David Quinn’s Facts Of Life

at

Screen Shot 2015-04-16 at 23.47.12

David Quinn  Founder of the Iona Institute, outlines the No Campaign’s strategy for May’s Marriage Referendum.

A masterclass in them and ussery.

Stay for the call and response.

David Quinn: “The referendum coming up is one of the most important we’ve ever faced and, actually, it’s connected, to my mind, with any possible abortion referendum.

If we lose this badly, I think they will have an abortion referendum in 2017. If we keep this close, or we manage to win, it’ll frighten them off an abortion referendum for years to come. So I think, actually, this is connected to protecting the 8th amendment of the constitution which is a pro-life amendment.

So the two issues are linked. If they can beat us badly on marriage, they’ll feel they can beat us on the abortion issue. So this is really, really an important battle – not for just what marriage and what the family is all about but for the pro-life section of the constitution, too.”

“Now what’s at stake here? An awful lot of people around the country, at the moment, who are inclined to vote Yes are asking themselves, ‘well, sure what’s the harm? If two nice fellahs who love each other get married, how does that affect me, what’s the harm? what else does it affect?’ And they can’t think of what else it affects, so they’re inclined to vote Yes.

Now that Yes support is actually quite soft. A lot of the opinion polling is showing it’s soft. So there is still a battle to be fought and it’s a battle we can win if we can persuade enough people, actually, there are consequences that haven’t been thought of yet, that haven’t been flagged to people because, as we know, our media are just, almost completely on the side of the Yes campaign.

And we’re essentially hearing propaganda all the time. Marriage equality, yes to equality, yes to love, equal love, all these sort of mantras and soundbites the whole time.

And I mean I go on a few programmes here and there but it doesn’t compare to very soft interviews with gay rights campaigners on the Late Late Show or the Saturday Night Show or the John Murray Show or the Ray D’Arcy Show or whatever the case may be so there’s been almost uninterrupted propaganda for years.

And it’s intensifying at the moment because they’re trying to get as big a lead as they possibly can before the referendum properly begins towards the end of this month.”

“Now, I’ll get into the substance of the issue in a moment but I mean there’s a lot of heart to be taken from this fact: there’s been many referendum campaigns in which the position favoured by what we call official Ireland and Dublin has started out way ahead and has lost, so there’s been EU treaty referendums, where the pro-EU side has started off massively in front and it’s lost.

There was the recent Seanad referendum, started out way in front and lost, the Oireachtas inquiry referendum started way in front and lost and the children’s rights referendum of 2012, I think it was, the end of 2012, with four weeks to go, the Yes side and it was on 74% and the No side was on 4%. There was practically no No side.

There was John Waters and Kathy Sinnott and a few other people. The No side and the children’s rights campaign spent something like €18,000, the Yes side spent over €1million and all the media on their side and yet, on the day itself, within a space of four weeks, the No side went from 4% to 42%.

Now if that can we done, we can do it in this referendum but do, we can do better because a lot more people are energised to support a No side this time than last time. So don’t be depressed by opinion polls.

[Later]

David Quinn: “The right to marry in our constitution comes with the right to found a family and that means the right to have children. When you give someone the right to marry, now you can’t stop people having children if they want to, and they’re not married and they want to have children, they’re going to have children.

But there’s a legally recognised right to have children when you marry under our constitution. So when you’re giving a right to marry, you’re giving a right to have children also. So when you’re giving a right to men to marry you’re also giving them the right to have children, you’re giving two women the right to have children. Now when you give two men the right to have a child, what is missing from the child’s life?”


Audience:
“A mother.”

Quinn: “Precisely. And the converse, if you give two women the right to have a child what’s missing from that child’s life?”


Audience:
“A father.”


Quinn:
“A father. Now this is simply the most basic facts of life. It’s literally baby stuff in every possible sense of that word because it is completely simple to understand and it is literally about babies. And it’s about mothers and fathers. And it’s about the birds and the bees. So, when we talk about giving people rights, you’ve got to consider, would anybody else’s rights be affected. And conversely, by that, would anybody else’s rights be harmed and taken away?

You see people often say, ‘this is like giving the right of a black person to marry a white person because, in certain American states and in South Africa inter-racial marriage is banned and they try to compare this to that, or they try to say it’s like the American south where they had segregation or South Africa where they had apartheid but when blacks were given equal rights, nobody else’s rights were affected. So it was completely fair and acceptable and defensible.

There was nobody…when a black person could sit anywhere they liked on a bus or use any drink fountain or go to any school or get married to whom they liked, nobody else’s rights were affected – least of all the rights of children. But if you give two men the right to have a child, this comes with the right to marriage, or two women the right to have a child, which comes with the right to marriage, it affects the rights of children.

Because if we believe a child is going to have a mother and father, we cannot possibly countenance same-sex marriage, just can’t do it. And the Government knows perfectly well that this is what’s going on.

The Government knows perfectly well that the change in the article involves the family – we are redefining the family. We are kicking out of the law the notion that a child ought to have a mother and a father because what is recognised by our constitution at the moment is the family of man, woman and child.

And we know that not all married couples have children. But we also know that every child has a mother and father and that’s much more fundamental. And even if every man and woman can’t have a child, if they adopt let’s say, they’ll still give the child a mother and father.

So what we’re really saying in our constitution right now is the family is founded on a union of a man and a woman and if a man and a woman got married, and they have a child, that child will have a married mother and father who’re committed to their welfare – that’s what we’re saying.

It is simply a recognition of basic facts of life. Now I believe in calling different things by different names. The union of a man and a woman is clearly different from the union of a man and a man and should be given a different name. I mean a bike and a car are two modes of transport but you give them different names to give them so you know, you can distinguish between the two different things.

So even if we did allow same sex marriage, it will remain a fact that the union of a man and a woman will still be different and should be called something different. So, what’s going on here actually is, we are being asked to pretend that two different things are the same.

We’re being asked to pretend that the union of two men and two women is the same as the union of a man and a woman when they’re clearly not the same and this is why using words like ‘equality’ is completely misleading.”

Thanks Fluffybiscuits

204 thoughts on “David Quinn’s Facts Of Life

      1. ABM

        Nice.

        The transcript (assuming it’s accurate) seems rational and reasonable. I don’t see how demonising people who encourage others to vote NO helps the YES campaign which at this stage. YES have their offence radar on maximum sensitivity and beyond hysterical in its moral outrage at this stage. God only knows what the next couple of weeks will inflict on those normal folks who just want to go to work, pay the bills and mind their family. I think I’m going to need a media Lent or something. The drumming up of outrage by media interests is bordering on insanity/ mass psychosis. I guess it’s their last chance to inflict the stuff they learnt at university some 40 years ago on society before the dinosaur media retires. You can’t even have a water cooler chat about the weather without a request for a clear, unambiguous statement on your voting intention (never your mind your firmly held views on HSE blessings involving two people of the same “gender”).

        1. Dubh Linn

          Fake ABM is fake. How would a socially backward,single unlovable, priest licking ,decency shunning, compassionless, unemployable person know what a ‘water-cooler’ was?

        2. Annie

          Fake ABM alert – seems you Broadsheet guys are cottoning on to this fellow! He is probably the most ardent Yes voter but his tactics are better spent promoting a Yes vote than this paltry attempt to send up the No side.

    1. Corky Duke

      Most people – over 50% of them will vote no on this. Its easy to say im voting Yes when asked publicly but when you walk up to the booth, the No will be ticked by alot of these people.

      1. ShankillFalls

        You may well be right and the ‘Yes’ campaign is well aware of this. I have voted for nearly thirty years and I have never been embarrassed by the way I was going to vote. It seems so odd that you would have an opinion that you were confident was the right one for your country but that you were ashamed to tell people about.

        1. Corky Duke

          I didnt mean the “I’m” as in me….just meant it in general if someone was asked the question, the reply would be, im voting yes. My bad.

    1. Casey

      God’s name is A-man? – Let’s hope if s/he is a he that he does not get together with another man and want to marry in this country…..

  1. ReproBertie

    I can’t find the article in the constitution that grants the right to have children. I suspect he’s talking nonsense.

  2. Starina

    i love how the no side oh-so-conveniently ignores the amount of single (straight, unmarried) mothers in this country.

    1. Anomanomanom

      You would think they have some sort of agenda, that they make up facts and ignore real ones.

    2. Owen

      YES! He jawed on about ‘mother and father’ but neglected to mention that 22.3% of children under 20 in Ireland are living with one parent. Twenty. Two. Point. Three. Almost a quarter.

      So now that argument has proved pointless….. what else do they have?

      1. Joe the Lion

        also in years gone by Paddy often could not care for all of the runts in his litter and would farm them out to foster parents. how they survived I’ll never know

    3. McMacalot

      Yes, half way through I couldn’t help wondering why this man isn’t roaming the country rounding up absentee fathers and helping widows to go on blind dates, since he apparently cares so much about every child having a mother and father.

      1. Disgruntled Goat

        David Quinn’s Love Wagon roaming the country is both a hilarious and terrifying concept – thanks for the nightmares!

        1. Em

          Yikes! David Quinn turning up at my door wanderly wagon style wearing a straw hat and wink just came into my mind’s eye! Can’t unsee!

    4. Kevin Lyda

      Oh I’m sure it will want to sort them out when it feels it can. Control freakery is a limitless thing when allowed to roam free.

    5. Nice Anne (Dammit)

      i love how the no side oh-so-conveniently ignores the amount of single (straight, unmarried) fathers in this country.

    6. bruce01

      He deals with this, 15:37. Argument is ‘circumstance versus design’, ie child is ‘made’ for a gay couple, talks about ‘renting wombs’, ‘buying sperm’, ‘gender complementarity’. Versus single parents who are victims of circumstance.

  3. octo

    Interesting and I wonder should broadsheet be giving him this publicity. If he’s right there are probably people reading here who are sitting close to the fence and may be swayed in his direction.
    Does he have a point? Does marriage give parenting rights that don’t exist in, say, civil partnership or simple cohabitation? Anyone?

    1. fluffybiscuits

      I had to think of that before submitting it but then I figured most of the general public is decent and intelligent enough to seperate red herrings. Akin to the divorce referendum when the catholic right were saying that it would lead to the downfall of society. A polished presentation, slick talking and some tenous links can make any argument sound half decent…

      1. ReproBertie

        How are people supposed to argue against the No side if the No side’s arguments are kept hidden? Thanks to this the No side’s strategy, in all its irrelevance and strawmanery, is laid bare for all to see.

          1. Malta

            For an abundance of clarity, this referendum is about civil marriage. Civil partnership is what is already in existence.

        1. Leela2011

          Exactly my thinking, thanks Broadsheet for providing the transcript. People are entitled to Vote No and if they listen to Iona and still want to vote No, then fair enough. He’s speaking plainly here, not like Breda’s double-speak – ‘I’m agreeing with you here but actually I mean the total opposite’. I’d rather their cards are firmly laid on the table

      2. Alan

        > Akin to the divorce referendum when the catholic right were saying that it would lead to the downfall of society.

        You do realise the Divorce Referendum only passed because it rained in the conservative west and was fine weather in the liberal east – it was 49.9% against, 50.1% for? I wish I were joking – if the weather was reversed, many consider that referendum would not have passed.

        1. ShankillFalls

          Yes, it was that close, I remember the count very well. But here’s a thing – if we were to hold another referendum to reintroduct the ban on divorce what would be the result? Or how about banning contraception (I know there was no referendum on that issue) or enforcing women who married to quite their civil service jobs? Or any of the other changes that have been made since the early 70s…. And, if this passes, it will be another of those – the world won’t end, we’ll have a bit of meeja about the first weddings and then no-one will care anymore.

          1. ShankillFalls

            I really wish you could edit your posts. “quit” not “quite”, “reintroduce” not “reintroduct “.

    2. DoM

      The government have said that the issue of adoption by same sex parents will be dealt with in legislation before the referendum. At least, I think they said that – they’d want to get their skates on at this stage though, we’re getting pretty close to the wire now.

      1. Vote Rep #1

        I am pretty sure it has been dealt with and is either waiting to go through the Seanad or has already gone through.

      2. Al

        The legislation allowing gay couples to adopt (cfr Bill) has been dealt with, signed, sealed and delivered. Meaning that the “children” issue officially has nothing to do with the marriage referendum.

        Even of the referendum fails, we’ll still have gay couples parenting. (We always did but it’ll be easier now.)

    3. Jane

      Well, I don’t think it does, and I was at my wedding and I can’t recall a single person saying that it gave me any right to have children. The right to the support of my husband through the vagaries of life was mentioned, yes. The obligation to return that support was mentioned, yes. A newly acquired right to children, no. It’s hard to know how such a right would be enforced – if marriage gave you the right to have children, would the church or state have an obligation to supply children to an older or infertile couple?

      1. Barry the Hatchet

        Jane, you clearly weren’t paying attention when the Priest did the bit of the ceremony that activated your dormant womb.

  4. Jimmee

    In fairness he does give a good convincing argument.

    I’ll still vote yes because I don’t buy into his argument.

    1. Smiley Bolger

      Yep, it also doesn’t change my position but I can see why those arguments (especially arguments made which don’t descend to name-calling and taunts or take smug we’re-so-cool stances – unlike what you see on the Yes side) could sway either soft Yes voters or the undecided. The rest of this campaign is going to be very interesting – and the Yes side only have themselves to blame if it’s a No return on May 22

  5. donkey_kong

    he could be right and we could still not agree with him.
    I like david quinn – I don’t agree with a lot of what he says but he speaks well and does a decent interview (when I hear him)

    1. Nice Anne (Dammit)

      How is your Iona internship going? Just out of interest are you on the jobbridge?

  6. Orla

    Bone chilling.

    And with David Quinn (on this issue only) I agree- the Yes vote is soft.

    Paddy won’t spit out all the No side bile in polite conversation, or to pollsters, because he knows or fears he would be laughed at.

    But, all alone, in the sanctuary of the polling both he will not be constrained by any such social niceties.

    1. Joe the Lion

      Possibly. I think that that speech is already the losers speech though. This is no campaign. I know they’re amping it up now but that can’t hide the fact that they don’t have unlimited bags of money, and there will be general elections and such coming up shortly. Personally I’d legislate for abortion rights though – not put it to referendum. I think they’re realising that the game is up and while huffing and puffing, and a fight will continue, the bottom line is that public overwhelmingly support both limited abortion rights and all forms of marriage – their own polls will tell them that. That will not stop them doing stupid stuff alright but the jig is up.

      1. Malta

        Given what’s already in the constitution on abortion, simply legislating is far from simple. As we’ve seen from the Clare Daly’s fatal foetal abnormality bill

        1. Joe the Lion

          I’ve heard that trotted out before

          But governments pass laws that they know could be constitutionally challenged all the time. My approach would be to pass the law and see what happens. I’m no lawyer but I’d argue an anti-abortion campaigner does not have locus standi to lodge a claim that a law invalidates their rights if all it does is grant new, additional rights to others. Anyone?

  7. Jonotti

    He’s partially right. I’ll be voting yes. I also want abortion on demand in this country too. However, a lot of the yes marriage people don’t want abortion on demand, they’re liberal when it comes to gay marriage, but reactionary when it comes to women’s rights.

  8. ceo

    Pisses me off the way gay rights and marriage equality is often spoken of in the same breath as abortion by social right wingers. Abortion is a much more serious and nuanced debate; a discussion of life and death, in relation to the mother or the unborn child/fetus (depending on how you view when life begins etc, and for many it is not straight forward… I still can’t get my head around it anyway).

    But gay marriage… in a completely different league if you ask me. Nobody is getting hurt and it’s nobody’s bloody business if you want to marry a man or a woman. Abortion on the other hand is a complicated ethical issue regarding the human rights of the lives involved. I really wish these issues were not discussed in the same breath.

    1. Joe the Lion

      true- what do you expect from a pig but a grunt? these folks are not like you and me. don’t underestimate them

    2. Nice Anne (Dammit)

      Abortion on the other hand is a complicated ethical issue regarding the human rights of the lives involved

      Actually I used to think that too until I read a post on here – http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/08/22/i-took-the-boat/
      where the poster and a lot of those who replied talked about abortion as a matter of choice that is down to the individual.

      Some made the choice to have one, some did not. Reading this post made me realise that abortion is not a complicated issue, it is a personal one.

      1. Lorcan Nagle

        The American feminist writer Katha Politt has a book out called Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights, which is all about how there’s a big ned to recontextualise the abortion debate because it’s not always this huge decision – so many shared abortion stories come down to a primal urge on the mother’s part not to be pregnant for one reason or another – be it a risk to life or health, social conditions, or anything else – and that it wasn’t a hard decision to make.

        She was in town last month and the Abortion Rights Campaign were lucky enough to get a night of her time to have a reading and panel discussion, which was fantastic. We recorded it and hope to post it to our website soon. I feel it’ll be a good starting point to work towards getting the discusion going.

      2. ceo

        Well maybe it does come down to choice, and honestly, I haven’t fully formed my views on the issue. I’d probably vote to allow terminations in cases of rape and FFA at the drop of a hat, but beyond that I’d need to have a proper think about it. And if a referendum on this issue was coming up I’d have to get my head straight. I’d a good few people are in this camp.

        But it certainly is complex surely you’d agree… when does life begin, when does consciousness begin, when can a fetus feel pain, at what stage of gestation should the option to terminate be closed off. I mean, marriage equality as an issue is 1+1=2 problem in comparison to abortion’s partial differential equation.

        Hence my argument that they should not be seen as two branches of the same tree. Social and religious right winders tend to do this… and they sometimes throw assisted suicide into the mix as well for good measure. Again, another complex one for many.

        1. Lorcan Nagle

          There’s a lot of complexity around the legalities and medical aspects of abortion, that’s for sure. And bear in mind that a referendum on the 8th amendment wouldn’t even make abortion legal, it’d just remove the constitutional roadblock. There’d still be massive debate as to whether to allow it just in cases of health issues, FFA, on request or whatever other conditions you might like to name, but that would be on the shoulders of the Oireachtas, not the people.

          I think Quinn linking marraige equality and abortion is really his core agenda seeping through – he’s reactionary and fears progressive policies and social justice. The issues aren’t at all similar intrinsically, but from an ideological standpoint they’re both part of a left-wing social agenda.

          1. ceo

            >>> “The issues aren’t at all similar intrinsically, but from an ideological standpoint they’re both part of a left-wing social agenda.”

            True, true. I’ll tell you what though… any future abortion referendum will make the marriage equality debate look like David Quinn and Colm O’Gorman lightly slapping each other in the face over cocktails*.

            * Apologies Colm if this image causes any offence.

          2. Lorcan Nagle

            Yeah, I’ve been accosted on the street while running stalls a few times and I only expect it to get worse when there is a referendum.

  9. Odis

    I found the first couple of paragraphs the most telling about his real agenda here. The rest was his usual tired jibber jabber.
    In many ways I find him an inspirational speaker. He inspires me to dislike everything he stands for intensely.

    1. Casey

      Hopefully he is also a motivational speaker and will motivate a lot of people to vote a resounding ‘Yes’

      Found it very distasteful that he brought in African and African American civil rights into the conversation. The privileged little white prick.

    2. Annie

      David Quinn is just a bookworm who has read to one too many books to confirm his bias. He cannot countenance any challenges to this religious world outlook but then again he has made sure never to really question his beliefs. He is also no theologian or philosopher, only possessing a mere DCU Business Degree. This is not to denigrate that institution and its degrees but given the lofty way in which Quinn perceives himself, it does jar a little with the reality. But then again, reality and David Quinn were never good bedfellows so to speak.

  10. Just sayin'

    As someone who supports a liberal abortion regime but opposes gay marriage, I’m disgusted he’s linking the two issues.

  11. Owen

    I find this awkward to watch. There is a strong touch of fear mongering in there, with supporting ‘facts’. He is implying that more terrible things will follow if this goes to a YES vote by diverting the audience to abortion legislation, and gay couples adopting. Both topics with more surrounding issues, where individual circumstances apply, but are ignored here. It reminds me of a right wing republican talk in the US.

    Coincidently, he notes that the NO side ‘won’ in 35 out of 36 similar votes in the US. In what states? Let me guess….. the south / republican?

    All that aside, I did agree with his point last night (RTE) where he said multinationals (Twitter) should stay out of the debate. Although they are for the YES, if they were for the NO I would be fuming that they got involved. Irish politics are none of their business. What if LinkedIn announced they were pro Sinn Fein?

    1. Joe the Lion

      This completely is their business. If it is commonly felt abroad EU TECH CAPITAL Ireland is a repressive pig-ignorant state governed by inbred bog-trotters, it could affect their ability to attract best talent.

      1. Owen

        Don’t be absurd. Not only did they move here long before this was part of their agenda, the Irish vote on gay marriage will have zero effect on Twitters global image.

        1. Joe the Lion

          I didn’t say anything about Twitter’s global image. I referred to their ability to hire talent.

    2. rotide

      I find it vaguely hypocritical that it used to be pointed out ad nauseum here that a lot of Iona et al’s funding came from America yet not a word about the huge support (rightly) that a yes vote is getting from abroad.

      1. Clampers Outside!

        People don’t tend to look for that when it is a popularly supported idea. Particularly when there aren’t lies being told which both YD and Iona have been often called out on doing. When that type of atmosphere is created people ask who is funding these muppets spreading lies. I await the lies being told by the ‘yes’ campaign to warrant such a response to see funding. But that’s just me.

        1. squiggleyjoop

          We give out about American funding for the likes of Youth Defence because it blows up a minority viewpoint and is used to promote lies and muddy the waters. You cannot compare it to overseas support for gay marriage.

      2. Lorcan Nagle

        How much money have the yes campaign gotten from abroad? Are there any LGBT rights groups in Ireland that refuse to disclose their income streams?

        1. Kevin Lyda

          Exactly. There’s the difference.

          Twitter and other tech companies stood up in public and said they supported Marriage Equality. They took questions. They engaged.

          The money funding the No campaign – where does that come from? Have any of them spoken out? Have they engaged or just spent money?

  12. downtowntrain

    Does anyone have any useful links on Tom monaghan or Legatus who apparently fund this fruitcake?

  13. Pablo Pistachio

    David Quinn, doing more to get people off their backsides to vote yes than anyone else. Fair play to him. Keep it up Davy boy, we’ll have abortion legal in no time at this rate.
    Surely the ‘no side’ see him as a liability at this stage?

    1. Joe the Lion

      yes, they are smuggling DIY abortion kits into the country by putting them in each other’s bottoms

  14. wearnicehats

    I’m not voting. I don’t vote on anything. I pay whatever taxes they tell me to and I get on with my own life. I told the water protesters to shag off my pavement and I really don’t give a hoot who’s in government. I object to referendums because they close the schools and I have to pay for childcare. But I have to say I’m seriously thinking of voting in this referendum. And, as some of my best friends know gay people, I would ordinarily vote yes; but the overwhelming smugness of the yes campaign would make me vote no out of spite. And, before all of you lot out there go nuts – I won’t vote but think of how many people might be in the same position as me. Maybe it’s time to give the hugging and kissing and murals and rainbows a rest and think about how to actually persuade the no camp why it’s a good idea rather than a done deal

    1. Owen

      I don’t agree with not voting, but I do see your point. I am voting YES, as I feel it is right. That is my decision, one I don’t feel I need to justify. However, I see my parents get more and more frustrated with the ‘in your face’ approach to the YES campaign, to the point that I don’t bring up the referendum with them for fear they have already moved to a NO vote. Twitter jumping in yesterday may have pushed them over the edge.

      1. Casey

        How about this as the ULTIMATE act of revenge for all their overt campaigning – vote YES and then they will have NOTHING to campaign about.

        That will show them!!! AmOiRioght?

        Vote YES to put an end to GAY campaigning! Who’s with me???

      2. Muffy

        I know how dare the gays have such a widespread and colourful show of public support? They should know they’re place and be quietly thankful anyone is consider gong not voting no

    2. Corky Duke

      Thats a good post. Why is the LGBT campaign so in the face….and camp!! This in the face tatics pushes me and many people I know against it. You dont see posters of straight people on the side of buildings shaggin just to promote hetrosexuals….enough is enough….we dont need this crap in our face everytime LGBTs are mentioned.

      1. Jane

        Yeah, why can’t the gays just hide away and pretend they don’t need legal equality? I’d be much more comfortable if I could just pretend they don’t exist any more, even when we’re talking about a referendum that’s about gay people. Why do they have to go around shoving their existence down my throat just because they don’t have equality but would like to? If I didn’t have to think about what it’s like for other people to be different to me I’d be much happier and more comfortable.

        And that’s why I’m voting no. They made me look. I didn’t like it. I’m going to punish them.

        Also, please don’t think I operate on the same level as a immature teenager.

      2. Sam

        Fine, just remove the obstacles to equality and then they won’t be demanding it anymore. Simples.

        Or do you think moaning about unfairness is worse than the unfairness?

        1. Gers

          Its only the start… Always something to campaign about, adoption and other matter to follow. it started by a minority and for that minority its their lives, lobbyist of sorts.

          1. Lorcan Nagle

            Gay adoption, like what’s being signed into law in the next week or two? THEY’RE ONE STEP AHEAD OF YOU!

          2. Dubh Linn

            It’s only the start? The start of what?

            Could it be the start of conversations about fairness, inclusiveness, how we look after all our citizens on this Island and not just the few who control most of the money, land and industry.

            Then start away, I’m listening…!

    3. jeremy kyle

      You don’t vote on anything, even though you’d “ordinarily” vote yes and it seems we should be thankful that you’re gracious enough to not vote no out of spite… you’re just going to abstain out of spite.

      Right so.

      ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    4. Gers

      “Maybe it’s time to give the hugging and kissing and murals and rainbows a rest”
      +100000

      My thoughts exactly. fed up hearing about it, its fupping everywhere.

    5. Annie

      I will never understand someone who lacks the basic life skills by deciding to vote based on the conduct of the campaign as opposed to the actual question. It smacks of immaturity and lacking in basic societal nous. Vote whatever way you want but surely you have the basic intelligence to consider the question? Referendums here can be messy, particularly ones dealing with social issues for whatever reason. That is a given. Grow a pair and think about the question for pity’s sake. There is nothing so strange as people as my dear old Granny (who is voting Yes) often quips! Sigh.

  15. Murtles

    “Now when you give two men the right to have a child, what is missing from the child’s life?” – A Mother.

    The answer also could have been a pony, a Mr Potato Head with voice activated controls, a 1976 Ford Capri or a 357 Magnum with a modified helical revolving cylinder holding 8 9.07mm bullets with a stanchon grip and leather casing.

  16. stealingthemichael

    Anyone else wish there was a statue of this man some where so we could tear it down?

  17. Dubloony

    Jesus tap dancing Christ that is some seriously screwed up thought processes.

    Last year, there were 14 adoptions in this country. 14.
    There isn’t a baby for every marriage licence given out.
    Not every marriage results in children, not all children are the result of marriage.

  18. Stewart Curry

    “But there’s a legally recognised right to have children when you marry under our constitution. “… is there? Is it illegal to have children outside marriage?

    1. ahjayzis

      Sure there is. It’s why you never see a neglected child who’s parents are married get taken into care.

  19. yer

    Imagine a man and a woman going through IVF all the way through your thirties and still not getting pregnant by the time she is 40 and then going down the adoption route and then losing at the final hurdle to two gay lads. Morto.

    I’ll be voting no. Great speech by David Quinn. I was actually not sure what I was going to vote but I am sure now.

    1. Drogg

      Maybe you should just be glad a child would have a loving home to go to and not that people lost out on an adoption that they could still go through with, with a different child. It just sounds like you are looking for an excuse for telling people why gay people shouldn’t marry and david quinn just gave you a pathetic excuse.

    2. Jane

      A lot of people would say that a decade of fruitless IVF would be rather frustrating, if an extremely remote, situation. However, it doesn’t make you entitled to adopt a child, particularly if another couple is better equipped to meet the needs of the child.

      In this case, if I were the social worker, I’d be raising my eyebrows at the IVF couple a little bit since their priority is clearly a newborn genetic relation. The vast, vast majority of the very few children available for adoption are not newborns willing surrendered for adoption but are children who, after a long process, have been put up for adoption by social workers. These are not brand new babies, they are late toddlers or older, some with difficult to meet needs. Gay people entering the adoption process will be aware of this and won’t have spent a decade on fertility treatment and be thinking of adopting the children who are available like some kind of substandard consolation prize making them, in my view, better qualified and equipped for the care involved.

      1. Joe the Lion

        Would you really Jane – seriously now?

        I wasn’t aware that adoption was subject to a sort of beauty contest anyway, this is news to me.

        1. Don Pidgeoni

          They have adoption “parties” in the UK, where prospective parents go to meet older kids they could adopt. Its icky, like a kid market

          1. Joe the Lion

            It is alright – but I suppose there has to be some kind of evaluation on both sides.

  20. Clampers Outside!

    “….very soft interviews with gay rights campaigners on the Late Late Show or the Saturday Night Show or the John Murray Show or the Ray D’Arcy Show or whatever the case may be so there’s been almost uninterrupted propaganda for years.”

    Translation – all gays are propagandists ffs :)

    1. Dubloony

      So if you are affected by this issue and talk openly about it, you are a propagandist in his eyes.

      1. Sam

        Unlike certain people whose entire career is appearing in the media as well as writing articles that only ever support the goals of a certain institute…

  21. John M

    …good grief. It’s like Godwin-ism. Once you mention the A-word then you’ve gone for the nuclear option.
    Stroke of genius, really. Garnering the word ‘Institute’ and half the country think you’re a Govt quango or similar and so ‘carry weight.

    I’m voting No, but even I disagree with this loon’s stance.

    1. Drogg

      I hope your proud of your self voting no. Not only are you denying equality to your fellow citizens, not only are you denying gay people the rights to have the same happiness as the rest of us are entitled too but you are telling your friends, family and neighbours that you are proud to be a bigot and that you are really of the same small mindedness as people like david quinn.

      1. Leela2011

        Ah come on, people are entitled to a personal opinion and should vote according to their beliefs/morals. I would rather my friends and family told me straight up how they were voting and be proud of it

          1. Drogg

            Exactly be proud of your vote, it is your right to vote as you see fit, but understand that when you vote no that in my eyes and in many other people’s eyes you will be a bigot.

    2. ahjayzis

      Cheers for admitting you see me as an inferior citizen, mate.

      I look forward to your support when I start the campaign for a lower tax rate for gay people, since if society offers us less protection and security, it’s only fair we’re asked to pay less to society?

      1. Nice Anne (Dammit)

        See SEE, this is what you get if you deny dem gays the same rights that dem straights enjoy! More campaigning for alternative rights!? Is that what you want?

        There will be more cheerful colourful campaigning, more nice young people on the doorstep to chat to encouraging a ‘Yes’ vote, more bueatifully contrived murals, more talk about eqality, rights and responsibilities (you know like wot a civilised modern society might have)

        Oh the horror!

  22. Drogg

    I am only getting around to seeing this now and i was trying to stay claim as i read this and i apologise to my gay friends that my next tirade will be more about myself then their campaign for equality which i fully support. But F**K YOU david quinn if you believe i do not have a family because i was raised by a single parent and not by what you consider to be a family

    (“So what we’re really saying in our constitution right now is the family is founded on a union of a man and a woman and if a man and a woman got married, and they have a child, that child will have a married mother and father who’re committed to their welfare – that’s what we’re saying.”)

    So david now i promise you something not only will i increase my campaign to support a yes vote but now i am going to put all my effort into destroying your piece of rubbish organisation. #VoteYes

    P.S. below is a campaign to have the Iona’s charity status revoked please sign and share. Thanks.

    https://www.change.org/p/irish-government-revoke-the-tax-exempt-charity-status-of-the-iona-institute?recruiter=70106228&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_facebook_responsive&utm_term=mob-xs-no_src-custom_msg

        1. Drogg

          Just if i knew where it was filmed id make sure no one i knew gave them business ever again so maybe people would reconsider holding these events in their establishments. I know the west court hotel in drogheda has held a number of talks by Not only Mr Quinn but also the fascist Justin Barrett.

  23. S

    If you’d like a more elaborate version of David Quinn’s car vs bicycle metaphor, try this:

    […]
    When all these, and much more, are stripped away, then we can begin to consider marriage as somehow “equal” to a same-sex relationship.

    Not rational

    It is like stripping a luxury car of its steering wheel, bodywork, electronics, engine, chassis, two wheels on one side, lights, boot and passenger seats and then deciding that the remaining wreck somehow looks like a bicycle.

    Having made the car “equal” to a bicycle, we can now call the bicycle a luxury car! But no one would think this was even half rational.

    From (where else?) Alive!

    1. Jane

      That’s the kind of logic that seriously makes people look like they’re not doing so well sanity-wise.

  24. Clampers Outside!

    Hypothetical, two couples are going for an adoption of the same baby, a gay couple and a heterosexual couple, who are absolutely equal in all things measurable and understandable but different only in their sexual orientation.

    The hetero couple get the baby.

    I wouldn’t expect any other outcome. Am I alone in this… just wondering, I haven’t heard it put that way.

    1. oonions

      Clampers,
      I wonder how often two individuals are ever really absolutely equal in all things measurable to two other individuals? I ask because the No side seem to have a tick-box approach – his and hers genitals gets you a marriage license. I think this referendum is about moving past binary gender roles and recognizing that individuals raise children, whether they are single or pairs, male or female, parents or grandparents, or whatever order variation of adults that are lovingly raising their kids all around us. It’s fair enough to ask the question, but I worry the No side are trying to bury the complexity of Irish families and the individuals that comprise them.

  25. Lorcan Nagle

    An aunt of mine was a lesbian. Nobody ever told me this outright, and not being married in your 30s/40s wasn’t strange on that side of the family. She lived in London so I didn’t get to see her very often and I wouldn’t have been as au fait with her day to day life as I would my family members who live in Dublin. I did twig it when she came to visit with another woman one time and spotted them kissing – they weren’t hiding it or anything, but it was unusual for me as I rarely saw any of my uncles or aunts in an intimate position. Said woman is her long-term partner and literally a member of the family

    Later, she had a son, and she and her parter and him were a family, he’s in college now, an incredibly intelligent young man, a fantastic guitar player and he’s got his head screwed on better than I did at that age.

    My aunt died early last year, leaving her long-term partner, son and an awesome dog behind. They were able to become civil partners, but not marry in her life. But her family was just as loving and just as normal as my married parents, my uncle who married his long term partner almost 30 years after their first son was born, or my unmarried aunt and her kids.

    When David Quinn says things like “if you give two women the right to have a child what’s missing from that child’s life?”, the answer is simple: nothing is missing. Love is the most important thing and it doesn’t care what your exact plumbing is, and neither should the state. Nobody’s forcing Quinn to marry another man and try and start a family with him.

    1. Sam

      He knows all of this damn well.
      All fading hierarchies resort to the tactics of the siege mentality, and play the role of victim as often as possible, positing that the imposed hierarchy is the norm, and therefore any movement towards equality is an imposition by a minority of upstarts.

      1. Lorcan Nagle

        Thanks for the kind words, guys. Though I didn’t see her as often as I would have liked, this aunt and one of my mum’s other sisters were such a huge influence on my life – radical feminists, political activists, and unswerving in their fight for what was right – I wouldn’t be the man I am today without them, and I think I’d be a lesser man if I wasn’t inspiried to speak out and fight just like they did (and do).

        1. Joe the Lion

          I have to say Lorcan that when I read the posts like the one of yours above, the red-haired lad who took good-natured dogs’ abuse from a few of the resident wags here yesterday, and from other folks like Kieran in New York who is flying home to vote, it restores my faith generally.

          1. Lorcan Nagle

            I really appreciate that. The commentariat here has gotten so nasty recently, I feel like we need a bit of positivity every now and then to balance it out.

          2. Kieran NYC

            Not to get mushy or anything, but I couldn’t look myself in the mirror if I didn’t fly for it when I could. Going to feel a bit odd voting for myself to become an equal citizen in my own country, but it’s one of the most important things I’ll ever do, whether or not I eventually get married.

  26. Denis Mahoney

    By David’s wonderlogic when we get married we’ll have a constitutional right to demand a child. Where’s the application form?

  27. Kevin Lyda

    “”” Quinn: “Precisely. And the converse, if you give two women the right to have a child what’s missing from that child’s life?”

    Audience: “A father.” “””

    I forget, who ran “Mother and Child Homes” again?

  28. Mr. T.

    No room for complacency on this. Many people who claim they will vote Yes will in fact vote No. It’s a real Irish two-faced trait when it comes to contentious issues. Just as nobody admits having voted for Fianna Fail in 2007 when clearly they did, people will also claim to support gay marriage when in fact they don’t. They’ll revert to learned prejudices.

    I’m voting yes and I’m also actually voting yes. I got married a few years ago and it’s great, a lovely sense of union and strength (mainly on her part for putting up with someone like me who isn’t at all as bad as you all think). There’s two friends of mine who are gay and want to get married, having been together for about 8 years now. I couldn’t deny them that. Why would I.

    You’re all idiots (had to do that in case you thought I was going soft on ye).

  29. lwanttovoteyesnow

    He’s saying we have to throw gay people under the bus because they’re just a speed bump on the road to an abortion referendum. If the gays win the progressives win. We HAVE to keep showing progressive Ireland that conservatives run their country, otherwise they’re grow increasingly bold and further decouple the church from the state.

  30. Scaredtogopublic

    I’m voting No. Don’t give a doo doo. I’ll say in public that I’m voting yes, because who needs the hassle of ten thousand angry dweebs raining dogs abuse down on you? But when I get that pencil in my hand, I’ll be voting for what’s right and natural, not some makey-uppy “we’re all the same” plop.

    Vote no, and don’t be scared to vote no. And when the result is a no, look sad and express your sympathies, but know that there’ll be lots of other fellas and lassies standing around doing the same who voted no too.

    1. Drogg

      You know when you troll you are actually supposed to put some effort into making it believable, right?

      1. JO

        I will be voting no as well.
        The reason is that I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
        i am not homophobic but will vote how I want.
        I also think this will be the first time I dont tell people how I will vote for fear of being branded a homophobe.

        1. Lorcan Nagle

          You’re more than free to vote no, that’s well within your rights. But it is a homophobic position, and you can’t complain when people call you on it any more than I can complain if people call me a liberal for expressing socially progressive opinions.

      1. JO

        not everyone with a different opinion that you on this issue is from the Iona institute.
        You are a bully

  31. Sorcha Donohoe

    God almighty. what does marriage equality have to do with Abortion. This guy is off the wall.

  32. bobsyerauntie

    MY GOD!!

    We Can’t have EQUALITY for GAYS!!
    Or WOMENS RIGHTS!!…
    We need to keep them DOWN like we always HAVE
    It’s the CATHOLIC WAY!….

  33. well

    The reason we want equal numbers of men and women in politics is not about “complementarity” it’s about ensuring representation. he’s deliberately lying there

  34. Ppads

    I love how IONA have become the lightning rod.
    Link abortion and equal marriage and off we go again.
    It’s like there are no other socially conservative forces hard at work in Ireland right now.
    None at all.

  35. Descartes

    Iona have CHOSEN to become a lightening rod. We didn’t ask for them, we only had to wait for them to open their foolish mouths.

  36. Dubh Linn

    Hi Broadsheet,

    Why have you deleted the ‘No Matter What’ post from a couple of days ago? What happened?

      1. Dubh Linn

        Technical glitch? What in the name of all that is plain English is that supposed to mean?

        Was this the type of “glitch” that was pointed out on headed paper sent by Corlas, Corlas & Sweeney?

Comments are closed.