like what pal?
“I’m sick of the accusations being flung around that if you vote ‘No’ you are homophobic. I know I’m not homophobic; my gay friends and family can attest to that. I am voting “No” because I don’t want our Constitution to deny that it is a good thing for a child to have a mother and a father”
“The reason why the Constitution recognises marriage in the first place is because of its role in connecting children with their biological parents. That’s why the Constitution describes the family based on marriage as “the natural primary fundamental unit group of society”. Children’s interests should come before all else. So if we redefine marriage and the family we are obviously going to affect children.”
“This isn’t a referendum on whether we like gay people or whether they should be equal citizens according to the Constitution. They already are equal citizens. Article 40.1, which deals with equality, declares that all citizens shall be held equal before the law.”[/QUOTE]
Ger unfortunately seems to be quite misinformed about the legal ramifications of this referendum, which is disappointing, given that everything he mentions in the above piece has already been comprehensively dealt with.
He’s more than entitled to his opinion, it would just be nice if it was a more informed one.
If only the No side could be as tolerant of those that disagree with them without needing to resort to bullying and trying to clamp down on free speech.
[QUOTE=“Sidney, post: 1139565, member: 183”]Ger unfortunately seems to be quite misinformed about the legal ramifications of this referendum, which is disappointing, given that everything he mentions in the above piece has already been comprehensively dealt with.
He’s more than entitled to his opinion, it would just be nice if it was a more informed one.
If only the No side could be as tolerant of those that disagree with them without needing to resort to bullying and trying to clamp down on free speech.[/QUOTE]
Typical of the No camp to unleash this thug from Dorset St to try and bully people into rejecting equality. We shall overcome.
[QUOTE=“Sidney, post: 1139565, member: 183”]Ger unfortunately seems to be quite misinformed about the legal ramifications of this referendum, which is disappointing, given that everything he mentions in the above piece has already been comprehensively dealt with.
He’s more than entitled to his opinion, it would just be nice if it was a more informed one.
If only the No side could be as tolerant of those that disagree with them without needing to resort to bullying and trying to clamp down on free speech.[/QUOTE]
Can you be specific with your reasoning ?
What is he Mis-informed about?
[QUOTE=“ProjectX, post: 1139667, member: 1742”]Can you be specific with your reasoning ?
What is he Mis-informed about?[/QUOTE]
I was going to ask same …I think it’s a very goid piece
[QUOTE=“ProjectX, post: 1139667, member: 1742”]Can you be specific with your reasoning ?
What is he Mis-informed about?[/QUOTE]
He’s wrong on i) “the redefinition of marriage” - marriage is not being redefined, say the Referendum Commission, and they should know. If your opinion is that marriage will be redefined with a Yes vote (you’re wrong), well then marriage has already been redefined by the divorce referendum. Yet No campaigners are claiming that “marriage has remained unchanged for thousands of years”. Nonsense.
ii) He says: “The reason why the Constitution recognises marriage in the first place is because of its role in connecting children with their biological parents.”
The constitution does not currently define marriage as being between a man and a woman. And in any event a childless married couple is also a family. The “marriage is based on procreation” argument has been brought up regularly by the No campaign. That automatically implies that marriages of infertile and elderly childless couples are invalid.
iii) He says: “Children’s interests should come before all else.” They do, and will continue to, regardless of the outcome of the referendum. This has specifically been made clear by Geoffrey Shannon, head of the Adoption Agency. A biological mother can object to any prospective adopting couple or person, for any reason they want or none.
iv) He says: “We will be denying that children have any kind of a legal right to a mother and father where possible, like when it comes to laws relating to adoption and surrogacy.”
The state already provides for single parent adoption. Brennan should be campaigning against this if he is unhappy with it, as should everybody else in the No campaign.
It has been made clear time and time again that adoption and surrogacy are issues which not connected to the issue we’re voting on in the referendum. No serious legal opinion disputes this. Yet the No side insist on trying to make issues of adoption and surrogacy as a deliberate ploy to confuse debate.
Surrogacy has not been legislated on yet and any issue to do with it will not change in any way, regardless of the referendum result.
Geoffrey Shannon specifically made clear on Monday’s Claire Byrne Live that “the adoption process will not change”.
In any event, there is no constitutional right for a married couple to have a child via Assisted Human Reproduction. This has been accepted by Michael Collins who is IONA’s legal opinion.
v) [I]"For a start, this isn’t a referendum on whether we like gay people or whether they should be equal citizens according to the Constitution. They already are equal citizens. "
“Bar a couple of minor grey areas to be ironed out legislatively, gay couples in civil partnerships have all the rights married couples have. Civil partnership ceremonies are virtually identical to civil marriage ceremonies.”[/I]
Not equality, so.
vi) “Even the Gardaí have been used by the ‘Yes’ campaign to support the referendum proposal.”
The Gardai are not supporting either campaign. The GRA is supporting a Yes vote. The GRA is not the Garda Siochana, it is a representative body. This is a very important difference to what Ger Brennan claims. The GRA is free to decide what it wants. No campaigners have been complaining about a supposed lack of free speech, despite them having 50% of broadcast air time in the debate by law. This appears to me to be a complaint about a representative body speaking freely, as it is entitled to do. That’s rather hypocritical.
vii) “I see all the ‘Vote No’ posters being ripped down and defaced all across Dublin without anyone in politics or in the media condemning it.”
A lazy, broad brush, cliched claim. t’s a given that the posters of the opposition campaign shouldn’t be pulled down. However I don’t see anybody on the No side condemning the pulling down of Yes posters. I certainly don’t see anybody on the No side condemning the blatant bullying and trolling from their side going on all over social media.
viii) Brennan mentions a campaign by Barnardo’s in his piece. Yet he fails to mention they are calling for a Yes vote, along with every other children’s charity. This is an important omission, as it leads uninformed readers into thinking that Barnardo’s are calling for a No vote, when the opposite is the case.
ix) “But I don’t see why the State should use its adoption or surrogacy laws to deliberately leave some children motherless or fatherless. That can’t be child-centred.” As per point iv), the state already provides for single parent adoption. Brennan should be campaigning against this if he is unhappy with it, as should everybody else in the No campaign.
x) With regard to Brennan’s point on the UN Declaration on Human Rights holding that “marriage is a male-female union”, this is not so.
[B]
Footballer Ger Brennan claims “The Universal Declaration on Human Rights…holds that marriage is a male-female union.”
This is untrue.
The right to marry and found a family is contained in Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Nothing in the articles on marriage in either of the treaties states that the right only extends to straight couples.
Furthermore, Articles Two of the treaties have anti-discrimination clauses that make it clear that the rights contained in them apply to all people, regardless of their status.
This was reiterated by a 1994 decision of the UN Human Rights Committee which found that sexual orientation was a protected status in human rights law the same as race or gender.
All we are doing is extending marriage to a minority -
The biggest enemy to marriage is divorce, why aren’t you no cunts out looking to over-turn that? This place stinks of homophobia.
[QUOTE=“Sidney, post: 1139713, member: 183”]He’s wrong on i) “the redefinition of marriage” - marriage is not being redefined, say the Referendum Commission, and they should know. If your opinion is that marriage will be redefined with a Yes vote (you’re wrong), well then marriage has already been redefined by the divorce referendum. Yet No campaigners are claiming that “marriage has remained unchanged for thousands of years”. Nonsense.
ii) He says: “The reason why the Constitution recognises marriage in the first place is because of its role in connecting children with their biological parents.”
The constitution does not currently define marriage as being between a man and a woman. And in any event a childless married couple is also a family. The “marriage is based on procreation” argument has been brought up regularly by the No campaign. That automatically is saying that marriages of infertile and elderly childless couples are invalid.
iii) He says: “Children’s interests should come before all else.” They do, and will continue to, regardless of the outcome of the referendum. This has specifically been made clear by Geoffrey Shannon, head of the Adoption Agency. A biological mother can object to any prospective adopting couple or person, for any reason they want or none.
iv) He says: “We will be denying that children have any kind of a legal right to a mother and father where possible, like when it comes to laws relating to adoption and surrogacy.”
The state already provides for single parent adoption. Brennan should be campaigning against this if he is unhappy with it, as should everybody else in the No campaign.
It has been made clear time and time again that adoption and surrogacy are issues which not connected to the issue we’re voting on in the referendum. No serious legal opinion disputes this. Yet the No side insist on trying to make issues of adoption and surrogacy as a deliberate ploy to confuse debate.
Surrogacy has not been legislated on yet and any issue to do with it will not change in any way, regardless of the referendum result.
Geoffrey Shannon specifically made clear on Monday’s Claire Byrne Live that “the adoption process will not change”.
In any event, there is no constitutional right for a married couple to have a child via Assisted Human Reproduction. This has been accepted by Michael Collins who is IONA’s legal opinion.
v) [I]"For a start, this isn’t a referendum on whether we like gay people or whether they should be equal citizens according to the Constitution. They already are equal citizens. "
“Bar a couple of minor grey areas to be ironed out legislatively, gay couples in civil partnerships have all the rights married couples have. Civil partnership ceremonies are virtually identical to civil marriage ceremonies.”[/I]
Not equality, so.
vi) “Even the Gardaí have been used by the ‘Yes’ campaign to support the referendum proposal.”
The Gardai are not supporting either campaign. The GRA is supporting a Yes vote. The GRA is not the Garda Siochana, it is a representative body. This is a very important difference to what Ger Brennan claims. The GRA is free to decide what it wants. No campaigners have been complaining about a supposed lack of free speech, despite them having 50% of broadcast air time in the debate by law. This appears to me to be a complaint about a representative body speaking freely, as it is entitled to do. That’s rather hypocritical.
vii) “I see all the ‘Vote No’ posters being ripped down and defaced all across Dublin without anyone in politics or in the media condemning it.”
A lazy, broad brush generalisation. I don’t see anybody on the No side condemning the pulling down of Yes posters. I certainly don’t see anybody on the No side condemning the blatant bullying from their side going on all over social media.
viii) Brennan mentions a campaign by Barnardo’s in his piece. Yet he fails to mention they are calling for a Yes vote, along with every other children’s charity. This is an important omission, as it leads uninformed readers into thinking that Barnardo’s are calling for a No vote, when the opposite is the case.
ix) “But I don’t see why the State should use its adoption or surrogacy laws to deliberately leave some children motherless or fatherless. That can’t be child-centred.” As per point iv), the state already provides for single parent adoption. Brennan should be campaigning against this if he is unhappy with it, as should everybody else in the No campaign.
x) With regard to Brennan’s point on the UN Declaration on Human Rights holding that “marriage is a male-female union”, this is not so.
[/QUOTE]
Marriage is being redefined, that’s the whole point.
The family in the constitution is also being redefined. A child having a mother and a father will no longer be allowed to be the preferential family unit.
That is a horrible thing and one must question the morals of any person who would vote yes to that.
Decent people will vote NO.
That is a completely incorrect contribution.
[QUOTE=“ChocolateMice, post: 1139716, member: 168”]All we are doing is extending marriage to a minority -
[/QUOTE]
Who don’t need to get married.
How so?
Who needs marriage ? They want marriage and therefore they should be allowed it if every other section of society have it.
[QUOTE=“ProjectX, post: 1139717, member: 1742”]Marriage is being redefined, that’s the whole point.
The family in the constitution is also being redefined. A child having a mother and a father will no longer be allowed to be the preferential family unit.
That is a horrible thing and one must question the morals of any person who would vote yes to that.
Decent people will vote NO.[/QUOTE]
The YES PROPOGANDA is instigate by the same people who lied about EVERYTHING over last 10 years
Your spot on …I agree with you 100% it’s a horrible thing
The result will impact adoption, surrogacy, fostering, parenting.
Laws on adoption have already been passed, have they not? You are being asked to vote on extending marriage to the gay community, not act like mystic meg and predict the future.
They want marriage so they should be allowed it?
:rolleyes:
Fuck them and what they want, they don’t need it and they are behaving disgracefully trying to bully the people of Ireland into it. They are behaving like spoiled brats, the gays in Ireland have it too good.
[QUOTE=“Nembo Kid, post: 1139728, member: 2514”]They want marriage so they should be allowed it?
:rolleyes:
Fuck them and what they want, they don’t need it and they are behaving disgracefully trying to bully the people of Ireland into it. They are behaving like spoiled brats, the gays in Ireland have it too good.[/QUOTE]
No one needs marriage - Why shouldn’t they be allowed it if we are all equal citizens, are you saying that they are not equal?
You said we so yo are a gay man??