|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Feb 15, 2024 12:49:15 GMT
Polyamory is featuring more and more in public debate. Is there a groundswell in opinion in its favour here in Ireland?
We need to consider what "other durable relationship" means.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 15, 2024 23:58:45 GMT
Basically, what this is about is the elimination of the idea that the family based on marriage is preferable to other forms of relationship and should be encouraged. Garret FitzGerald and the late John Bruton claimed, with apparent sincerity, that legalising divorce would strengthen marriage and talk of a slippery slope was scaremongering. Now we are about to hit the bottom of that slope, will anyone say we told you so?
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Feb 16, 2024 17:10:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 16, 2024 18:09:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Devotus Immaculatae on Feb 16, 2024 23:37:55 GMT
It's reasonable to assume a slope must have a rock bottom somewhere that must be reached eventually . . . but these types of slopes don't.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 19, 2024 16:47:57 GMT
Michael McDowell again: www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgHz9W9CgOs&t=147s here he makes it clear he is a social liberal, but that's not the point. This 50 minutes is a good summary of the position of the Family and Marriage in Irish law and the constitution and also outlines why we should vote no in the referendum. Not necessarily on liberal or conservative ground, simply on rationality.
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Feb 28, 2024 17:49:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Feb 29, 2024 9:29:25 GMT
Question maybe for Hibernicus. How far do the articles under proposal for amendment reflect the contemporary policies of the trade union movement and the Irish Labour Party (and their equivalents overseas). I suspect it was very much reflective of a view of the world they had at the time.
Remember the horror of women and children working down mine shafts and in mills in the 19th century as portrayed in history books once upon a time?
Strangely enough I got this idea when reading the concessions to working men in the Lenten discipline. The left like using terms like "de Valera" and "the Church" to conjure up dark images - but where did they stand at the time? I suspect four square behind the social provisions of the 1937 constitution.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 29, 2024 12:47:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Feb 29, 2024 17:12:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 3, 2024 1:06:53 GMT
Question maybe for Hibernicus. How far do the articles under proposal for amendment reflect the contemporary policies of the trade union movement and the Irish Labour Party (and their equivalents overseas). I suspect it was very much reflective of a view of the world they had at the time. Remember the horror of women and children working down mine shafts and in mills in the 19th century as portrayed in history books once upon a time? Strangely enough I got this idea when reading the concessions to working men in the Lenten discipline. The left like using terms like "de Valera" and "the Church" to conjure up dark images - but where did they stand at the time? I suspect four square behind the social provisions of the 1937 constitution. The trade union movement at the time - and not only in Ireland - generally believed that the ideal was for married women to be housewives and mothers, and that male workers should earn a wage sufficient to support a wife and children. (This also implied that unmarried women should be paid less than men, though I'm not clear whether it implied unmarried men should also get less; there certainly were complaints that paying women less incentivised employers to prefer them.) It's often pointed out that both the US New Deal (which many Catholics saw as embodying Catholic social teaching) and the UK Beveridge Report assumed a male breadwinner/wife at home model. De Valera cited nineteenth-century accounts of women working in mines and factories to support his restrictions on women's paid employment. One point worth noting is that the labour movement in the C20 was often an alliance between middle-class progressive intellectuals and working-class trade unionists, the latter often being more socially conservative than the former. The former group has become more predominant in the later C20 for a variety of reasons - it was sometimes said that Tony Blair was more like an Edwardian New Liberal than a traditional Labourite.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 3, 2024 1:09:54 GMT
There are a couple of odd ideas here. Where did Kingsnorth get the idea that under de Valera Ireland had no standing army? WT Cosgrave's government also emphasised its Catholicism; this wasn't simply an idiosyncracy of de Valera's.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Mar 5, 2024 11:12:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Mar 5, 2024 14:53:55 GMT
I had an argument with someone campaigning for a yes vote yesterday. A pleasant fellow, but I think his problem that he was gung ho on getting something he (and many on the no side) didn't like out of the constitution that he gave little consideration to what he was putting in. That's far more important. And 'strive' is a very anaemic word. I can see a secretary general of, say, the Department of Social Protection up in court, giving evidence to say "We tried, m'lord. We failed miserably, but we tried" In effect, under the new wording the government would only have to 'give it go' when it comes to supporting carers.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Mar 7, 2024 9:15:02 GMT
|
|