Claire Byrne Live (RTE1)

K4t

CreepingDeath wrote: »

No, it received a lot of external funding. See Irish Times Link

Politicians are afraid of losing votes to publicly say no.
Businesses are afraid to lose customers and negative publicity.

Just out of interest, why is it do you suppose that the Law Society of Ireland, the ISPCC (Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children), Barnardos and the Children’s Rights Alliance have all come out publicly in support of a YES vote? Have they been forced by the Government, or by the Irish people, or by the Iona institute into advocating a YES vote in a similar manner as to how you claim that businesses and politicians have been forced into silence for fear of advocating a No vote?

John_Rambo

CreepingDeath wrote: »

No, it received a lot of external funding. See Irish Times Link

Politicians are afraid of losing votes to publicly say no.
Businesses are afraid to lose customers and negative publicity.

Well, it's a vote. Everyone can vote which ever way they want, you don't have to do it publicly, whilst I believe there's a lot of shy or unsure no voters, I still think the nation will correctly vote yes. Yes to equality.

CountyHurler

5uspect wrote: »

Lolek Ltd, trading as the Iona 'institute' are clearly bigoted. It's not to too much of a leap to consider these various affiliated groups pretty bigoted, especially since their agreements are either red herrings or intolerant religious fascism.

I think you should hand back your Moderator wings...

BlaasForRafa

CountyHurler wrote: »

I think you should hand back your Moderator wings...

I think you should go and find out what being a moderator actually means.

K4t

CountyHurler wrote: »

I think you should hand back your Moderator wings...

Can moderators not have opinions now? Though I would not call that an opinion so much as an evidence based statement.

5uspect

CountyHurler wrote: »

I think you should hand back your Moderator wings...

Why? Just because I mod another forum doesn't mean I can't comment on others. But you'd rather attack me than acknowledge that Lolek Ltd, a shady group of people elected by nobody, with charitable status and no charitable works, pretending to be an Institute and do no research, funded secretly, and with almost unlimited access to the media, deliberately lied to the constitutional convention.
That they continue to lie to support their religous beliefs and that, by definition, constitutes bigotry.

hotmail.com

5uspect wrote: »

Why? Just because I mod another forum doesn't mean I can't comment on others. But you'd rather attack me than acknowledge that Lolek Ltd, a shady group of people elected by nobody, with charitable status and no charitable works, pretending to be an Institute and do no research, funded secretly, and with almost unlimited access to the media, deliberately lied to the constitutional convention.
That they continue to lie to support their religous beliefs and that, by definition, constitutes bigotry.

He'd rather make a smart comment than actually dispute or debate the merits of your post. It speaks volumes.

RayM

If I heard one valid and relevant argument against Marriage Equality, I'd be prepared to revise my view that the entire No side is populated by bigots.

CreepingDeath

K4t wrote: »

Just out of interest, why is it do you suppose that the Law Society of Ireland, the ISPCC (Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children), Barnardos and the Children’s Rights Alliance have all come out publicly in support of a YES vote?

Because it's the only choice the Irish people have been given.
A black and white, accept or reject giving the LBGT community absolutely "everything".

There's no middle ground being offered, eg. extending civil partnerships.

So, it will benefit some same sex couples bringing up children which is why charities are not going to be against it, but it is also giving all LBGT people the benefits of a marriage that was only intended to protect families.

There's bound to be a lot of unintended consequences of this.
Things people haven't even considered yet that WILL affect them, eg. it might push them down the council housing list because married people get priority.

When there's a gun to your head and you are told choose one or the other, but nothing in between, then that's not much choice at all.

hotmail.com

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Because it's the only choice the Irish people have been given.
A black and white, accept or reject giving the LBGT community absolutely "everything".

There's no middle ground being offered, eg. extending civil partnerships.

So, it will benefit some same sex couples bringing up children which is why charities are not going to be against it, but it is also giving all LBGT people the benefits of a marriage that was only intended to protect families.

There's bound to be a lot of unintended consequences of this.
Things people haven't even considered yet that WILL affect them, but it might push them down the council housing list because married people get priority.

When there's a gun to your head and you are told choose one or the other, but nothing in between, then that's not much choice at all.

The civil marriage of same sex couples will not affect council housing waiting lists.

RayM

CreepingDeath wrote: »

There's bound to be a lot of unintended consequences of this.
Things people haven't even considered yet that WILL affect them, eg. it might push them down the council housing list because married people get priority.

Is that honestly the best you can do?

Although in fairness, your 'arguments' (and I use that term quite wrongly) are no worse than those of Ronan Mullen, John Waters, David Quinn, etc.

BlaasForRafa

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Because it's the only choice the Irish people have been given.
A black and white, accept or reject giving the LBGT community absolutely "everything".

It isn't "giving the LBGT community absolutely everything", whatever your definition of "everything" actually btw. It is merely giving them a right that straight people already have. It isn't taking rights away from straight people to give them to gay people.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

There's no middle ground being offered, eg. extending civil partnerships.

Why should a "middle ground" be offered? Are gay people to be considered not equal to straight people?

CreepingDeath wrote: »

So, it will benefit some same sex couples bringing up children which is why charities are not going to be against it, but it is also giving all LBGT people the benefits of a marriage that was only intended to protect families.

Intended by whom? The catholic church? Catholic members of the oireachtas of the day? And is a gay couple not a family if they get married?

K4t

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Because it's the only choice the Irish people have been given.
A black and white, accept or reject giving the LBGT community absolutely "everything".

There's no middle ground being offered, eg. extending civil partnerships.

So, it will benefit some same sex couples bringing up children which is why charities are not going to be against it, but it is also giving all LBGT people the benefits of a marriage that was only intended to protect families.
.

I don't see it as "giving the LGBT community everything" for two reasons. 1. I'm not voting YES for the lgbt community. I'll be voting yes for myself as a straight guy, and for everyone of all genders and sexes. And 2. They're not getting everything, merely equal status.

It also might have to do with the fact that those charities every day work with and help the children and future children that the No side express such concern for. Maybe, just maybe, from their extensive knowledge and experience, these children charities (not institutes impersonating one) truly do possess the expert opinion on what is best for children, and that is that a yes vote is in the child's best interests.

United Chester Men

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Agree - so we change with due care and full considerations for implications.

Not - "it is about love".

Trying to redefine marriage - redefine family - is a lofty modification.
Very and in my opinion too much at once.

Give equality - but don't lose all sense in "love".

It is you who keeps harping on about this "all about the love" waffle. Most yes voters/advocates are using the basis of equality and a changed society as a foundation of their views. People love each other regardless of marriage. In fact in some cases marriage stagnates the love......... but thats another topic altogether..!

Adoptions happen on merit. Just because you are married doesn't give you the automatic right to adopt. It gives you the right to apply and go through the adoption process and assessment thereof.

I personally think that the surrogacy and adoption laws should be reviewed and assessed but candidates should be judged on a lot more higher prioritised aspects before their sexuality comes into the equation. In fact I guarantee you, in proportion there would be vastly more suitable adoption couples in homosexual relationships than hetrosexual relationships. The divorce rate for hetrosexual couples would be much higher, domestic abuse would be higher etc. Not in all cases but proportionally so. These are the studies that the campaign could have reigned in on more if adoption/surrogacy is the platform for the debate.

CreepingDeath

K4t wrote: »

It also might have to do with the fact that those charities every day work with and help the children and future children that the No side express such concern for.

Why would a charity have to have any contact with an LGBT couple raising a child if they were doing a good job to start with ?

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Why should a "middle ground" be offered? Are gay people to be considered not equal to straight people?

Yes, in specific contexts.
Two men can't gestate a foetus.

United Chester Men

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Why would a charity have to have any contact with an LGBT couple raising a child if they were doing a good job to start with ?



Yes, in specific contexts.
Two men can't gestate a foetus.

So why are single mothers ..................... single fathers allowed to raise their child without the aid of a partner of the opposite sex if the whole debate essentially comes down to children and their rights to a mother and father.........

FixdePitchmark

United Chester Men wrote: »

It is you who keeps harping on about this "all about the love" waffle. Most yes voters/advocates are using the basis of equality and a changed society as a foundation of their views. People love each other regardless of marriage. In fact in some cases marriage stagnates the love......... but thats another topic altogether..!

Adoptions happen on merit. Just because you are married doesn't give you the automatic right to adopt. It gives you the right to apply and go through the adoption process and assessment thereof.

I personally think that the surrogacy and adoption laws should be reviewed and assessed but candidates should be judged on a lot more higher prioritised aspects before their sexuality comes into the equation. In fact I guarantee you, in proportion there would be vastly more suitable adoption couples in homosexual relationships than hetrosexual relationships. The divorce rate for hetrosexual couples would be much higher, domestic abuse would be higher etc. Not in all cases but proportionally so. These are the studies that the campaign could have reigned in on more if adoption/surrogacy is the platform for the debate.

Are you for real.

A few studies - change our constitution.
Every study - has another study to disprove a study.

The yes side hasn't explained what is wrong with a civil partnership with any rights they want.

I feel they are just trying to make a point - and in doing so, undermining their cause.

Total daftness to try achieve equality in the traditional family definition.

They think they can change everything for their cause - and have exposed themselves as snooty - contemptuous and demanding and very intolerant to challenge.

I've lost a lot of respect for the movement. But - it doesn't matter , they don't care about anyone or their views as anyone else is , "old fashioned" "bigoted" "intellectually weak".

A strange gang.

efb

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Are you for real.

A few studies - change our constitution.
Every study - has another study to disprove a study.

The yes side hasn't explained what is wrong with a civil partnership with any rights they want.

I feel they are just trying to make a point - and in doing so, undermining their cause.

Total daftness to try achieve equality in the traditional family definition.

They think they can change everything for their cause - and have exposed themselves as snooty - contemptuous and demanding and very intolerant to challenge.

I've lost a lot of respect for the movement. But - it doesn't matter , they don't care about anyone or their views as anyone else is , "old fashioned" "bigoted" "intellectually weak".

A strange gang.

:rolleyes:

FixdePitchmark

efb wrote: »

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

martingriff

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Are you for real.

A few studies - change our constitution.
Every study - has another study to disprove a study.

The yes side hasn't explained what is wrong with a civil partnership with any rights they want.

I feel they are just trying to make a point - and in doing so, undermining their cause.

Total daftness to try achieve equality in the traditional family definition.

They think they can change everything for their cause - and have exposed themselves as snooty - contemptuous and demanding and very intolerant to challenge.

I've lost a lot of respect for the movement. But - it doesn't matter , they don't care about anyone or their views as anyone else is , "old fashioned" "bigoted" "intellectually weak".

A strange gang.

I am guessing but its to do with the some legal things like next of kin, tax credits, protections of family (as gay people(men and women) will be able to adopt and I anyway) etc. Could they change civil partnership to be the same a marriage yes but then it be marriage but marriage is illegal in this country for homosexuals

efb

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

are they married???

FixdePitchmark

martingriff wrote: »

I am guessing but its to do with the some legal things like next of kin, tax credits, protections of family (as gay people(men and women) will be able to adopt and I anyway) etc. Could they change civil partnership to be the same a marriage yes but then it be marriage but marriage is illegal in this country for homosexuals

Yes and a progressive part of society want that for their community.

But - don't try redefine marriage - family - procreation - sacraments - society.

Crazy stuff.

They will have their flawed victory - but have put their movement back 30 years imo. I'm actually beginning to think the flawed movement - didn't understand the amendment,

FixdePitchmark

efb wrote: »

are they married???

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

efb

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Yes and a progressive part of society want that for their community.

But - don't try redefine marriage - family - procreation - sacraments - society.

Crazy stuff.

They will have their flawed victory - but have put their movement back 30 years imo. I'm actually beginning to think the flawed movement - didn't understand the amendment,

sacraments???? This is CIVIL marriage

efb

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

It isn't about polygamy

SpaceTime

Never thought I'd say this but Coveney came across extremely well

FixdePitchmark

efb wrote: »

It isn't about polygamy

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

efb

SpaceTime wrote: »

Never thought I'd say this but Coveney came across extremely well

He did- but Ronan Mullen did himself no favours

efb

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

FixdePitchmark

efb wrote: »

sacraments???? This is CIVIL marriage

I understand that - but this movement can be summed up as this.