for discrimination against the traveller community, interfaith couples...etc,etc.

Thank you, well said.

Also, I genuinely thought the Quakers were a live and let live bunch - good to know it's not a spokesperson for all of them giving an official stance (yet).

shruikan2553

If yes passes they are worried about being persecuted but if no passes it's ok?

Typical from these groups, think they can put their nose anywhere but as soon as anyone looks over at them they become defensive and cry for protection.

Links234

Brian Shanahan

aloyisious wrote: »

Why are you hankering after D.Q.?

LARGE HAAAAAAAAAAAAMMMMM!!!!!!!!!

Brian Shanahan

SW wrote: »

Link to story on the Examiner site

Is it just me or is that citizengo crowd just a far-right religious nutjob version of change.org or avaaz.org?

If so, it does not show the relevant organisations in a pleasant nor humane light.

lazygal

So not.only does the Muslim leader think there's no gay Muslims here, he also knows no.Muslims at all will vote yes. Sounds like he's got his house in order.

Bannasidhe

lazygal wrote: »

So not.only does the Muslim leader think there's no gay Muslims here, he also knows no.Muslims at all will vote yes. Sounds like he's got his house in order.

Jeeze... ex of mine is going to get an awful shock when she learns the woman she has been living with for the last 14 years isn't actually Muslim... going to be some explaining to do about the ban on bacon butties.

The Black Oil

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.

Me too. Aren't some people already under family pressure with marriage and kids with 'when are you going to pop one out?' type stuff, and yet here we have an institute preaching that marriage is primarily child centred, that's not pressurising...and that biological mammy and daddy know best.

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.

I gave up listening to Newstalk some years ago. Too many changes in personnel and a few other things, too. I'm not familiar with this general style or approach, the breakfast slot is one of the reasons I gave up on NT (before Chris came on board). I thought he did well overall, but he could have pushed more directly and asked her for evidence of certain things she was going on about. At times it felt like she was almost laughing at Chris for some of the things he was bringing up. I thought his 'it's 17 words' point was a little weak as I suspect from Breda et al's perspective it's not the number, but the intention, which they see as problematic.

iirc, and I'd have to listen again to be fully sure, she seemed to some degree fixated on concerns that, should the referendum be carried, future marriages would be affected (how this related to children)? I didn't really get it.

This really is about ordinary people. As Conor Cusack said in that clip, the likes of former minister Pat Carey who came out only recently. There must be a lot of people of his age who are still closeted from shame and fear.

alaimacerc

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.

Mine too. I think it'll be a hard one to get rid of, though. For two main reasons.

First, it's like asserting a Right to Mom and Apple Pie. If you point out there's no such right in law, you'll immediately be met with a hail of "Oh, so you're against motherhood and traditional baked goods, then?"

Second, the more pedantic sophists (R. Mullan springs to mind) will qualify it by saying "wherever practicable". This is ridiculous enough language whenever it is used in law, but is obvious "spoofer warning!" stuff when one is making stuff up. So they can say that forcing people to get married is "impractical". They can say banning divorce is "impractical" -- though you might wonder if they'd prefer to walk that kitty back, too. "Obviously" forcing widows to remarry would be ludicrous, so "of course" they're not suggesting that.

Discriminating the heck against same-sex couples seeking to regularise their family arrangements and keeping their status second class, that they feel is very, very "practicable" as a step.

Turtwig

Have mixed feelings on the petition to revoke iona's charitable status. It's just another piece of ammo for they to deflect with and avoiding actually discussing anything.

Turtwig

Turtwig wrote: »

Have mixed feelings on the petition to revoke iona's charitable status. It's just another piece of ammo for they to deflect with and avoiding actually discussing anything.

Agreed, but at the same time, how in the name of **** do they have charitable status?

Shrap

Turtwig wrote: »

Have mixed feelings on the petition to revoke iona's charitable status. It's just another piece of ammo for they to deflect with and avoiding actually discussing anything.

Yeah, I now have very mixed feelings about it too (after cheerfully signing it and thinking it great yesterday). It will of course be ammo for them to moan about the yes side wanting to silence them, but considering 8,000 had signed by last night in one day, it did snowball somewhat....and it's too late now. It'll be IONA's next weapon, as if they needed another.

It may generate some questions for them in public though (I'm hoping), and highlight the fact that they claimed not to be campaigning. And it will also generate more avoidance of the actual issues by them. It's done now though, so the fall out is inevitable.

Can't help feeling really happy at the number of folk who jumped at the chance to nail them though, even if we're not being politically clever

Hotblack Desiato

Asking them to play by the rules is far from silencing them.

They should be registered with SIPO too...

magicbastarder

hmm....

http://www.youthdefence.ie/

Turtwig

Haha, forget to register the domain?

Or another error similar to their forum nonsense.

Delirium

Turtwig wrote: »

Haha, forget to register the domain?

Or another error similar to their forum nonsense.

It's been hacked. YD have that domain.

PopePalpatine

I was hoping the hackers would post this again.

jobbridge4life

Don't really get the purpose of hacking the website. No one who was a regular visit to YDs page is going to be like 'oh you know what them queers are awful cute now that I see em hugging'. This just provides more things for the no side to distract and portray themselves further as victims of the oppressive gays.

Zubeneschamali

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Don't really get the purpose of hacking the website.

It's funny.

We are all trying to be serious, and debate the serious arguments from the no side, but the fact is that they don't have any.

Pointing and laughing is really the only response left.

jobbridge4life

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It's funny.

Is it?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

We are all trying to be serious, and debate the serious arguments from the no side, but the fact is that they don't have any.

Pointing and laughing is really the only response left.

I disagree since the Government felt it necessary to make us grovel politely for our equal treatment under the law we have no choice but to remain as calm and reasoned as is possible until this referendum is passed.
Honestly all this achieves in my book is another 15 minutes of ranting for Breda, David and co.

Penn

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Asking them to play by the rules is far from silencing them.

They should be registered with SIPO too...

Again though, whether or not they're playing by the rules, it gives them an opportunity to frame the debate how they want. Even though it's asking for them to play by the rules, they'll scream about how the Yes side are trying to silence them, and they'll wheel out any they've ever done that could be considered charitable to try and show how they're the good guys and the Yes side are trying to stop them from doing charitable stuff.

After the referendum, nail the f*ckers to the wall. But before the referendum, everyone should be focusing on demolishing their false arguments and disproving almost everything they say.

Don't follow them down the rabbit hole. Stay on higher ground.

The Black Oil

Sit rep, coming out in North Dakota.

Nodin

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Don't really get the purpose of hacking the website. No one who was a regular visit to YDs page is going to be like 'oh you know what them queers are awful cute now that I see em hugging'. This just provides more things for the no side to distract and portray themselves further as victims of the oppressive gays.

.....which helps humiliate them still further, and is of course just funny.

david75

Does anyone truly believe someone hacked this site?

This was YD themselves looking to smear the Yes campaign..I mean if you were going to hack any site in all this, you'd hack iona's..not YD...

this is an inside job 100%

PopePalpatine

david75 wrote: »

Does anyone truly believe someone hacked this site?

This was YD themselves looking to smear the Yes campaign..I mean if you were going to hack any site in all this, you'd hack iona's..not YD...

this is an inside job 100%

Good point, I remember when, a few weeks after pages of the Herald detailing the case of Savita were plastered on Life House's shutters, they popped up claiming that the pages were stuck to those shutters with poop.

aloyisious

A slight deviation from the thread issue being debated. I saw this on F/B and had to laugh. An answer to the eternal question; where did we come from....

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015/04/iranian-cleric-fathers-fantasies-during-intercourse-causes-homosexuality/

The Black Oil

Apparently, Dave and co. have an issue with Twitter Dublin advocating a Yes vote.

Iona have an odd relationship with speech and discourse.