Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
DEBATE IN THE same-sex marriage referendum has stepped up a few notches this week, buoyed on by the publication of the wording of the vote yesterday.
The move was broadly welcomed by politicians and several interests groups, however others have expressed their concerns over the potential addition of the following line to article 41 of the Constitution:
‘Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.’
Speaking on Morning Ireland, Breda O’Brien (journalist and patron of the Iona Institute) said that, if passed, the referendum will make it impossible to “say that it is preferable for a child to be adopted, where it is possible, by a man and a woman”.
She said it was “very clear” that this was the best environment in which to raise a child
O’Brien said she didn’t oppose civil partnerships for same-sex couples but drew the line at marriage as children become involved.
On Tuesday it emerged that the government planned to have enacted the Children and Family Relationships Bill – which covers several issues including gay adoption – before the marriage equality referendum in May. The legislation will provide for gay couples to jointly apply to adopt, which they can currently only do individually.
Bad timing?
Labour TD Dominic Hannigan also appeared on the programme. He married his long-term partner, Chris, in London late last year.
Hannigan said debating marriage and adoption issues at the same time wasn’t ideal and the “timing could have been better”. However, he noted that one in four children in Ireland don’t live in the “traditional family structure” of a mother and father, for various reasons.
The Meath East TD said the government has put the rights of children “at the forefront of legislation” since it took office. He said the new law was about “making sure their futures are protected”.
When O’Brien said she didn’t have a problem with a grandmother and a mother raising a child, she was asked what the difference was between that a lesbian couple raising a child.
She said the former situation was acceptable as although the child’s father is not present, their right to having one has not been “taken away”.
“Do you think we should change the Constitution to allow grandmothers and their daughters to marry?,” she asked.
Opinion polls have shown widespread support for same-sex marriage in recent months, but Hannigan cautioned by saying: “Far too many people assume this is in the bag.”
He said a “very, very difficult campaign would have to be fought” and encouraged people not only to vote but to actively campaign.
“We cannot allow this to be lost because of complacency or apathy,” he added.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Why do RTÉ constantly go to the so called Iona Institute for anything to do with LGBT rights. Especially after last year.
Because there is nobody other group in public life who so wilfully disregard the fundamentals of adoption laws in this country in their attempts to lead a debate. The Iona “Institute” are not *at* the fringe in this debate, they *are* the fringe.
I suppose.
I can’t take them seriously, since they do no scientific research or anything I can’t see how they are allowed to be called an “institute”
They seem to recycle the same old rehashed debates imported from Evangelical bigotry from the states and when people try to pick holes in them (e.g Panti) they try and silence them through bully tactics
Very true. Only people that will publicly comment against this are Iona loons David Quinn & Breda o Brien. And possibly Ronan Mullen. They would prefer a society where there is no pre-marital sex,no contraception,no divorce,no same-sex marriage,no same-sex adoption. But plenty of do what the church says.
Well,part of their funding is from the states so its expected we get the TV preaching evangelicism aspect of it too!! Institute allows them get that nice “charity” status they desire.
@Ewan Scott-Douglas:
They are called an “Institute” because they gave themselves this designation and Irish Company law did not stop them. They are infact a lobby group, back by a limited company.
In the UK, there are rules which stop companies from adopting the word “Institute”. To get approval in the UK, an “Institute” has be engaged in academic research, and they must get letters of support from other centres of academia in order to be allowed to use “Institute” in their name.
In Ireland by contrast, use of the word “Institute” by Iona (which is also a word historically synonymous with learning) brings into disrepute the academic reputation of every Institute of Technology across the county that provides third level qualifications to tens of thousands of people.
Irish rules on this must be changed to protect the quality of the degrees awarded by bona fide Institutes of Technology.
@winding_down Correct again. Lolek Ltd are the limited company,if anyone wants to pay and view their accounts online!
Alternatively, you can read all about the board of directors behind the Iona “Institute” at the link below — highlights include the company’s connections with an Irish radio station, a prayer-group that lectures to Irish Secondary school students about sex-education, and a high-profile pizza chain:
http://bocktherobber.com/2013/06/what-exactly-is-the-iona-institute/
RTE is, and always has been, very close to the Catholic Church. You only have to turn on RTE1 at 6 pm to see evidence of that.
Notwithstanding that, RTE always tries to present both sides of important arguments. It is a matter of opinion whether they succeed or not.
@Winding. Yes read that very interesting. Also Duedil is very good for checking ref’s and its free. Silverstream Priory in Meath also has interesting links to directors at Lolek!
Thanks for that link, very interesting reading……
Well I have 4 daughters and I would’nt marry any of them.. Kill each other after a week!!
@Baron: Welcome. I neglected to mention that Iona also have a connection to a leading private hospital in Ireland.
The link above is definitely worth reading for anybody who has a few minutes to spare. Ideally theJournal or another media outlet would do an exposé into the Iona “Institute” – its been begging to be done for months now an I for one definitely think it would be in the public interest to know more about this pressure group with unfettered access to public debate on a matters relating to Constitutional change.
They should really be addressed by their company name Lolek Ltd. That would change a lot. “And now here to voice her opinion, Breda O Brien from Lolek Ltd…”
@Róisín: I’m sorry, but I just can’t have you preaching mis-information like this! To be fair to this woman, she’s:-
“Breda O’Brien, *PATRON* of Lolek Limited”.
Only if her husband,is not married to her already.Sick World
@winding_down:
There’s a Polish cartoon called “Bolek & Lolek” – she must be Bolek!
A document available on the Iona site stating their stance on civil partnership states this:
The position of The Iona Institute, for reasons to be discussed further on in this paper, is that the State should reject proposals to give cohabitees all or most of the same rights as married couples. However, there is an argument to be made for adopting the Limited Civil Partnership model advocated by the Working Group established by Michael McDowell on the proviso that this model be made available to any two people in a long-term caring, dependent relationship including, for example, a brother and sister.
So nobody but a man and woman in a marriage can have particular rights afforded by the state (unconstitutional) but others can enter whatever another form of legal relationship, we don’t really care who as long as it’s not marriage
Mark everything you alluded to there was sex related…….church/sex…..sex/church…..they really are fixated with what goes on between the sheets aren’t they, wonder why that is?
@Mike Howard: What it most extraordinary about Iona (Lolek Ltd) is how quickly it has achieved a stranglehold on the Irish media, being invited to nearly any societal debate to air its views (from marriage equality to care standards in creches). Almost no other organisation (bar the Irish Catholic Church) has the same near-total dominance of the media in their fields of interest.
I am all for freedom of expression and plurality of the media, but its important that the voting public understand who is backing this pressure group, and what their sinister ambitions are for Irish Society.
@Alibhe: That cannot be! Sure Breda O’Brien expressly stated on Morning Ireland today that she “didn’t oppose the introduction of Civil Partnership because there were legal and economic situations that demanded justice”
Listen from 1hr 52mins – 1hr 53mins:
http://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9%3A10365408%3A0%3A%3A
Oh but it is! Not like these guys to backtrack or contradict themselves….surely
Winding Down…read the entire article……I don’t know if I should feel frightened or just laugh out loud!
Not only DQ & BOB! Please include me (and thousands of others) among what you say quaintly call “loons”! The objection, btw, is only to same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption because these adversely affect other people – children.
Pre-marital sex and contraception are confined to the people partaking of it, so while there may be religious objections based on morality, very few people are going to stand in the way of these activities.
@Tony: With respect, any issues you have regarding the reform of adoption and guardianship laws in Ireland should be taken up with your TD. The Houses will be debating these reforms during February and March: the changes coming in are of far greater import to the 25% of Irish children not being raised within wedlock. It is very from the “gay rights issue” which it is being portrayed.
The Marriage Referendum is an entirely distinct issue and should not be conflated. The only commentators failing to understand the distinction are Iona. Your vote in that Referendum will not impact adoption laws in any way.
Tony, many people have claimed that this adversely affects children but not one of those people have provided and independently peer-reviewed research to back this up. Tony can you break the mold and supply this?
I plan on having children with my same sex partner, but if it can be shown that I would leave hose children at a gross disadvantage, I would certainly reconsider.
Tony
The referendum is about SSM not adoption
Tony? Anything?
Tony your statement that ssm adversely affects children is entirely without foundation. There is no evidence whatsoever that children raised by same sex couples fare worse than their peers. Such children are here in the comments telling you that. Please listen before assuming to speak in their defence.
‘Garrett Kelleher is a former chairman of Legatus in Ireland. Legatus is an international association of Catholic businessmen set up by Irish-American Tom Monaghan, a prominent Opus Dei member and founder of Domino’s Pizza.’
Are there still connections with Domino’s Pizza does anyone know because I’d sure miss it if there were…
@Susan: Tom Monaghan is now retired and has sold his stake in Dominos Pizza, but he has since gone on to found the town of Ave Maria in Florida. You can read up on it and see pictures here:
My favourite quote from the above article is:
“In Ave Maria, It’s politically correct to say, “Merry Christmas!” to my customers or anyone I meet on the street and they always say, “Merry Christmas!” back,’ gushed Chelsea Allan, a mother of ten and one of the first homeowners in town who operates a religious gift shop. In their testimonials, Richard and Suzanne Dionne compared their life in Ave Maria to the way ‘Jesus, Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth.”
Oh thank God.
*orders dominos megadeal*
What are you talking about, you muppet? The association between the words Iona and Institute have ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on the image or international recognition of the Institutes of Technology. What a ridiculous concatenation of statements having no connection at all!
Ailbe, Without the help of Monsanto or a bent legal system, how are you going to effect this miracle ? Speaking from a sociological point of view, all life forms are affected by and are products of their environment. As a political movement LGBT has mass funding and logistical support from governments, this does not mean its aims are pure, or that they represent any majority consensus, in fact any agenda government pushes must be suspect.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/8201521/Sex-offenders-including-paedophiles-should-be-allowed-to-adopt-Theresa-May-told.html
We have already seen the results of this well funded mass propaganda abroad, I would prefer to have these issues put off until all aspects are debated and we know exactly who is pushing this agenda and what its real goals are.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/couple-offered-son-to-paedophiles-20130630-2p5eg.html
To remove protection from children is not just insane, it is inhumane and criminal, we only have to look at what happened in Russia.
Breda O’Brien (Iona Institute) was a researcher with RTE in 1991-92.
Same-sex marriage has NOTHING to do with children.
Same-sex adoption does, of course.
What you are against is same-sex adoption. That ship has already sailed. Same-sex couples will soon have full rights to adopt, subject to the usual vetting process of course. Whether the referendum passes or not will have zero impact on that.
This referendum is purely about equal civil marriage. Yes, same-sex couples can have a civil partnership, but why have a different term? Everyone should be able to enter a civil marriage with the person they love. It is that simple for me. Please leave children out of it…non-issue!
What a wagon.
Something… something…. Don’t feed the troll.
You’re disgusting
Personally I don’t think two people of the same sex raising a child is a good idea. I think the child will grow up confused and I just can’t see it as a healthy environment. But to say it’s disgusting is just a ridiculous thing to say.
Call me a troll because you don’t like my opinion ? Well done.
Not a troll, just a homophobic bigot.
Why is that then? Apart from the bile you spew have you nothing constructive to offer?
She raises a valid point. Why should any two adults be prohibited from marrying? Here is a real life example, why can’t an adult woman marry her biological father?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/17/woman-plans-to-marry-her-father-after-two-years-dating/
Daniel – Peer reviewed scientific studies would disagree with you on that one
And dogs will be marrying cats! Somebody think of the children. So 2 men or 2 women want to marry? Why should this woman care if 2 people want to marry? It’s not her business. Or mine.
Daniel – Just out of curiosity, do you know anyone who was raised by a same sex couple? Because I do and they are not ‘emotionally confused.’
There are plenty of children out there that would love a loving set of parents and plenty of same sex couples who would love to adopt a child. Would you not rather children to have gay parents rather than no parents at all?
with eight tweets, and no followers? you’re either a troll, or are so new to the internet that you haven’t figured out that you natural habitat is under a bridge
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057365334
Have a look at this post from a man who has two gay mothers.
Yeah I ignore eggs, 90% of the time they are either bots or trolls
That’s not what we are voting on. Stick with the facts and debate them. Tell me why equality for all citizens of Ireland is a bad thing.
Hi John Deegan,
The reason the example you have higlighted is illegal is due to something called inbreeding depression. Taboos have existed against consanguinous marriages for all of recorded history and with good reason. If you need an example, read about the Vadoma tribe of Zimbabwe, a lot of whom only have 2 toes. This is unlikely to be an issue for two consenting adults of the same sex.
Another problem I have with the example you have highlighted is that I think there is an inherent imbalance of power in a relationship between an 18 year old girl suffering from depression who had a bad relationship with her mother and was abandoned by her father at an early age and a 36 year old man who does not have a strong track record in relationships. Her personal account of how a sexual relationship was initiated by HER FATHER (my emphasis) makes for uncomfortable reading and makes him sound quite predatory. If they had never been related it would have been ”off”.
The example really isn’t relevent to this discussion and is in no way representative of the relationships of the many couples in a healthy, long term relationship who wish to make a lifetime commitment to each other, gay or straight.
John – Fox News isn’t a credible source. Anyway incest will remain to be illegal
Unfortunately Scarr it IS your business, because as an adult I have to come to you and beg you to allow me marry my partner. And I do beg you and all those who feel it’s not their business to go and vote on the day. Please don’t let me down. The religious nut cases will be tripping over their unfashionable shoes trying to get to the polling booths in droves.
@daniel, have you ever met a child raid by same sex parents? If you have, did you find the child “confused”?
@deerhounddog: What a grossly offensive statement to make.
Mods, thank you for removing it.
They want you back on the ward
John deegan, anti gay rights but pro incest.
I hope you’ve no children.
Sorry folks but its a widely shared opinion.
Well if those are claiming equality for man to man, what is the difference of mother to daughter..,,..!
There is al ready laws in place to stop family marriages, mother daughter etc! So Breda does not have to worry about that. She could focus on the issue at hand but realises she has no valid point so throws out other arguments
Hi Sarah, there have also been taboos throughout all recorded history regarding homosexuality. So if you wish to use that argument you are arguing against ssm. Incestual taboos vary greatly, in Islamic culture marrying a first cousin is normal practice. Your personal opinion regarding the suitability of two consenting adults over 18 to enter a relationship or marry are irrelevant as nobody is (yet) suggesting that the state licenses the suitability of an adult to enter any relationship with another adult. What is at the heart if the debate is “marriage equality”. Therefore that applies to incestous relationships between adults. Furthermore, as is often pointed out by the yes side, when it’s stated that a homosexual relationship cannot have biological offspring, the retort is that marriage is not about children. So you cannot then change this when discussing incestous relationships without exposing your logical inconsistency. In any case your inbreeding argument cannot apply to say a lesbian who wishes to marry her mother. It boils down to your own prejudiced opinion about what adults are suitable for marriage.
@ Richard
So just because you don’t agree with Tony’s opinion you think that gives you the right to insult him?? Very mature. Hang on to that attitude mate because you’re just as bad as yer one from the II who’s completely barking by the way.
It will be a healthy environment for children if it’s allowed to be one and become normalised !
Well there is a lot, google scholar is your friend
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=same+sex+parents&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=
Their bloody related johnny boy
Stop pandering around the straights.
After what they’ve done to us over the years?
We’ll get our YES!!!!
We’ll get our Gay Marriage!!!
We’ll get our Kids!!!
GAY and PROUD!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh for goodness sake..
1. There’s already laws prohibiting incestuous marriage, just as there are laws surrounding the age of the parties intending to marry – these will all remain in place.
2. The “taboo” about homosexuality was actually quite a recent development. Homosexuals have been around a long time, there was a time when the wife was purely for breeding with, the man had his real relationship with his male partner.
If you want to rewrite history, go ahead – it seems all the no side have in this referendum is lies.
The same thing that stops a father and daughter or mother and son marrying now
@daniel – from the outside it’s you that’s confused….. Kids know no different when growing up – as long as they are loved and nurtured there’s no reason for confusion – you on the other hand, are clearly confused….
What’s That???
Did you say something Tony??
Ha Ha Ha.
Years of suppression.
Now we’re being treated like loyalty.
AND RIGHTLY SO!!!!!!!
GAY AND PROUD!!!!!!
There’ll be a gay bar in every village by the next election!!!
Mark my little words!!!!!!
ROYALTY!!!!!
Oh Bruno, stop being a pain in the….
BooHoo!!!
Oh yes, growing up without a father, I was always comforted by the fact that at least my ‘right to a father’ was still there.
What a pointless statement.
If you had to choose between being adopted by a man and a woman or a same sex couple what would you pick? Nature intended for men and women to have children- are you saying nature is wrong.
Personally I have no issues with the gay marriage but I think it is unfair to bring a child up in an enviroment where he/she will be will be different than 99% of people.
Rossa Crowe I agree that the most “normal” configuration for a family is mother, father and their children.
But the fact is children are raised in worse conditions every day, kids are born to parents who are negligent, addicted to drugs or alcohol, abusive or crippled by poverty all over the world every day.
Surely its good enough that that a child who needs a home is brought up by two people who love them, who love each other, want to start a family and are deemed stable enough to do so (remember that people wishing to adopt a rigorously means tested) regardsless of what gender they are.
But what about growing up with two father and no mother?
Rosa she grew up without a father so if she had been adopted by 2 women her situation wouldnhave been no different other than an extra person loving her and caring for her.
My god. Id sooner have a loving gay couple adopt me than a man and his wife who end up hating each other and are in a shambles marriage.
Unfortunately I don’t think two parents that love you is not enough. stable means a father figure and a mother figure.
I’m sure travellers love their children but that does not make their situation ideal for raising a child.
I know it is very difficult to bring a child up where everything is perfect but at least where there is an option, not to complicate their lives it should be taken.
But Ross, if 2 women or men want to take a child from a broken home is that not better than a neglected kid with 2 rotten parents just because they area man and woman?
Rossa youre dead right it does seem like an unnecessary complication for the child that will single them out for bullying and the like, but kids bully other kids for everything and anything. Its not a good reason to stop the adoption.
Rossa, it seems like you are worried about maybe the child might get bullied.
Sorry, but thats a ridiculous argument. Instead of discriminating against people maybe adults should teach their kids not to be bullying little sh*ts.
I know my kids and the majority of their friends don’t see any difference between gay people and straight people.
Packie you make a fair point but it’s based on an idea that there is a need for more suitably qualified couples (gay or straight) to adopt children, as if supply of children in need of adoption outweighs demand. There are already large numbers of “traditional” couples who are perfectly qualified seeking to adopt while there are far less children in need of adoption in Ireland. I think any suggestion that once same sex couples can adopt it will be the answer to needy children’s problem just doesn’t stand up.
Rossa Crowe asked: “If you had to choose between being adopted by a man and a woman or a same sex couple what would you pick?”
Simple: I would pick the best couple for the job, whoever that was.
To choose based on their sex or sexual orientation would be nothing more than crude stereotyping.
Nature intends that people die of the following
Cancer
The flu
Diabetes
Whooping cough
The measles
Septicaemia
Skull fracture
Jaw fracture
Heart disease
Etc
Etc
Etc
So, yes, nature is frequently wrong and we correct it all the time. Or did you think the computer/phone/tablet you typed that comment on was picked from the electronics tree in your back garden?
Hi alan I see what you mean but i dont mean to say that we need to assign children to same sex couples What I meant was that the idea of what is a traditional family isnt really the most important thing, as long as a child is raised by loving and responsible parents.
And I dont mean to say that there should be any preference over a same sex couple or a hetero couple, if one is more suiting to a childs needs, and obviously if the child would prefer to go to a traditional family thats fine
I really don’t know where to start with a reply there’s so many comments.
I have 2 older brothers and uncles so I had plenty of male role models in my life. People seem to think these children will never see a different sex other than their parents when they’re adopted.
I was raised by my mother with no problems, she had enough love for 2 parents.
These adopted children aren’t the product of one night stands. They are wanted and I would have no problem choosing a life where I had 2 parents who really wanted me, regardless of their gender or sexuality.
Rossa, “nature intended for men and women to have children”. I always find the “nature intended” article to be rather feeble minded. “Are you saying nature is wrong” you ask? Are we to accept that the process of evolution always delivers the best outcomes? No. We have been fiddling with what nature intended since we became self aware. Nature’s only intention that I can see is that we pass on our genes.
Every child is different to 99% of their peers in some way, that’s not a reason for two parents of the same sex not to have children. Children now are mostly raised in a less hateful and more inclusive environment than before. Children with special needs attend mainstream schools, and there are now more and more children of different religions and different nationalities too. Children of gay parents will be next, and other children won’t give a sh!t
Stephanie, nature isn’t wrong. We manipulate it to suit our needs.
It’s not different – it’s your view that makes it seem different in the eyes of those kids. Zip it and there is no difference. I know 2 amazing gay coupes who have kids and those kids are very stable, loving & intelligent. I also know other ‘straight’ couples whose kids are not so stable – their relationships are not the best. It’s not the mix of sexes but the type of personalities & relationships that make great parents. So stop making it out that it’s the same sex parents that will cause the kids grief – it’s people like you – your attitude – man it’s like listening to something from the 40′s!
@Rossa
The majority of children that are harmed in families are harmed by their heterosexual parents.
If anything, we should ban heterosexual people from having children because the risk to them is far higher than to children of a gay couple who have had to make the deliberate decision to either adopt or use a surrogate.
Ah the appeal to nature fallacy.
Nature created gay people (animals too). What was nature doing if it this is apparently “wrong”??
No. Two of the same sex cannot naturally conceive together, but it doesn’t mean they can’t raise the offspring of another, adoption happens in “nature” all the time. Even without the legal framework we humans apply to it.
As for the bullying argument, seriously? Kids were being bullied when I was at school for all sorts, if it isn’t gay parents it will be something else. If a child wants to pick on someone they will find something, that’s simply not a good enough excuse to oppose marriage equality. Besides – it’s sort of victim blaming, the bully is the one in the wrong, not the victim – or the sexual orientation of their parents.
Rossa, are you saying that we should take their children off travellers because their environment is ‘less than ideal’ for raising their children?
There is a word for that, many words in fact;
*Discrimination
*Forcible adoption
*Hate speech
*Facism
Are some…
I suppose you are going to tell me , ‘ Nooooo, once they are born ‘naturally’ into that family, we must leave them be’.
My answer is this: what difference does it make for that child then? None whatsoever.
And what of the 50,000 + children growing up with single mothers?
Are they ‘less than ideal’ ?
Back to the land of the squinting windows with you.
Florence N, that is another myth, the incidents of abuse within same sex relationships is at least as high as for hetros, as for children faring better, that too is a myth, some of the most prolific mass murders were from situations where they had problems knowing what sex their environment required.
A myth backed up by scientific literature? Well there’s a first!
How many heterosexual couples raise children in dysfunctional settings, completely ill prepared & uneducated on how ro raise children? If two people are committed to each other and to raising a family together in a safe, loving and responsible environment, who gives a damn what they are gay or straight?
The child.
oh won’t somebody please think of the children
I know you are but what am I
A gay couple can never accidentally have a child, when they have a child it’s because they’re ready and they want it.
They want it ?
What about what the child wants ? Do you think any child would choose gay parents ?
It’s very unlikely the child would care the main reason many children become in any way homopobic is usually from picking it up off parents or adults around them. There are one parent family’s, children being cared for by aunties and uncles or grandparents and children in horrible dysfunctional two parent families nation wide. If I am right to say also there is a loophole that gay couples can already adopt but only one is registered as the parent, there is nothing stopping a lesbian from getting pregnant. Causing legislation on this doesn’t prevent them from having children it just makes the legality of the whole situation more difficult. Why deny loving couples from having children. Because it’s best for a child to live in a mother and father setting? Stupid argument when so many do not
Tony – Do you not think a child would pick gay parents rather than no parents?
Doesn’t sound like you’re the least bit interested in giving the child a choice Tony, but for that matter, how many of us got to choose our parents?
Someone clearly hasn’t seen the pictures of Neil Patrick Harris with his husband and their twins at Halloween. When I was a kid I’d have picked them as parents in an instant.
The one genuine concern is how the child would be treated by the peers, particularly at school.
I think most intelligent, reasonable people will acknowledge that same sex parents can be every bit as good in raising children compared with opposite sex parents.
But children are often merciless to each other, particularly verbally.
I’m not sure we’re mature enough yet as a society to deal with that.
Is one inevitable suicide worth it?
The current treatment of LGBT people in our society has already resulted in a huge number of suicides. And an Australian study actually showed that children of LGBT couples were better able to deal with stress and social pressure. It was a very small study but it’s worth bearing in mind.
It’s also worth following your logic through there for a minute. Think about interracial couples, parents with disabilities, parents with mental illness – should they all have been denied marriage? Instead of worrying about the quality parents of kids who get bullied I think we’d be better off focusing on the parents of the kids who do the bullying.
Children have been dealing with one parent families for years, how is this different? Nonsense point
@ VoiceOfVanguard, I’m sure many children are taunted bullied because one (or both) of their parents are black, or muslim, or English, or unemployed, or any number of other things that merciless kids will pick up on. Should we also prevent all of those people from raising children, just to protect the kids from immature bigots?
What’s the difference?
Plane crashes are inevitable should we all stop flying? As are car crashes, will you be leaving the car at home tomorrow? To link suicide as an “inevitable” event to the right of same sex couples to adopt” and use it as a reason not to allow it is as equally disgusting as it moronic
Tony you are an awful aul bigot. Will ya stop!
Sorry, but what nonsense, when do children ever get to choose their parents? Did you choose yours?
@Tony Killedoff:
A child wouldn’t want gay parents if you were one of them!
How many needy children have you and your opposite-sex partner adopted or fostered, Johnny?
So this “children are entitled” question.
Let me ask all the people advocating against adoption by same sex couples.
Would you make it impossible for any non-married person to adopt, rather than a couple?
Actually Stephanie, there’s been a lot of other studies that show children from same sex couples perform just as well in social, academic and psychological settings. In fact, the vast majority of children from same-sex couples out-performed children from heterosexual couples across most topics.
Voice
Where would the school bullies get the idea that 2 same sex partners are wrong?
Their parents of course.
No child is born to hate or discriminate, it is learned.
Parents firstly need to educate their children and bring their children up to respect all.
You see, VOV, you’ve identified the “wrong”, but suggest that what needs fixing is the “right”. The problem is not people leaving themselves susceptible to homophobia, the issue is that homophobia exists. By alienating the gay community you only tolerate and normalise such a practice.
The only reason a child would ever feel uncomfortable having gay parents is because he/she would have to face prejudice from the wider world and people like you.
That is the ONLY reason. Prejudice is a learned response. Children are not born with hatred in their hearts for other people.
Children are merciless with each other – you’re right. But the thing is, they don’t tease each other about the things they bully them for – they pick on them because there’s a personality clash. The thing they use as ammunition is incidental. If they get along with someone they won’t be picking on them at all. If they don’t get along, they will find anything they can to slag and tease each other over.
So why should the orientation of their parents matter at all?
Sean Gallagher, “children are entitled ” if that is a question to you, then you are a very sick person, there is no question about it.
He asked a question Gerard, no response???
For those against SSM, I encourage you to go to boards.ie and go the AMA Ask me anything section.
I am currently holding an AMA about being raised by a gay couple and will happily answer your questions. Its anonymous so don’t be afraid.
This is an important topic because you are essentially saying my parents and childhood was lesser than yours.
For the record, I am more than willing to speak about this publicly.
Finnbar, I applaud you. Very courageous.
Chris, if you don’t have anything intelligent to contribute, don’t bother.
@ Chris only 9 words in your sentence and it made no sense…….
Just when I thought Breda O’Brien couldn’t seem any more idiotic…..
She has set the bar quite high for herself over her lifetime. But she’s a pro and can always beat herself to new heights of bigotry and imbecility.
What is worse is that she is a teacher and a reporter. To much influence for a prehistoric cow
I think it’s time we all grew up. Nothing wrong with being gay, if homosexual marriage becomes legal the sky won’t fall down. If the feckless can have children why can’t gay people?
Because they Can’t!!!!!!!
U know birds & bees & all that carry on!
Adoption.
What percent of Gay couples will avail of adoption? Its almost impossible for straight couples to adopt in Ireland. They wait years? Unless of course they go overseas and pay for some poor Asian or African kid..
Then there’s always the commissioning option, pay some destitute woman in the developing world to be your surrogate.
Ah trust the IONA institute to read the lines and completely miss every valid point. As said above. Wagon.
At least, thanks to her, I now know that the iona institute supports incest.
and there you have why its an unfair headline just begging to be used by the more moronic of the yes campaign!
But still, please vote yes.
For the (repeated) benefit of Breda O’Brien, who seems not to grasp the fundamentals of adoption regulation in this country:
Nobody in Ireland, gay or straight, has a “right” to adopt a child.
Under CURRENT law it has LONG been legal in Ireland for a single person (gay or straight) to adopt a child. Just not an unmarried couple. Currently gay couples can be foster parents for the HSE. But the right to a loving and stable home is the child’s right; not the adult’s.
Adoption reform will NOT be addressed by the Referendum; yesterday’s wording makes this clear. Contrary to Breda O’Brien’s campaign of mis-information, adoption reform will be legislated for by the Oireachtas – anybody who has a strong opinion about it should contact their TD. Expressing discontent through the ballot box in the Referendum will change NOTHING with regard to adoption (again, contrary to Iona/Breda O’Brien’s comments).
As for her hysterical comment:
“Do you think we should change the Constitution to allow grandmothers and their daughters to marry?”
That one is so totally off the point, that it does not justify any response whatsoever.
From that argument though couldn’t it be said that having more eligible adoptive parents (i.e same sex couples) increase the likelihood of a child finding a stable home they need?
Also, the adoption application process includes an evaluation of the fitness of parents. It takes into account only the rights and best interests of the child(ren). The overhaul of adoption laws will NOT change this. The Referendum will have not impact on that position whatsoever. This is legal fact, conveniently side-stepped by Breda O’Brien.
The rights belong to the Child, and that is in the CHILD’s best interests. This will NOT and canNOT change, irrespective of the outcome of the Marriage Referendum in May.
@Ewan Scott-Douglas: Yes, most definitely. *IF* it was decided by the HSE / Courts that that course of action is in the best interests of the child.
At present same sex couples can foster. Obviously, there are situations whereby a same sex couple might be the HSE’s preferred choice in placing a child into foster care. Equally this may apply to adoption, *IF* that is in THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD.
The part that frustrates me the most is these brazen lies from certain quarters. As you quite rightly point out Winding, this referendum has less to do with adoption rights than it has to do with whether chocolate remains on sale.
Why are they allowed to spew this garbage unchallenged? If a presenter hints that they might support the passage of the referendum the BAI are all over it, if the Iona House of Lies come out and intentionally mislead people – is it not the presenters JOB to point out that they are doing so?
I don’t mind giving them their say. But when they start flat out lying, they need to be stopped in their tracks. If a Yes advocate was lying I would expect them to be pulled up on it too, it’s just so far – they haven’t.
Why can we not have an obligation to stick to the facts when it comes to referendum campaigning?
I stopped reading after “Iona institute”.
The Journal should have done the same and spare us from this bigot.
Perhaps the Journal is advocating the legalisation of incest…..certainly seems like it.
Chris, your powers of deduction are on the fritz…..
At 21:30 there’s over 400 comments. The journal knew what they were doing posting this..
And hey – it can serve as a reminder throughout the campaign of what an absolute liar this woman is, trying to insinuate that this referendum will have any effect on a gay *couples* right to legally adopt their kids.
This is “debate”?
The referendum will give equal rights to homosexuals. Their are 160 points of law that are different between a civil partnerships and marriage. This is civil marriage we are talking about, not religious marriage, so religious bodies should butt out. Families don’t come into it because there is separate legislation coming in there. Homosexual couples in committed relationships deserve those 160 points of law that give them equal rights to heterosexual couples.
This whole thing is about trying to stop homosexuality from ‘spreading’ as if it is unnatural. Same as they are trying to do in Russia, as if homosexuality was a lifestyle. It’s something that is part of a person’s makeup same as their fingerprint. Even when it was illegal and no one ‘influenced’ people to ‘become’ homosexual, it existed, but because they couldn’t be themselves and fall in love, they were unhappy, often depressed and experienced higher suicide rates than other members of society. It is natural, and there has always been a percentage of the population that has been homosexual. They have just been discriminated against and that needs to stop.
Interesting. Where can i find these 160 no. Differences please.
Google is your friend
‘She said it was “very clear” that this was the best environment in which to raise a child.’
Just wondering what studies she cited in support of this assertion?
The Bible
If the Iona Institute are going to be a given a frequent platform to air their views, I would really appreciate the Standards in Public Office Commission stepping up their investigation on where the Iona Institute are getting their funding. It is absolutely unacceptable that they are being allowed to get away with not complying with SIPO. It’s highly inappropriate, not least because of the upcoming referendum.
Someone did some digging last year, kinda enlightening
http://www.mamanpoulet.com/whos-funding-the-iona-institute/comment-page-1
I don’t give a duck if grandmother’s want to marry their granddaughters. I would agree about the opposition to child rearing if it weren’t for the fact that there are countless little skombags in families that should be sterilized. How could kids from gay couples be any worse.
There is evidence to say that the gender of both parents have little effect on kid’s upbringing. The renegus study that Iona and others bring up all the time is used as an example of bad Social Science research in Universities since it manages to compare kids with both biological parents in stable homes with kids who have been through the adoption process and been adopted by same sex parents. i.e Its the process of being in care and adopted that caused the effects not their adoptive parents.
There’s evidence for everything these days!
Yes its called Science.
Get come back, well done
Of course Pud evidence is a very alien concept when it comes to the religiofascists.
You are very open-minded. Und tell me herr kommandant, vhen vill das sterilisation programme commence?
I have not heard of the claimed reasons or reason, the specific mechanism which would supposedly renders same sex parents less suitable than heterosexual parents. What is the hypothesis being advanced by the Iona Institute? I doubt that it is possible to generalise at all.
It seems to be that genuinely objective, empirically rigorous and longitudinal studies will like show far great intra class variability than variability as to parental quality between same sex parents and heterosexual parents. I doubt that it would be possible to control effectively for random and other variables.
Then we get into causation and correlation and whether differences in outcome might be a result of homophobia and more subtle forms of social disadvantage.
In any event parental standards are irrelevant to the question of same sex marriage. Not all same sex couples will chose, want or decide to have children.
I am a practicing Catholic but this woman and the “institute” she represents disgust me. Her arguments are ridiculous and I hate that she has taken it upon herself to speak for me and my religion. I will be voting in favour of same sex marriage, love is love. If a child has the chance to grow up in a house with two loving parents who are we to rob them of that opportunity?
Too right Goggles. Ireland is home to hundreds and hundreds of thousands of loving Catholics like yourself who welcome the right to marry for LGBT people (many of whom are Catholic too). Iona give Catholics a bad name.
When I see Breda O’Brien the first thing that comes to mind is Helen Lovejoy from the Simpsons “Won’t someone please think of the children!”
I think that’s doing Helen Lovejoy a disservice
What’s the difference between a lesbian couple and a grandmother and mother raising a child? About the same difference between a straight couple and a grandfather and mother raising a child. Pretty clear difference to me.
Why does what she suggest even come into the same-sex marriage debate? Can opposite-sex family members marry currently? No, just like same-sex family members won’t be able to marry when this referendum passes
The “no” side have such weak arguments
The no side are the right side.
Opinion polls suggest otherwise. And not by a small margin
If the no side are on the right side, why is it thay they cannot back up a dingle assertion and are routinely debunked
I love dingled assertions :D
Ha, thanks May. Tiny keyboards are not my friends!
It is nice getting kerry’s perspective on things all the same
Tis a nice peninsula. Deserving of a capital ‘D’ though. Sorry Dingle
100% of the people against gay adoption have absolutely no experience of it. Yet everyone I know that does have experience of it, including children raised by gay parents (shock horror) are for it. That tells me all I need to know. They’re not “emotionally confused” and usually they’ll have better fashion sense!
Jazus there are a ton of hetro couples who can’t take care of their kids and certainly don’t deserve them I don’t see the problem with a child growing up in a living home be it two men two women! There is no such thing as 2.4 family’s anymore!! And I will be voting yes to gay marriage ! Live and let live :-)
What the hell is balanced about giving a tiny group of extreme right wing nut jobs a 50% share or air time for a big chunk of the next year?
RTE should just find random people on the street that are against it to come in. Give us a break from David Quinn and co.
“O’Brien said she didn’t oppose civil partnerships for same-sex couples but drew the line at marriage as children become involved.”
Civil Partnered couples are raising children. She doesn’t seem to concerned about those children.
I was raised by a single Mother, that’s a 100% female influence. What difference would it have made if I had two Mothers? I’ll tell you, a big difference. For the better. Another loving parent, to care for me and share my Mother’s burden would have been amazing. The gender is irrelevant. All a child needs is a caring and loving Guardian(s) willing to put the child’s needs first.
I managed OK without a father. I have a Degree, a Masters, a great job, a car, a house and a wife. I turned out pretty “normal” despite the sole female influence in my life. It could only have been better with a second mother. Or two fathers.
I’d have a lot more resect for the Iona Institute if they kept to the only argument they have to stand on, which is “we don’t agree with it because of our interpretation of Christianity”. I could respect that. I mean, I disagree with it but it comes from a valid place.
But no… They have to make up fraudulent arguments, illogical statements and ridiculous opinions. Horrid, horrid people who deserve no air time for their stupidity.
@Jude
+1
Well said.. I am so sick of their lies, and what’s worse is that there will only be a bigger, larger onslaught of their bull$h1t in the coming months..
Well now – I didn’t realise it was “very clear” that a man and woman is the “best environment” for a child. Obviously she has some overwhelming sociological evidence to even make that statement. I’m convinced.
We shouldn’t stop at just voting no to this obvious danger to our children. Any home with a missing parent – separated, deserted or dead – should have the children taken out and put into a man/woman type home where they will reach their full potential as functioning heterosexual citizens. It doesn’t matter that they won’t know these new parents because it’s essential to provide the best environment for them. We must protect the children from these rogue lone parent families who are destroying our future leaders and providers.
I’m no fan of Ms O’Brien but that’s a bit of an unfair headline there – although the context is presented reasonably fairly in the main story.
If she asked the question it is a reasonable headline. What is she on about?
Context is everything – I heard the actual debate.
She was being asked to compare two lesbians raising a child and a grandmother and daughter raising a child.
This referendum will I believe be carried (and I’ll vote yes on it) – but demonising those with reservations and mis-emphasising out of context arguments put forward by those against it will only serve to antagonise the undecideds and waverers in the middle which I believe will make it a closer result than opinion polls currently suggest.
There is an overwhelming weight of reasonable and valid arguments in support of the yes vote and therefore there should be no need to resort to characterising all who oppose it as crackpot bigots and homophobes.
She is a crackpot and a bigot.
I think the referendum will be a lot tighter than expected. The timing of the adoption rights bill has fallen into the hands of the no brigade. It has allowed them to confuse the issues of ssm and adoption rights/ parental issues. They are now framing the argument against ssm in terms of children losing their rights to their biological parents. It’ll make a lot of people think twice. Another government cock up.
The two issues are not actually intertwined.
I can’t wait to see what the No side base their campaign on when the legislation surrounding adoption is passed..
Their “what about the children” will seem quote hollow then..
Shanti they will still attempt to link the two.
Paddy said the other day that people should vote no out of protest, to which I responded ‘Vote yes if you oppose water charges’. About as much in common as his logic.
It’s reassuring to know that in order for the largest opposition group to get their way, they have to entirely derail the argument, imply that parent’s and children will be able to marry which is a complete lie and they need to consistently make claims that this affects parenting issues which again is entirely false.
The opposition is founded on lies. It must be very worrying for then.
Ailbhe, It’s much more worrying for me that these people, who as you said have to resort to lies and scaremongering, are getting so much airtime on this issue.
I know Chris. It’s hardly that nice brand of ‘BAI Balance’ if they engage in falsifications.
I have no TV.. Otherwise I would be complaining, in detail, about every lie spewed by this “Institute” to the BAI, if there’s rules about fairness and impartiality – then they must appreciate that lies cannot be broadcast unchallenged. It most certainly is not “fair” to lie your butt off in a public debate. Especially not when it relates to people’s human rights.
Lola, personally I think the Iona Institute are doing a great job, the more crap they spew the more chance of same sex marriages becoming legal
Andy you are so right. They are their own worst enemy in this case… nobody in their right mind will listen to the crap they are spouting and think they make sense.
I love when they open their mouths because their ignorance and hypocrisy are clear for all to see.
I think the problem with the Iona Institute is that they are the go-to people for every debate and as such are very well versed in their argument. When O’Brien and other Institute members are being introduced their organisation is never described and these people, especially O’Brien, come across as compassionate individuals whose only concern is “the children”. They need to be called out for what the stand for in general terms.
I’m afraid that’s not entirely true, my dear mother seems to agree with them and believe their shite. She’s highly religious and for me an atheist to clarify or debunk the utter tripe and spin these d!ckwad’s come out with is taken as an attack on her believes. I tried point out their lies and the misconstrued facts, even what Breda said today and how in hell cant people with this viewpoint and reasoning be given air time or respect, but good catholic’s on TV don’t lie apparently! I’m certain more like her exist who will never seek facts, truth or figures and just accept the nonsense this lot spew as fact.
The Yes side can not be complacent.
It’s quite sad when people choose to blindly follow authority figures and question nothing.. But it’s the educational model in this, and many other countries..
Gold luck with your mother, there is hope :)
Agree, perhaps that is why the Church have been very quiet on this topic so far!
Your poor mother, like so many of the older generations, is a victim of the Catholic recruitment policy known to most of us as “indoctrination”. That’s why they fight vigorously to keep their strangle hold on primary education…. “Get ‘em while they’re young…..” Brain washing. All oppressive regimes adopt the same tactic.
Breda O’Brien and David Quinn fu,,wits of the highest order. Proof if proof were needed that the older I get the more intolerant I become of people of this ilk.
The parents of the pupils in Muckross Pk school must be so gratified that La O’Brien is teaching them, giving them such a perfectly closed minded education.
‘Mother’s marrying their daughters ‘
Luckily fathers can still marry daughters. That’s not same sex marriage so it must be legal.
“Should we allow mothers to marry their daughters?”
Will I be able to marry an onion?
An interesting question but not the one being asked on the referendum ballot.
You won’t be able to marry an onion, but you WILL be permitted to tie one to your belt. With the one caveat, of course, that is is the style at the time
Iona can’t tackle the straightforward issue of the actual referendum, so they’re creating straw men, women, grannies and granddaughters to deflect.
They can’t hack that more and more people will have control over their own lives, rendering their sad little “institute” irrelevant as it tries to dictate who has a sex life and who doesn’t.
Oh so Breda objects to a grandmother marrying her granddaughter but has no problem with a grandfather marrying his granddaughter. Typical pathetic obfuscation of the debate and dragging it down to gutter level!!
The thing that stops Grannies marrying their granddaughters is the bit where is says “in accordance with law”. Ireland is not Shelbyville
One of the arguements gay people make, is that they would be just the same as a traditional married couple who were unable to have children, however when you look closely at this, its apparent that its a very bad arguement because, although a traditional married couple may not be able to have children, there is always the possibility, where as with a same sex couple its not possible because the act is an inpodent one. No chance of having children.
Heterosexual people make these arguments too.
Do you really feel that if a woman has to have a hysterectomy it is a ‘possibility’ for her and her husband to conceive children?
You see we dont want to discuss what is right or what is wrong or whats stupid and what isn’t.
There may not be a chance, but I’m damned if that’ll stop me and my partner trying.
So what about Sterile people should they also be barred from marriage?
Should people who use birth control be banned from marrying?
What about trans* people? They are widely accepted to be of their identified gender should they be banned from marrying because they can’t conceive either?
In your case David, you’re both wrong and stupid.
“a traditional married couple may not be able to have children, there is always the possibility”
No there isn’t! a straight couple in their 60′s cannot have children, a sterile couple cannnot have children…a very weak argument
What an awesome reply. Well done. I’ve completely changed my view on same sex marriage and adoption due to your insight. Also, ‘inpodent’ is a perfectly cromulent word.
Marriage has sweet f all to do with children. Get over it.
Dang, there I was due to get married at the end of the year (hetro, don’t worry!) but as me and future husband don’t ever want kids, I guess we’ll have to call it off as marriage is just for the benefit of kids.
So what David?
Many people marry with no intent of having children. It’s not a requirement of marriage, so why do you keep insisting that it is?
Besides which, gay people will be eligible to adopt as couples once the legislation passes – after that, what will be your objection!
The Iona institute are just pure bigoted homophobes end of. They think that the only qualification of being a good parent is the genitalia of the parents!!! The family bill has nothing to do with the referendum and will be voted through beforehand. Many same sex couples already have children and all these religious nut jobs are doing is trying to deny those children equal legal protection.
Is there any research to show… that being raised by people of the same sex is not the best environment for a child ?
Yes, but funded by religious bodies and not peer reviewed. The opposing research is peer reviewed and independently funded.
No credible research, no.
If the red thumbs would like to provide me with some credible evidence I will, with glee, retract my comment.
*waits patiently*
Stick on the kettle Stephanie!
The two couples I know are gay men…
‘Very clear’ is it, that a child is better in a straight couples home? Because nothing ever goes wrong in a straight marriage!
Is Breda O’Brien and her fellow members in the Iona Institute for real?
She is a throwback to the days of when the likes of SPUC, Youth Defence, Coir, Archbishop McQuaid, William Binchy and Úna Bean Mhic Mhathúna got their way.
Úna wrote this in a letter to the Irish TImes in May 1976:
“We do not want contraception, abortion, divorce, homosexuality, secular schools or any of the trappings of an uninspiring secular Ireland.”
She’s a vile hate filled homophobic c@nt!! No doubt she’ll be screaming for eternity in hell with all the peodo priests!! If you believe in that sort of crap!
Please stop giving these fools the publicity they crave
Mad as a box of frogs! She’s hilarious. Everything that comes out of her gob sounds like something from the Onion or Waterford Whispers. She’s a sitcom character and yet I take David Brent more seriously. :D
Why is Breda even relevant? The time of the RC, Iona and the rest is passing. It’s time for the RC church to be divorced from all state institutions and ignored as the rhetoric supernatural fiction that it really is.
@Gerard Aherne:
Well said, Gerard.
Let the iOnanists stick to what they’re good at: iOnanism.
I don’t think the yes vote should say anything, these clowns are doing their work for them. Save ur money for the wedding :)
‘She said it was “very clear” that this was the best environment in which to raise a child’ Nope. Clearly didn’t work with you Breda O’Brien. So there goes your theory.
This is exactly the kind of article that usually would have attracted Paddy and the rest of the Iona trolls. Haven’t seen them in a while though, their chain of command must have told them to keep away from here…
Nope, Paddy was out in force yesterday.
I’ve always considered O’Brien to be a thoughtful person with deeply held convictions, ones that I dont share but nonetheless can appreciate. I think the Yes side needs to be careful in the upcoming campaign not to patronise or condescend to people who don’t believe in SSM, most of them are decent, honourable people who just happen to think marriage should remain between a man and a woman, that’s a perfectly legitimate opinion to hold. However I believe in this instance O’Brien is being totally disingenuous and offensive “Do you think we should change the Constitution to allow grandmothers and their daughters to marry” she is an intelligent woman so she knows that the wording of the amendment is clear “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex” I’m not a barrister but for me the important words in the amendment are “accordance with law” the Oireachtas will never pass a law(s) to legalise incestuous relationships as alluded to by O’Brien. This was a crude attempt by her to confuse the core issue, allowing two consenting adults who love each other to have that love recognised by the state through marriage.
An opinion, in order to be credible, should be (in my opinion) formed through fact, reason and experience. In short it must be an informed opinion. From what I have seen of Ms. O’Brien’s opinions on SSM they are burdened by none of those qualities.
She is a woman of deeply held *religious* convictions, if she would admit that her opinions are based in religion I would have far more (any) respect for her and her opinions. But as long as she disingenuous (and deceptively imo) claims that her opinions on opposing the rights of others are founded in unnamed, unreferenced, constantly disproved “facts” I can have no respect for her.
Stephanie, very well said!
All the no side have are lies. Everything they say can be shown to be false or misleading.
We are being asked whether two people who decide to tie the knot should be permitted, even if they are gay. Nothing to do with children (adoption being separate), nothing to do with incest (as that’s already illegal), nothing to do with bestiality (also illegal, also, good luck getting an animal to say “I do”, ditto to inanimate objects). Simply – should gay people be allowed to tie that knot?
The only argument against that is that you don’t think gay people’s relationships and lives are worth as much as heterosexual people’s, and that is discrimination – plain and simple.
I know some get very upset about the word homophobic – but why? If they’re comfortable denying gay people equality then why are they offended by an accurate description being applied to them? Surely if being called a homophobe is so upsetting to them, they should step back and check they’re not actually homophobic, because the best way to stop people calling you one, is to stop *being* one..
Have the Iona Institute forgotten the stolen children of the Catholic Church, whom they sold to people from all over the world. Marriage equality is not only about being allowed to bring up children.
Conveniently for them, they manage to forget about a lot of children that are not currently living in what they see as a ‘perfect, normal family’ environment – with a father and a mother. Children of single parents, being raised by a relative, or those who are already being raised by couples of the same sex are always forgotten by this crowd.
If they were to acknowledge the existence of these children, their whole argument would fall and they know it.
Such statements remind me of the Religious Right in the US Deep South.
Hell fire.
Teletubby land
Middle Earth….it’s in a book so it is real…
Hell exists, its in Michigan
You need a licence to own a dog and yet straight couples, no matter what their circumstances are, can have a child.
I often wonder why the same vigorous vetting process used in adoption isn’t applied to people who don’t adopt but still have children. I would bet that if they were, a huge number of existing parents would not be allowed to breed.
The rights of any human being, regardless of their sexual persuasion should be equal in all ways. As a species, we have a long way to go before equality will be normal and not something that must be fought for. A biggot like this O’Brien one should not be allowed to teach in our schools, what chance do gay people have of being no different in the eyes of everyone, which is their right, if teachers can spew this kind of subtle hatred and intolerance?
I despair at the human race sometimes and people like her make me sick.
Why does anybody pay attention to what the Imbecile institute has to say about anything? Everybody involved in it has a pre historic mindset, terrified of Ireland becoming a modern society with all that entails. I bet they have wet dreams of it still being 1950 with a majority of god fearing catholics as a population.
Because of the platform, and the totally undue influence afforded it by RTE. Other media outlets share some of the blame but RTE shoulders the bulk of it!
Who the hell do the , Iona institute think they are, how dare they try to muddle an already haszey and contestable issue, with what can only be considered as propaganda, to sway the voting public,
After all what gives us the right to decided how people our fellow country man and women, marry or choose to define themseleves.
Are we as a nation not able to see past the short comings of the past, are we that dim that we cant see the strategic and societal importance that the referendum gives to people.
After all its about more than marriage its asking us the people do we allow or restrict peoples right to choose , who and what they are.
But more so if we say no, what are we saying both nationally and internationally about how we treat people.
already we have seen and heard in the public sphere, terms associated with being different being abnormal, as a result of people choosing to have different sexual preferences.
How DARE WE SAY NO, its the 21st century,come on Ireland lets remove the shackles of our labored past, lets allow people be who they are without inhibitions of the past.
Iona/ISIS same difference, religious fundamentalist goons regardless of their God.
Only an idiotic zealot the kind that flock to the iona institute could come out with a statement as moronic as that one!
With a world full of sicko’s why not?
‘Sickos’ doesn’t require an apostrophe. Just FYI.
Consenting adults, not related by blood, are ‘sicko’s’ [sic]?
So Iona are against marriage..it would then follow that they support children born out of wedlock…
bit of a contradiction there, Ionabots..
So, going by Breda’s bizarre logic – she believes a Father can marry his daughter and a Mother can marry her son…?
Gay marriage is a potential playground for paedophiles.
Can you point to an solid evidence of this?
*any
Playgrounds are also potential playgrounds for paedophiles. You don’t see people protesting them
Is that a joke? :D Best laugh I’ve had in a while
Say what you like about paedophiles, they drive slowly around playgrounds and schoolyards
I can point to solid evidence of homosexual paedophiles but all you have to do is show up in any courthouse in the country and see yourself.
I can point to heterosexual paedophiles too.
*point to evidence of heterosexual paedophiles.
What’s your point, anyway, deerhounddog? Are you trying to link homosexuality with paedophilia? If so, you should know that you are completely outdated with your thinking and it has been proven that this is not the case.
Produce your evidence, deerhound. The vast majority of paedophiles/child abusers identify as heterosexual males. Therefore children are more at risk of abuse from their straight fathers/uncles/grandfathers etc. Maybe we should just ban straight marriage if we want to protect the children?
What a total load of bollocks ,Deerhounddog .
As suspected, the troll had no “evidence”..
Its a common gay arguement graham.
If you’re homosexual, get over it. Have a civil partnership if you must. But you cannot be married. Its a logical impossibility. Marriage is not exclusively defined by the Oxford dictionary or the Irish constitution. Marriage as an institution as old as man himself and calling it something else does not make it something else.
When this news site or independent.ie have a picture of a homosexual couple and describes a same-sex partner as a “husband” or “wife” its so patently ridiculous as to be laughable.
What kid of moral approval are they seeking? Just to call something by a name or handle does not make it so. Redefine “black” as “white” and the substance does not change – only the definition.
This very modern, very western, so-called “civil rights” issue will only ever gain traction in societies that are rotting with moral corruption and are in danger of becoming totalitarian in the name of “freedom”.
I didn’t bother reading any of the comments above, but I’d be willing to bet a week’s wages that those who have expressed distaste for s/s “marriage” have been pilloried and vilified for daring to express an opinion that the majority of posters on this site disagree with.
When the majority hold the view that there is no worthy or expressible view other than their own view, then freedom and democracy are in danger. The LGBTQ movement will brook no dissension and have set themselves up as moral guardians, who alone possess the right to believe what they want and any dissension or disagreement is “hate speech”, homophobia” and “Intolerance”.
Its a shame they can’t tolerate opinions that differ from their own.
Your comments reads like someone standing in a field telling everyone the grass is magenta and laughing manically when they tell you it’s green.
@Dismas – Every person, regardless of race, gender, creed or sexual orientation believes their opinions are true. That is the inherent nature of having an opinion. I can accept anyone having a different opinion. I won’t always agree but it is their right. But it is when people like you talk about “logic” as though your statement is a fact, rather than an opinion, that we have a problem. Throughout Humanities history we have grown as a collective and societal norms have changed. With intelligence, reason, faith and passion we constantly rewrite what it is to be a human being. Gay couples will be as “Married” as any other. What society once defined as “Marriage” has no bearing on the her and now. The die is cast, the curtains fall and we move on.
As a people we are growing. You may not like it, but there have always been people against progress. Every step foward for mankind has been met with jeers and cries of anguish. Their voices, as yours, drowned by the chorus of the reasonable.
Stephanie – your comment is pointless
Jude – you are not getting my point. I’m not standing up and shouting “KILL ALL THE QUEERS”
What arrogance to assume your’s is the “reasonable” chorus and opposition to your view deserves to be drowned. What you call “progress” I would define as “regression”
The die ain’t cast Judy.
Dismas you have the arrogance to alude that YOU and you alone understand what marriage really id and have the audacity to claim gay people marrying is a logical impossibility. It’s a social contract, if they sign it and the state recognises it, it exists.
“But you cannot be married. Its a logical impossibility.”
Same sex couples can be married in a number of countries, actually, Belgium and The Netherlands have allowed it for almost 15 years, and our closest neighbours, the UK and France have allowed it in the last few years (just to name a few). You can take a flight over the the UK and get married – one of our own TDs did that last year!
So I don’t see the logical impossibility.
Ailbhe – I have tried to define marriage, as best I can, in terms of its ancient values. I never claimed I have exclusive insder knowledge.
Now we’ve got that straw-man argument dispensed with, are you not guilty of that which you’ve accused me of? Do you understand absolutely what marriage is, Aillbhe? Is your understanding the only point of view that matters in this debate? Have those who disagree with you the right to voice an opinion?
@Dismas – You sir, I am afraid, are the one who isn’t getting the point. You say Gay Marriage is a logical impossibility because you believe it is not defined by Dictionaries (despite that being their point) but by their existence as centuries old practice.
My point is that we have, as a society, constantly redefined what something is. Hell it wasn’t until the Council of Trent in 1563 that we redefined Christian Marriage to require the Church to officiate. Things change, all the time. It is the nature of our species to change our ideas, principles and opinions. Just as we changed so that women aren’t property which is obtained by a man in marriage (as considered until relatively recently), we too are changing now.
I accept you have a different opinion. That doesn’t change the facts. We CAN redefine Marriage. As we have been doing for millennia. It’s a defining trait of ours.
As a society we decided that women are equal to men. Do you hold that this is a logical impossibility based on historical practices too?
Hey Jude. Men and women are equal, sure. Except no lady will ever start for the Man Utd eleven, no lady will ever face Conor McGregor pound-for-pound in the UFC ring and no man will ever give birth to a baby.
Women may have the right to play for MUFC or the right to fight McGregor and men may have the right to have a baby but no amount of allowing rights will change the unalterable state of difference between the sexes. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Anything else is not marriage.
“Marriage is between one Man and one Woman”
OK, OK the hypocrisy finally shows. So humanity was allowed changed from the earliest forms of Marriage – One Man with multiple wives, but we can’t change now?
Polygamy existed long before Monogamy was enforced by the Church and State. We changed that. Just as we are changing it again.
No amount of you staying your opinion changes the fact.
Dismas, you absolutely have the right to an opinion. In fact that is my point, that your understanding of marriage is just your opinion not a fact. Thanks for making my point for me ;)
Jude – I am a citizen of a Judeo-Christian western nation. Marriage has traditionally been between one man and one woman in this land. That’s what I believe and also what I believe in. Polygamy exists in other cultures but not in ours: not in living memory or in recorded history in Ireland. Let the semites and africans have things their own way. This is Ireland
Ailbhe, make your own points if you are able. Your definition of marriage is not exhaustive and neither is mine.
Dismas – I’m afraid you’re wrong. The Brehon Laws – The Ancient laws of Ireland specifically allowed for polygamy.
You’re not talking about an Ancient custom, you’re talking about a relatively new post-Christianity concept of Marriage in this country.
So returning to your original point. The Irish redefined marriage once. Why can’t they again.
I support your right to believe whatever you like. You are entitled to it. But don’t try to use falsehoods as facts and claim something is illogical. Gay Marriage doesn’t gel with your beliefs. That’s fine. Just say that. But don’t try to tell us all it’s a fact that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman and always has been. Because it isn’t.
Ah but it’s nice to get help from time to time. Fair play to ya, thanks again.
Jude – show me the authoritative references for the Brehon Law allowing polgamy. Ta
Show me the authoritative reference that says marriage has always been about polygamy.
@Dismas
“Marriage has traditionally been between one man and one woman in this land. That’s what I believe and also what I believe in. ”
You’re making the classic mistake of believing that your opinion is the default and “proper” opinion simply because it is the longest held. But just because something is ancient does not mean that it is correct. Some ancient tribes sacrificed virgins to mountain gods because they thought it would help bring bountiful harvests. But that doesn’t mean it was RIGHT.
You are allowed to continue believing whatever you like. That is one of the great miracles of modern democracy. You are allowed to live your life according to those beliefs, as long as doing that doesn’t harm someone else. But you are not allowed to impose your will on someone who doesn’t share your opinion just because you think yours is the best. That’s where the line must be drawn.
Marriage has many different meanings to many different societies. Our particular brand of marriage in the west is just one of them. And things evolve, just like humans.
Marriage used to be about property. Marriage used to be permanent.
It’s definition has changed, even in your precious Bible it was polygamy.
You wanna speak about logic? Then ditch your appeal to tradition.
I have no strong views on SSM but its hypocritical to argue in favour of changing marriage to allow to same sex people to marry as their consenting adults and be against a mother marrying a grandaughter or brothers and sisters marrying as long as their consenting adults who’s business is it? Is that not what this debate is all about, equal rights for everybody?
Ok you might say that incest is icky but a lot of people think LGBT people are ‘icky’ , my view is either its restricted in certain scenarios or it should be ok for everybody, if you truly are in favor of ‘equality’ you can’t logically argue against this.
to – two
their – they’re
*In before the grammar nazis
Incest leads to genetic mutations. Other than that I’d be all for it if there was demand. There isn’t though so how about we concentrate on the issue at hand.
Incest over several generations supposedly leads to genetic defects. but I think most of the opposition to these kind of relationships is because its a long standing social taboo. But leaving aside procreation or love. We’re talking about two consenting adults of able mind and body entering into a civil contract such as civil marriage, if you’re in favor of changing civil marriage to allow same sex people to marry than you cannot oppose marriage in the scenarios above as you are denying them their ‘civil’ rights too.
Either it should remain restricted to man and woman or available to any consenting adults. Personally I believe the benefits of civil marriage (property rights and tax breaks) should only be available to all couples regardless of whether they choose or not to enter into a civil contract with their partner otherwise its discrimination against non married couples.
Jon Snow
When would-be incestuous couples campaign for the right to marry, we’ll listen to them and vote accordingly.
*cue tumbleweed from non-existent pro-incestuous marriage groups*
Alrighty then.
Jane. Its not a matter of when, its a given if this referendum passes you’ll see test cases come before the courts.
Leaving aside labels such as “incestuous” or “gay” we are talking here about two consenting adults who wish to avail of civil marriage to be bestowed all of its benefits – property rights, tax breaks, inheritance rights such an arrangement might be attractive to two sisters or brothers who lived together and never found a partner for example, irrespective if they are or not in an incestuous relationship, after all what two consenting adults do together is none of the states or society’s business, they might just wish to enter a civil marriage for the legal protections.
You are missing the legal point of marriage which is to create a familial relationship under the law where one does not exist by blood.
A family bond already exists between siblings, parents, grandparents etc so is not relevant when discussing marriage which, as I said, is designed to create a family bond where one does not already exist.
@Denise. No from what I understood the reason for the referendum was to extend the same rights to same sex couples as opposite sex couples.
familial relationships have nothing to do with it, people don’t need government approval or need to sign civil contracts to call themselves a family. The family is a social construct , civil marriage is a legal construct
Jon Snow
The key term in the proposed referendum ruling is “under law”. Under law incestuous marriages aren’t permitted. They are not permitted now between fathers and daughters or mothers and sons, and they will not be permitted after the referendum between same-sex relatives. Go build another strawman.
I don’t recall proponents or interracial marriage campaigning for same sex marriage when that was illegal. It didn’t however make their cause any less just.
@Jane. Just as same sex relationships were illegal up until 20 years ago? Strawman? I think not. My take on it is either civil marriage stays the same and it keeps its current restrictions or if we are to broaden it in the name of equality and civil rights then it should be available to all adults (of able body and mind)
@Graham. The ban on interracial marriage stemmed from legalized racial segregation and the belief that black people were inferior. It has no relevance to this debate, I don’t think we ever had racial segregation laws in Ireland?
Jon
One simple question for you:
Are opposite-sex incestuous couples allowed to marry now under the current parameters of civil marriage?
“supposedly”? I think you meant factually. Also it doesn’t take” several generations” – just one will do. If you want to know what incest does to people genetically just ask yourself why our isolated little island on the edge of the Atlantic has such a high rate of cystic fibrosis.
Jane
Two simple questions for you:
Are same sex couples allowed to marry now under the current parameters of civil marriage?
Was homosexuality not also a criminal offense in the not so distant past?
@Stephanie. I’m in the same boat of thinking as most in saying that incest is disgusting and vile and should always be outlawed, but my thinking on it is just down to my social conditioning on the matter, societal perception can change. Also I think a lot of the genetic defects are exaggerated due to people seeing these types of relationships as hideous.. intermarrying is quite common among our own “indigenous” groups and they seem to be getting on ok with it.
And leaving out the procreation side of the argument, who’s to say two related individuals shouldn’t be allowed to enter a civil marriage contract for legal protection purposes? In my view marriage should either remain as it presently is or if its broadened in the name of civil rights then it should be available to all.
They’re not exaggerated and they’re not getting on ok with it. There’s a reason the first page of the Crumlin hospital admission form asks “are the parents related?”. Lay people might think big teeth and webbed feet when they think incest but those are mild musculoskeletal disorders compared to the problems many children of incestuous relationships actually get. Dude seriously, do some research.
Yes. And current marriage legislation creates a ‘familial’ bond under the law for two people of opposite genders who are not already closely related by blood – the only change should the referendum pass is that non-blood related people of the same gender can become legally recognised as close ‘family’.
@Stephanie.
“Dudess” If you’re gonna bang on about facts then cite your research, the onus is on you. I couldn’t give a damn about the genetic abnormalities caused by incest, regardless of what the law says some people will always engage in it, but its a moot point in regard to my argument which is that why should any two adults not be allowed to enter into a civil marriage contract since its been extended in the name of legal rights? We are talking about civil marriage here, neither sex nor procreation are prerequisites so why shouldn’t it be available to all irregardless of what they get up to in the bedroom. Is that not what this referendum is all about?
Jon
Are you going to answer my question or not? It’s a very simple one.
Jon you are not completely wrong however most people don’t want to deal with the issue as they feel it will hinder the Yes campaign (which Is support) if they acknowledge the similarities. I think ignoring the issue actually harms the yes campaign.
I disagree with extending marriage equality to incestuous relationships as I feel the dynamic is too vulnerable to abuse, ie grooming.
I don’t believe there are statistics and it would be very difficult to prove but I suspect that a lot, if not the majority of incestuous relationships involve one member of the case abusing their position of trust to groom the less mature individual. Ie a parent or elder sibling abusing their postion.
The logic for this is that incestuous desires are uncommon in humans. It think it follows that it would be unlikely that two members of the same family will share a mutual incestuous attraction. I think it is more likely that the more senior member will instigate the sexual relationship and most likely not with consent of the junior individual.
Extending marriage equality to incestuous relationships could potentially give legal legitimacy to a lot of relationships wherein one member is being victimized. For that reason I oppose it.
What do you think?
Change scares people.
I’m not concerned about changing family structures.
I think the argument that “I dont support gay couples adopting because a mother and father provides the best environment for a child to be raised in” is an extremely weak one.
Although I understand what they are trying to say, they don’t seem to realise that a ideal environment for raising a child consists of many factors.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that having a heterosexual couple raise a child confers an advantage. It’s just one advantage. Many other factors come into play. The guardians competency, their financial status, level of intelligence, morality, health and let’s not forget…how much they care for the child.
So when comparing the capability of two couples who are being considered to adopt and raise a child. A heterosexual couple can not instantaneously beat a homosexual couple simply by virtue of their genders. The homosexual couple may well be far superior at raising the child due to the myriad of other factors that go into providing a good environment for a child to grow up in.
I really feel this is all that needs to be said on the adoption and raising of children issue.
Jon, these comparisons are really upsetting to a lot of people who were sexually abused by family members. There’s many issues beyond genetic problems which occur with sexual abuse by family members, such as abuse of power, grooming, emotional manipulation.
This has absolutely nothing in common whatsoever with gay and lesbian adults who currently hope to get married in Ireland. Jon, when you talk about how “incest will happen anyway”, you ignore that most of that is abuse by older relatives and a really hurtful comparison.
Actually Jon, you made the initial claim that the problems are exaggerated and people are managing fine. The onus, my dear, is on you.
And you keep ignoring the point made above Jon..
Marriage is there to create a legal familial bond between two people where one did not previously exist.
If you’re already related, you have no need of this.
The only thing a pair of siblings living together don’t have that a married couple have is the ability to combine their incomes for tax purposes. And hey – why not open that up for people.
But all the other purposes of marriage are redundant to a couple who are already related.
Well by that logic, Dads can probably already marry daughters.
Emilio your avoiding the issue.
And its got a lot to do with children.
I was raised by a gay couple and turned out just like everyone else. Please tell me how my life was different in any real way.
Im not even talking about same sex couples raising children, that is not the arguement, the arguement is, what is marriage?
If you aren’t sure maybe you should abstain from voting. And until you figure out how to use the reply button, perhaps you could abstain from commenting.
Marriage is the formation of a legal family bond between two adults where one did not exist previously.
This grants familial rights between the parties, relating to such things as next of kin, inheritance, taxation, and myriad other legal rights.
The majority of married couples opt to add to that family, but there is no obligation to do so.
That is what marriage is. At least, that is what civil marriage is, and as the referendum refers to civil marriage, then it is what we are discussing.
So. Do you agree or disagree that two people who wish to make the ultimate commitment to each other and legally tie the knot should be disallowed simply because they are gay?
I’m very skeptical as to where Breda is getting her information from “very clear”
?? – http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/same-sex-marriage-children-well-being-research-roundup#
Sorry but since this wan was banging on about protecting children th other night and claiming to empathise with the gay community fighting for rights, she should instead campaign for a yes not a no vote and therefore not discriminate against kids born in non-’traditional’ rships.
None of the traditional marriages at present ever end in separation or divorce ( apart from the 200,000 at the last census).
What does get me is that the government are pushing this on equality grounds, yet we see numerous examples of equality in our society that they do nothing about
So Phillip, they should do nothing at all, is that your argument, get a bit of sense will ya. Oh look up equality while your at it.
Sorry Debbie not sure if you read my comment , try reading again
such as?
They’re pushing it on equality grounds, but there’s plenty of equality they do nothing about?
Your comment doesn’t make sense.
Conor
You have missed the point.
You don’t seem to have the wits to reply to an actual comment…
You miss them frequently David so at least you’re in good company..
Shane.
Is this the woman that was unable to have children.
Your tactics are have only one objective, and thats to change the subject.
in your ideal view of marraige there has to be one woman and one man hence my reference to the woman.
A man may also be sterile so no children can be conceived within that union.
My tactics are to show how idiotic your comments are and how little you grasp the situation.
How’s about a man who lost his testicles to cancer and a woman who had to have a hysterectomy due to severe endometriosis..
They can’t have babies.
You keep making this point, but it’s ridiculous and irrelevant. The vote is about CIVIL MARRIAGE, the legal formalisation of a relationship between two adults, creating a legal family tie where one did not previously exist.
Adoption is a separate legal process with a similar outcome (creating the legal family bond). Similarly – the names for the dissolution of these family ties are different too (divorce and the emancipation of minors).
This is about legal rights – it’s got nothing to do with nature, the ability to procreate, or even adoption. These are all separate issues that you attempt to conflate because the only real argument against marriage equality is that you find the idea of two people of the same sex being treated as equals to be a bad thing. And that makes you look homophobic, so instead of taking a step back and realising – yes, that is homophobic, you desperately seek something else to hinge your objections upon.
The only people you are fooling are your fellow homophobes who are also in denial.
No real debate from Breda and Iona! Next they will try to fear monger about marrying monkeys next!! Anything but reality!!
The vote should be on same sex couples can marry too or nobody can. Then people who are heterosexual and against it will know what it feels like to have their rights taken away.
Welk Donal, that would be constitutional. The constitution specifies that we should all be treated equally before the law.
That Brenda wan is an awful Ninny. If anything she is doing the Yes side a massive favour. Any semi-intelligent individual should see the wood from the trees listening to her and her ‘Institute’ come out with such absolute tripe.
This argument is only logical when incest is legalized. The debate should stick to logical arguments. When you have to make illogical arguments, you should consider the merits of what you are saying.
Save the children vote no… This is a valid point… No matter what the gay community parade about if it affects our kids in this country you can stick it up your…
Save them from what?
Ask Finnbar if he needs saving….
Being bullied at school for a start, confusion at a young age, a non natural growing up environment , lack of a ying and yang male female parent environment, feeling like a non normal child, having to deal with social issues and thinking when should be enjoying innocent fun childhood… The list is endless… Kop on lgbt these are kids not Paris Hilton handbag dogs
but gay people already have families and can legally adopt and marriage equality will not change that so what are you banging on about?
I wasn’t bullied at all for my parents sexuality. Kids did get bullied for being fat, gingers, nerdy, skinny, a cry-baby, different in any way what so ever. Your argument about bullying is a childish as bullying itself. My growing up environment was the same as my cousins and families in general. I was a normal child and still quite a normal person, albeit a dashing one at that.
Your list is laughable and made up, the concerns you show are the same to be shown to any parent for any reason. “Don’t have kids because they might get bullied.” What a laughable idea.
Ying yang?! And i thought I’d heard it all by now.
My daughter is being raised atheist, making her different to 90%+ of her peers. It has made her open-minded, tolerant, and capable of independent thought and analysis.
She’s also being raised by an able-bodied mother and a disabled father, making her different to 99% of her peers. This has made her aware of difference and ability and what they truly mean to a person as a whole.
Because she is being raised with plenty of openness and discussion she is a thoughtful and considerate young human being, very aware of and interested in social issues.
She has never been bullied for any of the details that make her unique. If she was, i would see that as a failing on the part of the parents of the bully; not as a failing on the part of my daughter’s parenting.
So I wasn’t bullied in school as a kid because of my size, it was actually because both parents were were in a same sex relationship,even though they weren’t. Thanks Thierry Ratt for clearing that up.
How about letting kids be kids and shield them from all this sh”te till they become adults and make up their own minds, warping kids brains with all this PC garbage, don’t force crap on them
Who raised you Jane
Mean while finnbar back on planet earth… Two dads kids or two mams kids or kids who have dads who dress up as mams are one hundred percent prime targets for bully’s…
Says a bloke with no experience to a guy who has lived it. Hmmmmmm who to believe??????
Ailbhe much to your surprise I was in a school and bullies were about the place
Finnbar I don’t know wat ur situation was but in both cases of civil partnership they aren’t both your real parents, maybe one or no parents and a guardian here or there
So what Thierry, your original point was about bullying. Somebody who libed in the situation you argue against on the basis of bullying has told you it was not an issue. So your point is moot. Now I know you wish to digress from that point because it has been invalidated, but that would be unfair.
” in both cases of civil partnership they aren’t both your real parents” Lovely, Thierry. Tell me, do you tend to go around to all stepparents and inform them that they’re not “real” parents? How about infertile couples who used donor sperm?
How about shielding kids from all this homophobic shite and not shove religion down their throats? By your argument for kids to decide when they’re old enough they should have no parents at all til they’re 18 which seems to rather defeat the purpose.
@Thierry
The only reason people get bullied is because people BULLY. And bullying is a choice. If someone elects to make someone else feel bad because of who they are or what they look like, this is purely down to that person. They have chosen to make this other person feel bad.
That’s the only reason children of gay parents may be harmed. Because other people outside the family unit harm them.
Theirry – victim blaming is disgusting.
If a kid gets bullied it’s not because of anything they did, or what their parents are like, it’s because there’s a bully. Maybe we should deal with the bullies?
And as for the rest of your argument.
Gay people are able to adopt now.
Gay couples have kids now, those kids are just discriminated against by the state (at least until the family and relationships bill passes). This won’t be affected by the referendum.
Now. Given that this has NOTHING to do with children. I repeat – gay single people can adopt now and in a few months gay couples will be able to adopt – regardless of the referendum outcome.
So why do you oppose civil marriage rights for gay people?
Well of course women would be able to marry their daughters when SSM comes in. Just like they can currently marry their sons.
Oh, wait…
Its,a gay arguement not mine
its flawed discuss that.
The kind of people who argue that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry or adopt because they can’t naturally conceive a child together are the same kind of people who believe in divine virgin pregnancies. You can’t reason with people like that.
Arguments can’t have a sexuality
This debate will never be addressed properly until Article 41 in it’s entirety is reviewed. For example:
Article 41.2 of the Constitution
41.2.1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to
the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
41.2.2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by
economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.
If you’re homosexual, get over it. Have a civil partnership if you must. But you cannot be married. Its a logical impossibility. Marriage is not exclusively defined by the Oxford dictionary or the Irish constitution. Marriage as an institution as old as man himself and calling it something else does not make it something else.
When this news site or independent.ie have a picture of a homosexual couple and describes a same-sex partner as a “husband” or “wife” its so patently ridiculous as to be laughable.
What kid of moral approval are they seeking? Just to call something by a name or handle does not make it so. Redefine “black” as “white” and the substance does not change – only the definition.
This very modern, very western, so-called “civil rights” issue will only ever gain traction in societies that are rotting with moral corruption and are in danger of becoming totalitarian in the name of “freedom”.
I didn’t bother reading any of the comments above, but I’d be willing to bet a week’s wages that those who have expressed distaste for s/s “marriage” have been pilloried and vilified for daring to express an opinion that the majority of posters on this site disagree with.
When the majority hold the view that there is no worthy or expressible view other than their own view, then freedom and democracy are in danger. The LGBTQ movement will brook no dissension and have set themselves up as moral guardians, who alone possess the right to believe what they want and any dissension or disagreement is “hate speech”, homophobia” and “Intolerance”.
Its a shame they can’t tolerate opinions that differ from their own.
repeated this posting once because I thought it would list at the bottom of the comments section as the latest comment. Not here in the middle
Definitions and understandings of things change, Dismas. Thankfully, the vast majority of people are in favour of this referendum change, let’s just hope everybody makes an effort to vote on the day.
Marrisge is not defined by the constitution or a dictionary? So marriage is subjective?
George Elliot – “Definitions and understandings of things change” – but truth is eternal.
I’d agree with you re the vote. I’d go further. I’d like to see voting by compulsion or citizens struck off the live register.
Ailbhe – sometimes rhetorical questioning produces…rhetoric
You’re green thumbing your own comments aren’t you? God you sad, sad fool.
Dismas, its not a rhetorical question.
That’s exactly what he’s doing. Within seconds there is consistently 1 green. Followed by a string if reds as the rest of thr commenters refresh
Stephanie – your debating ability is limited to the only resource of the incompetent – abuse.
I meet bullies like you every day and you are easily dismissed because you have nothing to contribute – nothing constructive or positive. No power of rebuttal other than verbal abuse or the fist.
I green thumb my own comments out of habit. Takes a portion of a second after the screen has refreshed. So what? I red thumb yours. Sorry if it offends you. Dopey argument from you two. Stick to the debating point
@ Dismal sorry Dimas, so you’re not going to bother to read the comments yet launch an attack on everyone who conforts you and call people bullies – yet another example of a bully playing the victim card.
Bahahaha, oh I love it. Yes back to the subject at hand. I asked you some questions. You assumed they were rhetorical, they weren’t. Will you now answer them or avoid them?
*confronts
Shame Boyled-Simps – sorry, Shane Boyle-Simms – I’m sure in your own mind your comment makes sense, but its like reading spaghetti. You’re not exactly being crystal clear there. Somewhere in the whirlpool of your mind I’m sure coherent thoughts are whirling around, seeking an escape route. Unfortunately,that route was not through your keyboard.
This has turned into a bitch-fest, hasn’t it Sarky Broiled-Simpletons – sorry, Shane Boyle-Simms
BTW, Shane, I was accusing one person of bullying because the accusation was accurate. She was abusive and unpleasant and did not or could not argue a point on its merits. You, on the other hand, attempted to make a point without any factual back-up whatsoever. You just come along to my argument and make a declaration about blah blah blah. I’d guess you’re just skimming the comments and throwing your tuppence worth in without being really aware of what’s being discussed.
oh wow Dismal – quiet a shouty little man aren’t you..well you can continue your own little bitch-fest.
While you stay here and pick up your toys I’ll be off with the rest of the grown ups.
Dismas, your comments where you pretend to mispell somebody’s name is unbelievably childish. It’s a nice little deflection tactic. I take it you won’t answer my questions because they do not suit you. That’s fine. You are entitled to your beliefs, but believing something does not make it a fact. Marriage between people of the same gender is a reality not a logical impossibility, as is evident in states that recognise it.
Ailbhe – Shane’s name misspelling was my somewhat juvenile reaction to Shane’s first misspeling of mine and he certainly cannot have an issue with it. I had a little amusement with it to enliven a boring debate with him.
Call the union of two blokes what you like, it ain’t marriage. Black is not white. Hot is not cold. Ancient practice is not a justifiable excuse to enact homosexual marriage. The Greeks practiced pedophilia yet it is abhorrent to almost all people today. Its historical practice cannot justify it. The same principle applies to most instances of capital punishment. It cannot be justified today based on ancient practice. I am not making moral equivalences, merely practical (or practicing) ones
Dismas, you say “Its historical practice cannot justify it… it cannot be justified based on ancient practice” while talking about paedophilia (which I agree with) and yet use the exact same argument for marriage being ‘traditionally’ between a man and a woman… “Marriage as an institution as old as man himself”
Dismas – same sex unions exists in many countries already and are defined as marriage in law.
You can repeat the same ole thing over and over again but you cannot deny facts.
Insult me all you like but it’s a very weak and childish tactic typical of someone failing in a debate.
Chris – You neglect the reason for the point. Marriage is honourable. Pedophil. & capital punishment for misdemeanours were dishonourable.
Shane _ I wasnt really insulting you, just pointing out the weakness f your argument. Your ego was collateral damage. Your profile pic makes me want to hate you. I’m only human. Sorry – I’ll try to be more restrained in the future when I am shredding your points
Dismas, your statements regarding marriage are nothing more that your personal understanding and recognition of marriage. When it is legal in this country and two men or women enter that contract, the state will recognise it. It is termed a marriage in law. You may not like this, but that is how legal terminology works.
Just like burglary is burglarynif it fits the legal definition, not because you think it is so.
Just like ownership of property is considered to be the case because a contract makes it so, not because you believe it to be so.
I think legality and it’s definitions as opposed to your opinion are what you are confusing here. Hope that clears it up.
Lol, called it! P.s look at my other comments, plenty of substance there.
Does anyone think Dismas is delusional enough to believe he is “shredding” anyone’s argument? I mean, he can’t actually believe this is a debate he’s winning? Right?
Dismas displays the mind set and the form of thinking which produces the venting of such strong opposition to same sex marriage. It is pointless debating with such a fundamentalist and fixated individual. It is not possible to reason with an irrational mind set.
I’m reporting your Homophobic comments Disco.
You’re gone baby!
You’re gone!
GAY and PROUD!!!!!!
GAY and PROUD!!!!!!
Again, the appeal to tradition fallacy is not a valid argument. Please, try again.
“Your profile pic makes me want to hate you” – how revealing. To hate something solely because of it’s appearance sounds pretty much like a phobia to me and we all know which one you suffer from.
I don’t hate your pic. I quite like eggs actually, anyway i digress, good luck with the ” shredding”
Why bother repeating it at all. It’s such an irrelevant piece of drivel.
So, if we let two guys marry, then we are going to allow a father and daughter marry? Surely the traditional view of marriage would be closer to a father and daughter marrying than two guys/girls?
Shane what you say only backs up my point.
If someone sterile, then although thats unfortunate, the desire for children may or may not be there.
But this does not change the absolute.
A man and a woman can only
have children when they have sex.
Factually incorrect. Donation and surrogacy are just as viable as sex. Read a book lad.
You really are utterly confused and running around in circles – you are so misinformed it’s bordering on ridiculous.
Being a parent is not about biology – tell that to the parents of adopted children who are brought up in a safe and loving environment.
Good luck with your delusion.I’ve better things to be getting on with, oh and will you please learn how to reply to a thread on here ffs!
Im only posting this because I think, there are people who continually name call catholics, and put them into the same circle as these lot.
http://catholicsay.com/islamic-state-throws-man-from-a-building-for-his-alleged-homosexuality/
I’m sure I speak for everybody when I say thank you to Catholics for not throwing people from buildings.
yes me too – thank you so much Catholics for not throwing me from a building
I fundamentally disagree with her basic premise, so her opinion won’t alter how I intend to vote. I won’t be insulting her or anyone else because I recognise that they have what they consider to be the best interests of the children they are speaking of at heart.
See I really don’t think that’s true. It’s their religion they have at heart. Has RTÉ managed to find a single commentator opposed to ssm who isn’t also a religious conservative?
If they care so deeply about children why do they seek to deny the children of gay couples the same rights as children of heterosexual couples?
Why is there an assumption that all gay relationships are loving and all end happily ever after.
There isn’t there is an understanding that they function as well as heterosexual ones. Some succeed, some fail.
if you are really that interested in mothers and daughters from the trajectory of concealing the evidence which the ideology played a big part in masking – more money to be forked out by the taxpayer to find out exactly what happened to the current day real problems of mums and daughters suffering appalling levels of poverty to which Francey says stop riding (has a point)
Of course, your response is bad exemplars can’t be part of the rationale for changes promoting equality – your objective spirit is above and beyond all that weep – you are flawed on this too – this is civil law trying to incrementally do what is right
I want to marry my toaster!
Shane
Do some research.
Just did some research there , thanks David.
I think a woman who has had a hysterectomy cannot become pregnant and give birth – maybe I’m wrong??
Shane, do some spell checking.
Daisy, what did i spell incorrectly?
David, please use the “reply” button under a specific comment when replying to it. You’re making a cat’s breakfast of the whole comments section.
Sorry Shane, I missed this earlier. I was parroting David and it obviously failed to register as funny as it did in my head!
(which is nothing new!)
Breda is quite right. We are on a slippery slope. I can imagine this change to the constitution heralding the advent of all sorts of profoundly elaborate couplings, many of which turn me on. Going forward.
Iona watchers will like this.
Iona made a submission to the Convention on the Constitution. It is available here: https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?aid=9023f782-d687-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4
On pages 3 and 4 it quotes a report called “Marriage from a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It?” published by an American organisation called Child Trends.
Iona says the key finding from the report is “the family structure that helps most is a family headed by two biological parents in a low-conflict marriage”.
The report by Child Trends that Iona uses as the scientific basis of its argument to the Convention against equality for gay parenting is available here: http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/MarriageRB602.pdf
It says on the front cover (even before the title of the paper, and in large coloured print)
“Note: This Child Trends brief summarizes research conducted in 2002, when neither same-sex parents nor adoptive parents were identified in large national surveys. Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn from this research about the well-being of children raised by same-sex parents or adoptive parents.”
Brilliant. Must not be used for x, they do it anyway.
The basis of their argument is research that the actual researchers say you must not pull the conclusions that Iona have.
This has been known since they made the submission, I have a funny feeling it may have been David Norristown who pointed this out at the time, but I could be mistaken. I do know that it was picked up very quickly anyway.
All this concern for the children when actually research from the Americal Pediatrics Association (peer reviewed, unlike The Iona Institute’s research) states that “children raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to social, psychological, and sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and social stigma.” and also “Lack of opportunity for same-gender couples to marry adds to families’ stress, which affects the health and welfare of all household members. Because marriage strengthens families and, in so doing, benefits children’s development, children should not be deprived of the opportunity for their parents to be married. ”
See here http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/e1374.full
So it would appear BoB and her friends are actually the ones harming the children!
Just back from the US (San Fran x) sister.
A gay can’t get arrested there.
Kneel to Panti Obama!!!
Kneel to Panti Enda!!!
Unpleasant bigots. Ignore them .
That woman has some serious problems.
Sex.
read and stop been lazy.
*being lazy
Reply button. Use it.
QUOTE“Do you think we should change the Constitution to allow grandmothers and their daughters to marry?,” she asked.”
WTF FKN FK? A3 paper, and crayons needed to explain to this…this…this THING of a reprobate catholic church fascist that NO, WE DON’T ALLOW THIS SCENARIO she raised because THAT IS INCEST AND WE DON’T ALLOW THAT!
Honest to fk, I wish “people” like her/it would scuttle back into whatever catechismic cave they spawned from and hang themselves with their rosary beads…
Could Fathers marry their sons?
Could grandmothers marry their granddaughter?
Could mothers marry their daughters?
The answer is clear under the proposed Referendum the answer us “YES”
Ask the Taoiseach?
Er, no it’s not.
The wording includes a reference to the existing legislation which outlaws everything you just mentioned. The only change is that now the requirement to be opposite sex will be removed.
Breda is lying through her teeth, the last refuge of a failed position.
I wish the uber catholo-fascists would just leave planet earth. Honestly, after the abuse scandel, et al, they are still here…
Soddom and Gomorrah!
Ren and stimpy!
Cheech and Chong!!
Thelma and Louise…..cos ya know they did the deed…..
This woman has nothing to sell but Fear and I believe Irish people are not buying it anymore.
The stupid……it burns
This is not worded very well at all … Vague wordings get exploited! #floodgates #notgood
How is it vague? It’s only vague if you ignore the other legislation in place, which outlaws incest. It also outlaws marrying minors, marrying animals and marrying inanimate objects.
So which floodgates would these be precisely?
If there is a big enough crowd then yes, if you went by the numbers and not the reality of it. That is the philosophy of shouting for equality as labels always sell…
If in the 60s they can have chimps dressed up and getting married for a tea ad, then what harm did that do the the religious ceremony of marriage… tea anyone lol.
Would you please do us all a favour and try to make an attempt to make sense?
Who says humour makes sense, I thought it was a good joke, lol.
The Iona ‘Institute’ has no legitimate place on the national media when same sex marriage is being discussed. They do not represent any group involved. If RTE feel the need for a voice against the issue the Catholic Church has a far broader representative role in Irish society than this evangelical, radical group.
weirdly, the church dont seem to be putting anyone forward.
Of course a mother shouldn’t be able to marry her daughter, except in a civil ceremony! However I do think a man should be free to marry his sister, subject to appropriate qualifications.
have your say