↓
 

Reductio ad Absurdum

Head Rambles Posted on by

We seem to be quite fond of the odd referendum or two in this country.

We even go so far as to repeat them if someone thinks we got the wrong answer.

The latest one is rearing its ugly head and we are expected to vote on it in May.  There will be two parts to it: one is something to do with voting age and the president [don’t ask] and the other is on the recognition of same sex marriage.

I have no opinions on same sex marriage.  I happen to prefer different sex marriage but that's just my bag.  If two men or two women want to go and get hitched that's entirely up to them and has sweet fuck all to do with me.

What I do love about our referendums is the arguments the Crazies bring up.  When we had a vote on divorce, the Crazies started screaming about how no woman would be safe as every man would be demanding a divorce [the genders were never transposed for some reason].  When we have one of our regular abortion votes, the Crazies claim that babies will be aborted if they don't have blue eyes or some such nonsense.   With the Crazies, everything is either banned or compulsory and every situation has to be brought to an extreme.

One of the Crazies was on the News last night [starts at around 21:45].  David Quinn heads up the Iona Institute which is one of those jack-boot pro-Catholic pro-children organisations whose ideal is a mother and father with ten [blonde and blue-eyed] kids all smiling sweetly around the breakfast table and reciting the Rosary before tucking into bowls of muesli.  Anyhows, Quinn decided to deflect the argument to the subject of adoption by same sex couples [what about the cheeeeldren!!].  He ranted on about the adoption agencies not being able to tell if the adoptive couple was same sex or not as they would be all the same under the new laws.  Personally I would have thought that just looking at the couple might give a hint, but that would spoil a good argument?

From listening to Quinn I got the distinct impression he would be horrified at the idea of a loving same-sex couple adopting a child and would much prefer that child to live with a heroin addicted mother and an abusive father, because that would fit his nice concept of "rights".  Fucking twat!

I must confess I do have some personal thoughts about kids being reared by same sex couples.  My concerns mainly concentrate on events when that child has to go to school.  I remember from my days the bragging that went on between kids about what their fathers did for a living – it was a sort of status thing.  I just wonder what reaction little Jimmy will get when he says his Daddy is an air steward and his other Daddy is a hair-dresser.

Kids also have a very nasty habit of picking on an unfortunate child for any difference they can discover.  If he or she is taller or shorter or fatter or thinner than average then the name calling starts.  Woe betide any kid who has glasses! And when the fuckers discover that their classmate has two mothers or two fathers then it's game on for the bullying season!

I can see trouble for that kid.

 

Comments

Reductio ad Absurdum — 24 Comments

  1. I like your blog. I do love the common sense that you post up. I agree about folk getting married.  I think you got it right by referring to a loving couple and again regarding bullying. Children can be monsters because mostly they just aren't civilised. That takes a few years.

  2. Personally I would have thought that just looking at the couple might give a hint…

    You've obviously never encountered Thai ladyboys, GD.

    • We don't have that many of them around here [and definitely none in the Wicklow area!!] thank God.  Maybe the clue is in their name?

  4. In reference to a 'same-sex' marriage, I would personally love to try a kinky-sex marriage for a while with the option of a kinky divorce if it wasn't for me. Same sex just gets so boring and predictable after a while, don't you think?

    • I take it the Missus doesn't know about this?  You're on very thin ice if she ever finds this page.  €10,000 and I'll remove the comment and mightn't even send her the link.

  5. My wife was raised in a same sex marriage (two moms) and she turned out normal. Well as normal as any of us are. She did have a rough time in grade/high school. She had to transfer more than once because of the tormenting. Oddly enough the worst of the tormenting came for the other children's parents rather than the children themselves. One of her best childhood friends was made to stop hanging out with her because "she might catch the gay."

    • Catch the gay?  That is priceless, but it also shows the complete ignorance of the subject that still exists.  You might as well worry about "catching fat" or "catching short-sightedness"?

  6. Can we vote for mono-sex mono-marriage some day? So many individuals love themselves they might like to marry themselves and leave all their worldly goods to themselves when the grim reaper finally knocks on the door. Monosexually married individuals can take masters/mistresses if they get lonely – and won't legally be obliged to leave the family residence to them after passing on.

    • The problem with that scheme is what happens when you decide on a divorce?  That could turn really messy.

      • If I ever decide to divorce myself I'll do it on the cheap using a bundle of official papers that can be bought for about 200 euro. My prenuptial agreement will ensure that I get the family home and all the financial assets. My discarded alter ego can go feck. Can beg on the streets for all I care.

  7. Nice sensible attidude but there is another question that needs consideration – this really about taxation and inheritance rights and the other situation not considered is where 2 people who are related live together say elderly brother and sister and where 1 dies (or even does not) the other person is seriously discriminated against in law. For taxation and inheritance Should we be able to nominate another significant person ??

    • Welcome Dermot!  That of course is a completely different fish of kettles.  I'm not too well up on inheritance laws but surely next of kin is a genderless concept?  Basically this is the one area that the legalisation of same sex marriages has its greatest strength in that the partner legally [presumably] becomes the next of kin?

  9. the reality in a few years is that the kid will say that 1 daddy is a Garda and the other Daddy is a Fireman and my 2 daddies will kick the shit out of your Daddy

    It will become normal as it should

    • I agree that "my two dads will beat the shit out of your dad" does have a nice ring to it.  It will take a while for it to become the norm.  Don't forget – people still vote Fianna Fáil!!

  10. "When we had a vote on divorce, the Crazies started screaming about how no woman would be safe as every man would be demanding a divorce"

    And now I wonder how many of those particular Crazies that "screamed" such were women? Doesn't really say much about them now does it?

    As for the rest, well written common sense post. 'Nuff said.

    • Male or female, I got the strong impression that they were all on rocky marriages.  I'd also say there were a few worried their parents might get divorced – gotta look after the old inheritance?

      • Unless the "inheritance" is a mound of unpaid bills which is often the case. Perhaps that makes a case for children divorcing their (deadbeat) parents before they inherit?

Hosted by Curratech Blog Hosting
↑