Same Sex Marriage Referendum Mega Thread Part 2

aloyisious

David Quinn, mothers-day and hypocrisy. https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjw1OeViKfLAhWG2Q4KHX1ZBYwQFggiMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joe.ie%2Fnews%2Fits-hypocritical-to-celebrate-mothers-day-says-director-of-iona-institute%2F533451&usg=AFQjCNF3bTXinwQFrLnQx1Jc4DUZuoLy_w

VinLieger

aloyisious wrote: »

David Quinn, mothers-day and hypocrisy. https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjw1OeViKfLAhWG2Q4KHX1ZBYwQFggiMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joe.ie%2Fnews%2Fits-hypocritical-to-celebrate-mothers-day-says-director-of-iona-institute%2F533451&usg=AFQjCNF3bTXinwQFrLnQx1Jc4DUZuoLy_w

Must.... desperately...... try.... to..... stay...... relevant

Huntergonzo

aloyisious wrote: »

David Quinn, mothers-day and hypocrisy. https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjw1OeViKfLAhWG2Q4KHX1ZBYwQFggiMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.joe.ie%2Fnews%2Fits-hypocritical-to-celebrate-mothers-day-says-director-of-iona-institute%2F533451&usg=AFQjCNF3bTXinwQFrLnQx1Jc4DUZuoLy_w

Ah good ole David Quinn, one of the best things to happen secular Ireland, keep him talking and give him plenty of air time! :-)

The Randy Riverbeast

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Ah good ole David Quinn, one of the best things to happen secular Ireland, keep him talking and give him plenty of air time! :-)

He spends most of that time complaining he doesn't get any time.

Maximus Alexander

Bahaha, what a great response:

"You should ask your local Renua Ireland TD to raise this important issue in the Dáil."

kunst nugget

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Bahaha, what a great response:

"You should ask your local Renua Ireland TD to raise this important issue in the Dáil."

That is genius…

The Randy Riverbeast

If you have 2 mothers do you get them each a present or one big present for the 2 of them?

We were warned there would be consequences but did we listen? No, now children all over the country have sore arms as they create 2 cards.

Bannasidhe

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

If you have 2 mothers do you get them each a present or one big present for the 2 of them?

We were warned there would be consequences but did we listen? No, now children all over the country have sore arms as they create 2 cards.

It's the two breakfasts that are the real problem. Expect a haze over Ireland from all the cremated toast on Sunday morning.

aloyisious

The pot of Barry's tea will make up for it.

kunst nugget

aloyisious wrote: »

The pot of Barry's tea will make up for it.

Are lesbian mother's really going to want Barry's in them?

Bannasidhe

kunst nugget wrote: »

Are lesbian mother's really going to want Barry's in them?

Better than Earl Grey. :pac:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Better than Earl Grey. :pac:

Gentry Grey, please; as there is also a Lady Grey tea as well.

colossus-x

I don't know what the problem is. It's 'MotherS' day. Isn't that plural.

L.Jenkins

colossus-x wrote: »

I don't know what the problem is. It's 'MotherS' day. Isn't that plural.

Depends on the placement of the ' !

aloyisious

. Feck's sake, will ye get it right, it's mothering day.

Annasopra

aloyisious wrote: »

. Feck's sake, will ye get it right, it's mothering day.

Mothering Sunday - only in America

Billy86

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Mothering Sunday - only in America

Not quite!

aloyisious

Saw this item - http://www.irishtimes.com/…/marriage-referendum-changed-eve…; - being used by a group called "Defend Marriage in Ireland: Husband And Wife" on it's F/B page under the wording; SSM HAS LEAD TO SURROGACY REACHING IRISH SHORES: SADLY PRO LIFE PEOPLE VOTED YES LAST YEAR AND SURROGACY CONTRADICTS THE PRO LIFE ETHOS... I guess some groups just haven't got used to other citizens civilly-marrying the person they love,not some-one of another gender in the manner that religion and tradition demands and are trying to link it with two matters, the raising of children by gay men and abortion.

AnonoBoy

aloyisious wrote: »

Saw this item - http://www.irishtimes.com/…/marriage-referendum-changed-eve…; - being used by a group called "Defend Marriage in Ireland: Husband And Wife" on it's F/B page under the wording; SSM HAS LEAD TO SURROGACY REACHING IRISH SHORES: SADLY PRO LIFE PEOPLE VOTED YES LAST YEAR AND SURROGACY CONTRADICTS THE PRO LIFE ETHOS... I guess some groups just haven't got used to other citizens civilly-marrying the person they love,not some-one of another gender in the manner that religion and tradition demands and are trying to link it with two matters, the raising of children by gay men and abortion.

Link no work. Probably because of neo-leftie liberal commie gays.

colossus-x

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Link no work. Probably because of neo-leftie liberal commie gays.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/marriage-referendum-changed-everything-for-surrogacy-family-1.2561951

aloyisious

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Link no work. Probably because of neo-leftie liberal commie gays.

God forbid that that happened.... :mad:

Bannasidhe

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Link no work. Probably because of neo-leftie liberal commie gays.

It was like that when I got here.

alaimacerc

aloyisious wrote: »

Saw this item - http://www.irishtimes.com/…/marriage-referendum-changed-eve…; - being used by a group called "Defend Marriage in Ireland: Husband And Wife" on it's F/B page under the wording; SSM HAS LEAD TO SURROGACY REACHING IRISH SHORES: SADLY PRO LIFE PEOPLE VOTED YES LAST YEAR AND SURROGACY CONTRADICTS THE PRO LIFE ETHOS... I guess some groups just haven't got used to other citizens civilly-marrying the person they love,not some-one of another gender in the manner that religion and tradition demands and are trying to link it with two matters, the raising of children by gay men and abortion.

Having looked at the page, "link" would be being very generous. Seems very much like am exercise in taking any two given subjects that might upset reactionaries, and banging them together vigorously.

Baggy Trousers

Watching the Queen of Ireland tonight just brings back the huge achievement in May last year. We've come a long way as a country.

aloyisious

Colombian Supreme Court ruled that Civil Marriage is restricted to heterosexual couples is NOT legal, a bar to marriage for Gay and Lesbian couples is NOT legal. https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjSrPnX__7LAhVBXhQKHZ7QDJUQqQIIIjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fworld%2F2016%2Fapr%2F07%2Fcolombia-court-gay-marriage-ruling&usg=AFQjCNHlJ8HeKc4io89CpmVelUiWIsZKjA&bvm=bv.118817766,d.bGg

JupiterKid

aloyisious wrote: »

Colombian Supreme Court ruled that Civil Marriage is restricted to heterosexual couples is NOT legal, a bar to marriage for Gay and Lesbian couples is NOT legal. https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjSrPnX__7LAhVBXhQKHZ7QDJUQqQIIIjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fworld%2F2016%2Fapr%2F07%2Fcolombia-court-gay-marriage-ruling&usg=AFQjCNHlJ8HeKc4io89CpmVelUiWIsZKjA&bvm=bv.118817766,d.bGg

Great news. Yet another country moves towards equality for LGBT people. As a gay man, I'm delighted.

failinis

Disappointed to hear

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/04/06/northern-irelands-dup-pledges-to-keep-blocking-same-sex-marriage/

JupiterKid

failinis wrote: »

Disappointed to hear

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/04/06/northern-irelands-dup-pledges-to-keep-blocking-same-sex-marriage/

Sad but not in the least surprised. The DUP are a bunch of homophobic bigots - the lot of them.

rsh118

JupiterKid wrote: »

Sad but not in the least surprised. The DUP are a bunch of homophobic bigots - the lot of them.

I always enjoy the very reasonable language they attempt to couch it all in until you wear them down and they admit that the thought of two men bumming makes them uncomfortable.

Ian Paisley Jr is king of getting riled up on this one.

VinLieger

failinis wrote: »

Disappointed to hear

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/04/06/northern-irelands-dup-pledges-to-keep-blocking-same-sex-marriage/

Troglodytes

aloyisious

Time to start waving the "Agnostics and Atheists can civilly-marry" placard in their faces and call them hypocrites for ignoring that "irreligious" fact while they're defending their sacred cow.

aloyisious

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/modern-family/defence-forces-to-let-gay-staff-wed-on-military-bases-34735903.html.

The establishment is on side now, regardless of whether it includes the use of the garrison churches within Barracks and Mil Posts & Bases around the country. Time was when DF members had to apply to his C/O for permission to marry. I used HIS as there was also a time when women were NOT allowed serve in DF, except for women in Army Nursing Service. As for gay persons serving in the DF, that was a total NO-NO, dealt with by contract ended by BAPS (Below Army Physical Standards) with no appeal.

aloyisious

David Quinn's latest opinion-piece in today's irish Independent cover's (ostensibly) the issue of the case where TUSLA removed a child from the care of his grandparents due to the age gap (40 years plus) between them and the child. The child's father had left him in the care of his own parents as he believed he was unable to provide parenting for the child. David apparently believes that the state has taken too much power into it's hands when it comes to the family and natural ties.

The opinion-piece is 19 Para's long. David includes two referendum decisions in it, the Childrens Rights and Marriage referendums, apparently believing that the outcome of them has lead to the state interfering in the family and it's natural ties. David admit's to voting YES in the Children's Rights referendum but claims' he warned, along with others, that it could also be too easy for the state to intervene in families, and the case seem's to amply demonstrate that.

In Para 9 of his piece, David makes reference to the passing of the Marriage Referendum and it's effect on the natural family ties, that it and all the legal changes associated with it, enormously downgraded the importance of the natural ties. He claims that when those on the NO side pointed this out, they were told "all a child needed was love". His Para 10 goes on that that was the only way to justify giving two men or two women the same rights to have children as a man and a woman. David continues on for the rest of the para in the same vein.

In Para 11, David includes a statement by Joan Burton on the case last week where she said "we must not end up where in a situation where stability or access to biological family is being restricted because if inflexibility or common-sense decision making.

In Para 14, David includes the constitution in the matter, re what it say's the state can do (even after the Childrens Rights Referendum) and in the final Para opines that the law need's to be changed again to strike the right balance between the rights of families and the excessive power of the state. That, or that the courts need to interpret the law more strictly and more in favour of families. I believe that, by families, he means his preferred "Natural Heterosexual Families" the NO side wanted, and certainly NOT those given the YES vote in both referendums and that he feels the courts should over-ride the decisions made by the public in them.

Edits were moving the word (ostensibly) from front of to behind "cover's" in my Para 1 AND putting the word (claims) before "he warned, along with others" in my Para 2.

The Randy Riverbeast

I'm struggling to see how adding "Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex." to the constitution had any affect on the case. Tempted to ask him on twitter myself but I dont want to deal with that special level of stupid. Would probably just get blocked anyway.

The child was being denied his/her right to a mother and father so I would have though David would have supported the decision.

aloyisious

I just saw this link on another publication (PinkNews) about the Irish Presbyterian Church: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/presbyterian-marriage-ceremonies-must-renounce-same-sex-unions-1.2677522

It seem's the all-Ireland Presbyterian Church is afraid that it may become involved in same-sex marriages, though it had a meeting with Irish Govt Ministers who assured it that it's ministers would not and that there was no legal obligation on them in the changed civil marriage legislation or due to the marriage referendum result. I suppose it may be putting down a marker in case some-one within the church itself starts arguing for a change in it's marriage rules to introduce equality there as well.


Presbyterian marriage ceremonies must renounce same-sex unions
General assembly passes resolution that could have ‘legal implications’ if ignored

Wed, Jun 8, 2016, 21:19
Patsy McGarry


All Presbyterian marriage ceremonies in Ireland must now include a statement that such a union can only be between a man and a woman.
This decision was taken at the Presbyterian church’s general assembly in Belfast on Wednesday afternoon and has immediate effect.

General assembly clerk Rev Trevor Gribben told delegates that the statement had to be read at all such ceremonies “from here on”, and, if this was not done in the Republic, “there could be legal implications”. He said such a statement was “now the law of the church”.
He was speaking after the delegates passed a resolution that such a statement be included in all Presbyterian marriage ceremonies.

It read: “Since the beginning of creation God, in his gracious purpose, provided marriage as the accepted way in which a man and a woman may come together as husband and wife. “This is the only basis on which marriage can take place within the Presbyterian church in Ireland.”

PopePalpatine

I'm not surprised the Presbyterians have taken this stance, after all I'm pretty sure they form the bulk of the DUP's support base.

Kiwi in IE

There are moments in parenting where your child says something that makes you feel great about younger generations and the future of society.

I met a woman the other day who I used to work with, she was back on holiday from Australia with her Australian fiancée. We talked for a bit, Little Kiwi was with me and we were introduced to her fiancée. Afterwards Little Kiwi was asking me who was Irish and who was Australian. I told him that 'Jenny' is Irish, but lives in Australia and is engaged to 'Jane' who is Australian. Little Kiwi said, "I know what engaged means Mum, it means they are going to be each other's wife".

aloyisious

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fg-td-brings-bill-to-cut-divorce-wait-time-from-four-years-to-two-1.2704512. The article points out that it's not only law to be changed, but referendum as well as the terms of divorce were inserted in 1996 in place of the original ban on divorce in the constitution. So many referendums, I don't recall that one.... I presume if it passes all stages and get's Michael D's signature, it'll be an across the board law.

dublinman1990

I didn't know where to put this story tonight but I will put it on here anyway.

Andrea Leasdom, who is competing for the tory leadership & post of British Prime Minister against Theresa May, has given her views on ITV News re same sex marriage. She said she would have preferred to have the same sex marriage legislation reversed in the UK to Civil Partnership because same sex marriage, in her view, does not comply with the Christian service of Marriage between Men & Women who are committed to God.

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-07-07/andrea-leadsom-tells-itv-news-her-views-on-gay-marriage-fox-hunting-hs2-heathrow-and-going-to-war/

Gay Marriage

I believe the love of same sex couples is every bit as valuable as that of opposite sex couples, absolutely committed to that. But nevertheless, my own view actually, is that marriage in the biblical sense is very clearly from the many Christians who wrote to me can only be between a man and a woman.

I would have preferred for Civil Partnerships to be available to heterosexual and gay couples and for marriage to have remained as a Christian service for men and women who wanted to commit in the eyes of God.

I don't think the Anglican Church should be forced down a route where many Christians aren't comfortable about it.

– ANDREA LEADSOM

Billy86

That tw*t is just bitter and jealous of happily married gay couples in comparison to the painful divorce she is going to have to deal with if she does get office.

PopePalpatine

Christianity already has a rite called "holy matrimony", but a quick check of Wikipedia tells me that Protestants don't recognise it as a sacrament like Catholics & Orthodox Christians do.

Fleawuss

dublinman1990 wrote: »

I didn't know where to put this story tonight but I will put it on here anyway.

Andrea Leasdom, who is competing for the tory leadership & post of British Prime Minister against Theresa May, has given her views on ITV News re same sex marriage. She said she would have preferred to have the same sex marriage legislation reversed in the UK to Civil Partnership because same sex marriage, in her view, does not comply with the Christian service of Marriage between Men & Women who are committed to God.

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-07-07/andrea-leadsom-tells-itv-news-her-views-on-gay-marriage-fox-hunting-hs2-heathrow-and-going-to-war/

An idiot who believes the state should legislate on the basis of 3000 year old middle eastern myths. A true Tory.

aloyisious

I wonder how Andrea'd react if a reputable media source, say The Observer or The Daily Mail, approached her and told her that another mainstream UK religion had similar beliefs and thoughts on marriage and how marriage must be in commitment to he who must be obeyed, but that other religion wanted her to convert as it believed that Christians were infidel (unfaithful) in belief and must be put to death.

Substituted (unfaithful) for (untruthful)....

JupiterKid

Andrea Leadsom is a bitter bigot. And an outright liar too. She claims to have been "heavily involved" in the rescue of Barings Bank when the key figures in that financial institution's rescue do not seem to know her at all.

Tell me again just why the Conservatives are sometimes known as the Nasty Party.

beach_walker

dublinman1990 wrote: »

She said she would have preferred to have the same sex marriage legislation reversed in the UK to Civil Partnership because same sex marriage, in her view, does not comply with the Christian service of Marriage between Men & Women who are committed to God.

It seems that her objection is at the (seemingly) badly put together piece of legisitation which could compel CoE churches to conduct gay weddings. Looks like she just wants to seperate out civil and religious marriages. Makes sense to me, and is nothing like the media/Twitter storm is making it out to be (quelle surprise).

"...The concern I had was the potential compulsion for the Church of England..."

"I didn’t really like the legislation, that was the problem, but I absolutely support gay marriage,”

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/07/tory-leadership-andrea-leadsom-promises-prosperity-not-austerity

aloyisious

beach_walker wrote: »

It seems that her objection is at the (seemingly) badly put together piece of legisitation which could compel CoE churches to conduct gay weddings. Looks like she just wants to seperate out civil and religious marriages. Makes sense to me, and is nothing like the media/Twitter storm is making it out to be (quelle surprise).



http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/07/tory-leadership-andrea-leadsom-promises-prosperity-not-austerity

Maybe she hasn't really read through the legislation of the house she sit's in, or think's it might be "interfered with" by other politicians.

The Act ensures those religious organisations which wish to do so can opt in to marry same sex couples according to their rites;

 protects religious organisations and their representatives from successful legal challenge if they do not wish to marry same sex couples;


https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjnl93Yr-TNAhWDDcAKHWotDvMQFggjMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gov.uk%2Fgovernment%2Fuploads%2Fsystem%2Fuploads%2Fattachment_data%2Ffile%2F306000%2F140423_M_SSC_Act_factsheet__web_version_.pdf&usg=AFQjCNE7LtefAWkGLHt1Tu-v9QcOl50g2A

alaimacerc

beach_walker wrote: »

It seems that her objection is at the (seemingly) badly put together piece of legisitation which could compel CoE churches to conduct gay weddings. Looks like she just wants to seperate out civil and religious marriages. Makes sense to me, and is nothing like the media/Twitter storm is making it out to be (quelle surprise).

What's badly put-together is her "objection". "I support gay marriage, but there's something unspecified wrong with this legislation, so civil partnership should be fine for the likes of them becausereasons".

"I would have preferred [...] marriage to have remained as a Christian service for men and women who wanted to commit in the eyes of God"

So by "remain" she apparently means "roll back to status quo ante", as it's not been simply a "Christian service" since the Marriage Act of 1836...

It's a dogwhistle to the reactionary base, while not quite actually managing to say anything coherent.

alaimacerc

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Christianity already has a rite called "holy matrimony", but a quick check of Wikipedia tells me that Protestants don't recognise it as a sacrament like Catholics & Orthodox Christians do.

For the "hardcore" Prods, there are only two sacraments: baptism and communion. Lutherans chuck the confession in too, and the Anglicans take the approach of "however many you're having yourself." I started to count the number the Mormons have, but lost the will after a dozen or so.

But the theology of what isn't or isn't a "sacrament" isn't quite the same as what's "a religious service" or "holy", anyway...

alaimacerc

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm not surprised the Presbyterians have taken this stance, after all I'm pretty sure they form the bulk of the DUP's support base.

Not sure how true that is. The DUP was founded by presbyterian "splitters" (Paisley's "Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster" -- no relation to (say) the Free Church of Scotland, a different bunch of presbplitters, on entirely different issues.) And there's almost as many CoI types in Nrn Irn as there are PCiI.

Banbha32

Thats Slovenia added to the list with same sex marriage becoming legal as of today (And Finland next week) Quite significant this one as it becomes the first country in Eastern Europe to allow for same sex marriage! And Taiwan is also due this year being the first in Asia.

I wonder who else will follow, Germany being an obvious one with Martin Schultz this week putting it down as one of his main objectives and is favourite to take over from Merkel who herself is against same sex marriage. Hopefully the French can keep out Marine Le Pen who is adament on removing same sex marriage in France. Interesting times ahead but great to see progress in unexpected places nonetheless. I love seeing a new country added to the map