Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2012 14:37:29 GMT
There does not seem to be a thread here that covers this issue. Irish Gay marriage advocates have for some time being trying to achieve their aims in a gradual piecemeal fashion through legislation rather than risking any referendum. Here's a prime example of this death by a thousand cuts : www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056826132It's from the following forum, which as ever, gives a very useful barometer of the rising anti-christian / anti-theism agenda that has gradually positioned and entrenched itself in key positions in the Irish media and politics. www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=614Meanwhile the proponents of traditional marriage in Ireland seem to be asleep and allowing this gradual erosion of the traditional family. As usual, when they do wake up, it will be too little too late. They continue to totally ignore the now very influential anti-religion agenda of the modern Irish social media, such as boards.ie and politics.ie at their peril. |
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Dec 8, 2012 14:48:03 GMT
I found this comment from the first thread you linked to very interesting:
"Only the state should be able to [solemnize marriages] as far as I'm concerned. Well, it should be a private matter between 2 people but that's not going to happen."
Isn't this what always happens-- radical individualism leads to Statism, because it will recognize no authority or institution except the State?
|
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 8, 2012 22:21:34 GMT
I notice the idiot does not realise that what he is describing is in fact the situation as it exists at present. Ministers of religion are appointed as civil registrars and register the marriage on behalf of the state as well as in accordance with the tenets of their own religion.
I notice his view "it should be a private matter between two people" amounts to advocating the total abolition of marriage, and completely ignores the legal and civil consequences which NECESSARILY arise from any form of marriage or cohabitation. He should look up the history of Scots marriage law (where until 1940 it was possible to contract marriage by unwitnessed mutual consent followed by consummation, and until 2004 common-law marriage in the strict sense still existed) for the sort of problems that sort of system inevitably creates. Leah Leneman's PROMISES, PROMISES: MARRIAGE LITIGATION IN SCOTLAND 1609-1830 is a good place to start.
|
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 30, 2012 21:20:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 13, 2013 22:37:43 GMT
The Russian-American Masha Gessen has created a fairly sizable stir by arguing that gay marriage naturally leads to-entails the abolition of marriage and its replacement by whatever-you're having domestic arrangements like her own (involving five adults in various sexual permutations co-parenting their hapless children). Lest anyone thinks Ms Gessen is an isolated eccentric, here is another piece in an American online journal advocating polyamory and the "privatisation" of marriage. Let no-one say we weren't warned: www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/06/polyamory_should_be_legal_it_s_consensual_and_fine_for_children.single.html |
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 13, 2013 23:45:07 GMT
Meanwhile, in an online discussion of a NEW YORK TIMES piece arguing that men who have sex with women are not thereby obligated to accept parental responsibility should pregnancy result, a Catholic commenter notes a comment, very revealing about how utterly the rationale of marriage has been obscured in modern society, which would be hilarious if it wasn't tragic: EXTRACT Erin Manning says: June 13, 2013 at 2:33 pm Rod, one of the funniest (unintentionally, I’m sure) comments at the NYT essay on forced fatherhood came from a commenter who said that men and women needed to discuss before they have sex what they would do in the event of an “accidental” (which the commenter defined as birth control failure) pregnancy, and ended like this: “Unfortunately, I can see this would result in many “he said|did/she said|did” cases Perhaps it is time for a standardized contract, to be signed by both parties before a notary, before two consenting adults have sex at all.” Gosh, isn’t it amazing that nobody anywhere in society has ever thought that the potential outcome of sex was important enough to make sex partners sign a legal contract before engaging in it? (/sarcasm) END OF EXTRACT www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/abortion-equal-freedom-children-contraception/#comments |
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 3, 2013 20:18:32 GMT
An interesting blogpost by Fabio Paolo Barbieri on just how historically unprecedented "gay marriage" actually is: fpb.livejournal.com/657179.htmlEXTRACT Feminists ought to oppose divorce, polygamy and all other marriage "variations", because they are historically always born as displays of male power and that is what they are nine times out of ten in reality. However, I do not agree with what seems to be the implication here, that the degeneration of ordinary marriage has anything to do with the invention of "gay marriage". I think the issue there is quite different. Caesar may have married four wives, but did not consider marrying four husbands. Even in the most degenerate environments, men saw a fundamental difference between attachments between or within the sexes,and never thought of granting the status of marriage to the others. Juvenal makes a savage joke out of the very notion that a man might marry another. No, the fact is that a new, and bad, doctrine has been introduced. It had, originally, nothing to do with sexuality at all. You may find it in a famous play, "Henry IV" by Pirandello, in which the protagonist manages to force the people around him to act as though he were the emperor Henry IV (a historical figure from the Middle Ages). Its basic doctrine is the omnipotence of the will, the notion that will forms the identity of a man independently of his/her birth, characteristics, connections. or anything else. This, it may surprise you, was the central doctrine of Fascism, I mean the real thing, the doctrine formulated by Benito Mussolini after he abandoned Socialism in the wake of World War One. Not surprisingly (although his admirers tend not to discuss the matter) Pirandello himself was a black-as-coal Fascist, a favourite of Mussolini's, and the head of Mussolini's Academy of Italy. The political relevance was that Italian Fascism promised Italy, a middling power in the shade of mightier neighbours, the ability to change itself into the Roman Empire, merely by concentrated will. Willpower was the god of the Fascists. Having failed politically in the most extreme manner (and having shown for all the world to see that Willpower was exactly the quality which Mussolini most lacked), the doctrine of the omnipotence of the will and the malleability of the self migrated, of course, to the universities, especially in the USA. That is where you got people like the horrible Professor John Money applying them to real human beings in the context of sex. The rest you know. But the point is that, whatever evil we may have done or accepted in the context of normal marriage, "gay marriage" and the associated evils of gender ideology are something new. The drift away from the norm of one man, one woman, for life, is ancient, universal, and - taking the word to refer to fallen human nature - natural. The doctrine of the subservience of self and gender to will, on the other hand, is a wholly modern evil. It would be disastrous whether or not the situation of marriage were bad, just as it was disastrous - look at what it did to my country - when it had not yet been associated with gender and sex at all. END |
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 3, 2013 20:46:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by shane on Sept 26, 2013 2:09:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Sept 28, 2013 19:21:41 GMT
And the real tactic involved in that exchange is that the gay marriage supporter is so convinced that the conventional wisdom of his audience is on his side that he need not meet David Quinn's concrete arguments at all, and can just get away with shouting "liar, liar".
|
|
|
|
Post by shane on Nov 29, 2013 20:22:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 30, 2013 19:19:31 GMT
And RTE's view is that this is not "bias" at all, any more than being anti-nazi is biased - because in their view no decent person could possibly take a different view.
|
|
|
|
Post by pugio on Dec 1, 2013 13:09:24 GMT
Maybe it's just me but I find it hard to understand how anyone in RTE could imagine that the 'Gay Daddy' programme is actually effective propaganda.
For a start, it's protagonist isn't terribly sympathetic. A nice fellow I'm sure, but he came across as more than a little self-absorbed and immature to put it mildly.
The scene in which he visits an English surrogacy clinic was a real eye opener. He's literally presented with a menu of potential rent-a-womb mothers to choose from. "It really depends on what look you're going for," the manager explains. "Mediterranean?"
It was like something out of a really bad 70s sci-fi flick.
Admittedly I couldn't stomach the entire programme so may have missed more persuasive moments. I did see part of an interview with two men who foster and they seemed to be fairly sane and well-intentioned.
|
|
|
|
Post by chercheur on Dec 2, 2013 13:43:47 GMT
Maybe it's just me but I find it hard to understand how anyone in RTE could imagine that the 'Gay Daddy' programme is actually effective propaganda. For a start, it's protagonist isn't terribly sympathetic. A nice fellow I'm sure, but he came across as more than a little self-absorbed and immature to put it mildly. The scene in which he visits an English surrogacy clinic was a real eye opener. He's literally presented with a menu of potential rent-a-womb mothers to choose from. "It really depends on what look you're going for," the manager explains. "Mediterranean?" It was like something out of a really bad 70s sci-fi flick. Admittedly I couldn't stomach the entire programme so may have missed more persuasive moments. I did see part of an interview with two men who foster and they seemed to be fairly sane and well-intentioned. One of the major problems with such programmes is exactly that one has to swim through the oceans of narcissism and solipsism and thus one is usually drowned in a pink sea of self regard by the time anything else appears. |
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 2, 2013 22:35:26 GMT
That's always a danger when people take the rightness of their own view for granted and can't imagine how it might look to someone who disagrees with it. (This BTW is the danger for the sort of person who thinks Catholics should abandon the use of natural reason in defending the faith - they don't want to think.)
|
|
