Should Ireland become the 51st State of America?

by Acid Mon Nov 22, 2004 00:56

"3. Has recommended changing the law to allow homosexual marriage even though he has sworn an Oath, as Prime Minister, to support our Constitution, which pledges the state to "guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack." "

by Harry Rea - The National Men's Council of Ireland Mon Nov 22, 2004 01:35 hrea at eircom dot net

Where do you disagree that Marriage;

A) guarantees the father a position, in law, in the family whereby, as he is the Custodian, the authority in the family, is guaranteed the Custody of the children if the mother deserts him

B) gives the children the father's name by which society can know who is accountable for their moral formation and therefore who is responsible for their misdemeanours, thus ensuring that the father instils a moral discipline in them for the common good

C) gives the children a direct line to their roots, to their heritage so they know and respect their elders and forefathers and so gives them an understanding of their place in society

D) provides a means of children knowing who their relations are and hence a way of them avoiding incest by inadvertently having sexual intercourse with them. There are 48 levels of prohibitions (ie you can not marry your sister, aunt, daughter, etc) developed through certification of marriage over the millennia to avoid incest. How can it be achieved without the regulation of marriage.

E) provides a system of inheritance so that the 'legitimate' ie legally certified children get the family's wealth and not the lawyers through years of litigation over paternity

F) through the extended family provides a well-defined support group which can be called upon to protect them against the state

G) provides children with the surest way of benefiting from having two parents caring for them for the longest time in the optimum physical conditions

Acid, your facile proposal is that an informal undefined sexual encounter that will be 'legally required somehow' to ensure a 50/50 split of Custody/residence POST RELATIONSHIP is all children need.

Most importantly, without Marriage there is nothing to ensure that there is no breakdown in the relationship in the first place and this is precisely what marriage should and always has secured and why it is considered as the elemental requirement for any civilised society.

What is needed is more people in this 'war' who can see the main issue is how the feminists/subversives have ILLEGALLY AND IMMORALLY undermined marriage.

When this critical mass is achieved we will then expose their corruption, make them stand trial for their crimes against humanity and restore the protections necessary for the defence of marriage so all the benefits can again flow from it to families and society.

5th columnists and self-confessed feminists are either in a state of emotional and rational denial because they were unfortunately not in a position to be married or are just ideologically opposed to Marriage and so purposely want to distract as many men as possible from this truth.


Why not check-out the truth – look at our website www.family-men.com , see our “Parental Rights in Ireland, November 2004 - An Analysis” report and then make a comment to tell us where we are wrong….

by Acid Mon Nov 22, 2004 03:57

I simply asked did you think gay marriage. I gave no proposal. I'd rather not bother my arse to look at your site. Thanks all the same.

by Acid Mon Nov 22, 2004 03:58

I simply asked did you thing gay marriage is wrong.

by Dave Mon Nov 22, 2004 12:15

Who the hell are the National Men's Group of Ireland? I am involved with Finglas Mens Group, I know of Ballymun Mens Group and the Dublin Mens Coalition, but i have never heard of the above.

The above statement does not reflect the views of any of the groups that I am involved in and seems to contradict the core of thinking of most. FMG argue that the position of men in relation to their children is an issue of equality. Men deserve consideration as much as women in terms of their ability to raise a family.

This is accepted by FMG to extend to any other family formation.

The other issues touched upon in your post have not ever been discussed by FMG. However, FMG is open to all men irrespective of their colour or creed as most of the mens groups I know of are..

Personally I would not accept many of the views contained in your post and doubt if the so called "National Men's Council of Ireland" is actually what it claims to be as FMG have never heard of your group and have never been consulted about any of the positions outlined in your statement so personally I don't accept that you are a genuine National organisation of mens groups.

by Harry Rea - The National Men's Council of Ireland Mon Nov 22, 2004 12:30

Good to hear from you Dave. By the way have you any comment,constructive or otherwise, on the actual posting "Should Ireland become the 51st State of America?"

Thanks Dave.

by james - anti-work socialise, party. Mon Nov 22, 2004 12:39 themarshometer at hotmail dot com

If you think gay marriage is wrong the answer is simple dont get gay married.what other people do is there business and i fail to see how two gay people getting married "attacks" the sanctity of pre existent straight marriages.Anyway theres fellas who marry there farm animals i think gay marriages are the least of our worrys.

by Harry Rea - The National Men's Council of Ireland Mon Nov 22, 2004 12:59 hrea at eircom dot net

It was not the intention of the original posting to get sidetracked into just this issue but this article might help your understanding...

Author: Amir Butler
Publishing date: 04.11.2002 10:20


If the projections of the United Nations are to be believed, the West is dying a slow death.

In 2000, Europe had a population of 727 304 000. In 2015, it will have shrunk to 704 506 000. By 2020, it will be 694 877 000. In 2000, 13.8% of the population was aged between 15-24, yet by 2020, it will be just 10.2%. Meanwhile, the percentage of the population over 60 will rise from 20.3% to 26.4%. A similar trend is occurring in America, with the UN predicting the percentage of people 15-24 falling from 13.5% to 12.6%, buoyed only by immigration. Similarly the percentage of people over 60 will jump from 16.2% to 23.0% in just 20 years.

As the percentage of the population over 60 increases proportionate to the percentage of the population of working age, it will raise serious questions of how the state will fund the pensions of these elderly with a diminishing taxation base. According to Peter Peterson, chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, America’s pension and health-benefit spending will cost 17 percent of the GDP in 2030, as opposed to 10.5 percent in 1995. That’s good compared to countries like Italy, where a rapidly aging population and declining birth rate will see the GDP share to pensions rise from 19.7 percent to 33.3 percent in 2030.

There are, of course, many factors that have contributed to this change. The shift in society from an agrarian-based economy to the industrial age to the new economy had an effect. The spread of socialism, with its promise of a pension for all, removed the need for large families as an ‘insurance policy’ for old age and retirement.

If one examines trends over the last century, it becomes clear that something changed in the sixties.

Allan Carlson, president of the Howard Center for Family, Religion and Society writes:



All the indicators of family well-being abruptly turned in these places [Western nations] during the short 1962-1965 period. Fertility resumed its fall, tumbling well below zero-growth levels; a massive retreat from marriage commenced; and Western societies seemed to lose all sense of inherited family order.


The sixties were a period of cultural revolution for much of the West, however one factor seems to stand out as a primary contributor to declining birth rates in the West: gender feminism.

In radical feminist theory, the very concept of “gender” is seen as being simply a social construct formed by patriarchal societies to control and oppress women.

It was this patriarchal dominance, feminists argued, that forced the woman into the role of the mother and wife. As Betty Friedan wrote:


When woman was denied access to satisfaction of those needs in society as a person in her own right, she made home and the family into a vehicle for her power and control, status and self-realisation [which] then became her Frankenstein monster.


This Frankenstein monster is commonly called marriage, and it was a monster that feminist ideologues such as Germaine Greer and Gloria Steinem set out to destroy. By doing so, the feminists hope to free women from the shackles of patriarchic domination.

So intrinsic was the destruction of the idea of marriage to feminist thought, that the much-lauded 1971 Declaration of Feminism stated categorically that, “the end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women”.

Robin Morgan, who was later to become the editor of the flagship feminist magazine Ms. Magazine, wrote in Sisterhood is Powerful in 1970, that:

We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.


Many feminists went so far as to liken marriage to a form of enslavement. Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW, said:


Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage.


Others likened marriage to prostitution. Sonia Johnson, writing in Taking Our Eyes Off the Guys, wrote:

Women have been seasoned as slaves and prostitutes...But no matter how we're seasoned -- as prostitute or as wife, which is the same thing -- we're seasoned in the patriarchal family almost exclusively to serve sexual functions.


Andrea Dworkin, author of Pornography: Men possessing Women, claimed that marriage was nothing more than a refined form of rape:

Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership.


Writing in WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, in Fall, 1969, Linda Gordon elucidated clearly the object of the feminist struggle and the reasons:

The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together. ... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process. ... "Families have supported oppression by separating people into small, isolated units, unable to join together to fight for common interests. ...

Families make possible the super-exploitation of women by training them to look upon their work outside the home as peripheral to their 'true' role. ... No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children. ... Families will be finally destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people's needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all.


As Gordon notes, one means by which the women could free herself from the ‘oppression’ of the family, was to enter the workplace on a full-time basis. The en masse movement of women into the workplace could not occur, however, without significant social and structural change, which the feminists worked to bring about. Men would have to assume some responsibilities for the domestic tasks. “Affirmative action” programs would need to be established to facilitate the escape to the workforce.

The feminists were successful in bringing about significant public policy change in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. In many Western societies, the idea of no-fault divorce gained currency, and pensions for sole-parents became available. Tax concessions to families are gradually being eroded.

Whilst, the feminists were never able to completely destroy the institution of marriage in the West, their ideas did and continue to have a profound influence of the psyche of many people. The view of marriage and family as a restrictive institution, if not a prison, has led many women to put off marriage and delay having children.

The Brady Bunch became Sex and the City, and Alley McBeal.

Those people that do decide to have children are increasingly seeing marriage as being an irrelevant prerequisite. According to the US Census Data the percentage of women having their first child outside of wedlock in 1932 was 8.2%, with 53.6% of pre-marital conceptions ending in marriage. In 1994, it has jumped to 40.3% of women giving birth outside of wedlock, with only 23.7% pre-marital conceptions resulting in marriage.

The effect of the feminist struggle has been the undermining of the nuclear family. For the first time in American history, the census of 2000 reported that nuclear families accounted for less than one in four American families, whereas childless, single Americans accounted for some 26 percent of the population.

The reversal of this trend will be difficult. Financial incentives alone have proven, in Europe, to not be effective in encouraging parents to have children.

Just as the statistics alert us to the problem, they may also alert us to the solution. It is interesting and important to note that the conservative, deeply religious state of Utah has a much higher birth rate (2.76 per woman in 2000) than the ultra-liberal state of Vermont (1.57 per woman). In other words, women in Utah produce 73% more children per woman than Vermont. Similar trends can be observed in studies comparing birth rates amongst Orthodox Jews versus secular Jews.

On a global scale, the disparity is no more vivid than when comparing birth rates in Muslim countries versus non-Muslim countries. As Pat Buchanan noted in Death of the West, it is as difficult to find a Western society where populations are not shrinking, as it is to find a Muslim society where populations are not exploding.

What is taking place today in the West is not unique in history, but has been a characteristic of empires before it. Will Durant, the noted historian, wrote about the fall of the Roman Empire:


Biological factors were most fundamental. A serious decline of population appears in the West after Hadrian.


The reasons, he adds, were:


the holocausts of war and revolution, and perhaps the operation of contraception, abortion and infanticide had a dysgenic as well as a numerical effect: the ablest men married latest, bred least and died soonest. The dole weakened the poor, luxury weakened the rich, and a long peace deprived all classes in the peninsula of the martial qualities and arts…Moral and aesthetic standards were lowered by the magnetism of the mass; and sex ran riot in freedom while political liberty decayed.


He could just as easily have been taking about today.

by i Mon Nov 22, 2004 13:09

and you're writing crap, just as bad as a bible thumper whittling scrpiture down to one sentance, thing about the bolsheviks is, at least you can't challenge their core texts, Marx is only a century and a half ago.

And i'm not a bolshevik by the way, and your understanding of the "west" is utter utter crap, racist, facist, ethno-centric based on ignorant selective reading. The dole doesnt "weaken the poor" you idiot.

by yawn Mon Nov 22, 2004 13:23

so the west is dying a slow death, should that weigh heavily on our minds, immigration it is feared will overwhelm us and we will be bred out of existence. Sounds exactly like what europe has faced repeatedly ever since the first people arrived on the continent. How much similarity do you think there is between you and i and the genetic makeup of 'irish' people two or three thousand years ago, ireland as a land is no stranger to new races and interbreeding, it does not make me less irish that i can easily trace some french connections and with a little work who knows what else. Europe is nothing if not a melting pot, hungary and spain being prime historical examples. Europe will not vanish but change and adapt as it has over millenia. What we should worry about is educating the rest of the world to the fact that we should all stop multiplying because thats going to cause real trouble.

by Harry Rea - The National Men's Council of Ireland Mon Nov 22, 2004 14:36

Sorry “YAWN”,

Did I give you a start?

While you're awake would you like to comment on the opening topic above.

If not ... pleasant dreams.

by Bright Eyes Mon Nov 22, 2004 16:14

If Ireland was to join the USA we would be sending our young men to be slaughtered. You seem happy with that, as in one of your comments in favour of your arguments you approvingly quote someone writing about the Roman Empire:
"and a long peace deprived all classes in the peninsula of the martial qualities and arts.."

It is clear that you approve of war and imperialism. You and your ilk only see women as a resource which will provide you with cannon fodder, provide you with free sex, and clean up some of the mess that you make.

It is clear too that you are a small organisation that does not represent any of the genuine mens' groups in this country, so by using the name "The National Men's Council of Ireland" you are making a false claim about the status of that body.

You also complain that Ahern "prevented the people from voting for their president". The simple fact is that there were no other nominations. As for Ahern being "socialist", he is no more "socialist" than he is "Republican" (I am of course refering to Irish Republican rather than USA republican).

What you are clearly after is some kind of theocratic state. We already had something like that for most of the past century, and thankfully it is fading into a distant memory. But there are still a lot of men alive who went through the religious-controlled "education system" during that period and who can best be refered to as "walking wounded". It is sad that a hundred years on the most powerful country in the world is now heading into that kind of cultural and moral backwater.

by Barry Mon Nov 22, 2004 16:19

I thought this thread was about should Ireland become the 51st state of the US. Whats all this feminism and gay stuff about marriages got to do with it.

Quite obviously Bertie Ahern isnt a socialist or a republican. When he was questioned about this in Leinster House he obviously couldnt keep a straight face and his mates nearly doubled up with laughter.

Given the level of Irelands dependence upon corporate America, as well as the illegal carry on in Shannon perhaps the question on many peoples minds is "are we becoming the 51st state of America ?"

(By the way PC, I have just expressed another opinion if thats alright with you. If you have any further awards you can stick them in the same place as the last one)

by toneore Mon Nov 22, 2004 19:52 toneore at eircom dot net

(The National Men's Council of Ireland = http://www.irishhealth.com/?level=4&id=3943).

To answer the question: No. We should set more realistic expectations and rejoin the UK.

by dave Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:08

>In the light of recent events the National >Men's Council of Ireland find themselves >forced to ask if anyone knows how Ireland >can apply to become the 51st State of >America?

Personally, I think that the UK already has the dubious honour of being the 51st state altouugh with berties accomodation of US military in Shannon we might be in the shout to become the 52nd.

>Taoiseach, Mr Ahern,

>1. Has recently stated that he is a socialist, >although he was elected on a Republican >platform,

I don't think he is either a socialist or a republican in any Irish sense of the word. He might be a American style Republican?

>2. Has prevented the people from voting for >their President,

Although I dislike Aherne and his FF cronies this just isn't true. Labours Rabbitte was more guilty than Aherne because he refused to nominate a Labour candidate for the Presidency. FG equally didn't run anyone.

>3. Has recommended changing the law to >allow homosexual marriage even though he >has sworn an Oath, as Prime Minister, to >support our Constitution, which pledges the >state to "guard with special care the >institution of Marriage, on which the Family >is founded, and to protect it against attack."

Most men who are seperated from their partners find that the constitution that favours the mother of any children to be an automatic preference for custody. Mens groups want equality of consideration. What you and your group seeem to want is to return to the bad old days when women were forced to stand by their man and put up with physical or physcological violence in the questionable interest in maintaining the 'Family' irrespective of how dysfunctional the particular family is. I have my own opinion on 'homosexual marriage' (why bother?) but I cannot understand how a "national mens council" would not seek to represent the voices of gay men?

>4. Has signed Ireland up to an EU >Constitution which seriously curtails the >freedoms and rights of the Irish people >without first securing a mandate from them.

I agree. Possibly for very different reasons than you, but there should be a referendum on this EU constitution and it should be opposed by anyone that believes in our right to govern ourselves. We should not be devolving any of our independence to the EU.

>Irish people have far closer ties - through >family as well as economic, cultural and >spiritual - with America than with most EU >countries.

Harry, I think i have the solution. Pack your bags and fuck off to the 'land of the free and the brave' before comrade Aherne makes you marry a man. But before you go answer a few of my questions.

1 How many groups are affialiated to the The National Men's Council of Ireland?

2 When did you hold a national meeting and agree on the statement above?

3 Can a Homosexual Mens group affialiate to the NMCL? (not that they would wish to).

4. What position do you hold in the NMCL?

All of the above comments are my own opinions and are written as an individual and do not represent the views of the FMG.

by FGB Tue Nov 23, 2004 15:23

Tá ingearán dubh ag faoileáil thart timpeall an tí ar feadh trí lá. Tá scanradh orm. Céard a dhéanfas mé?

by Bean na dtrí gcos Tue Nov 23, 2004 22:39

Tá se in am dúinn bheith amuigh ar na dumhchannaí.

by Harry Rea - The National Men's Council of Ireland Wed Nov 24, 2004 02:01 hrea at eircom dot net

Thanks for your opinions Dave and you are right; I do have very strong beliefs in heterosexual Marriage.

Before I respond to you I have a number of prospects for you to think about based on the question:

How can a man be guaranteed a family of his own to be with?

1 Suppose he has a fling, a one-night stand that results in a child, what would his chances be to live with that child for life if his partner is a reasonable parent and does not want him to?

2 Suppose he lives with a woman, has a child with her and then she changes her mind. What would his chances be to live with that child for life if his partner is a reasonable parent and does not want him to?

3 Suppose the man considers his future and wishes to have a family, meets a woman who considers a future with him and they both agree to enter into a more stably and permanent relationship that they both understand supports them to rear a family but most importantly offers them both a Constitutionally protected status and ability to be with their family (For better or for worse, in sickness or in health…) A family that cannot be interfered with except by their own failings and an involvement with their children and their family home that cannot be curtailed by the wrongdoings of their spouse. What would his chances be to live with that child for life if his partner is a reasonable parent and does not want him to?

If your answers to the above are in the negative then the state has won, there is no more ‘family’ and the Constitution, which we now have, albeit illegally kept from us by the Family Court, will be wiped out.

More importantly, the one provision that now exists to allow a man to have a family will be eradicated and the slavery which is now part of unmarried father’s lives and which is being illegally and unconstitutionally forced on to Married fathers will become Law.

The final irony is that unmarried fathers, of whom it is said up to now have generally chosen not to give themselves into the stability of Marriage will, by their support of changes in the Constitution have shut the door on their only hope of the security that would be essential for them to be part of their children’s lives.

Who will have won then? and… What will they have won?

Your point that Ahern “might be a American style Republican” I think that some would reasonably argue that at least he is a hypocrite perhaps even a turncoat but hopefully his ‘John Kerry type Chameleon antics’ will provide him with similar just rewards when election time comes around.

Let’s be fair about the Irish presidential election fiasco and our democratically elected Taoiseach’s involvement in not having one! Your justification that Ahern was not responsible because the other parties played their part to prevent it as well is, well…a little bit off the mark. What would the Irish media have said about Bush if he had led a government that saw fit to disallow the American Presidential election? Don’t fool yourself Dave, this proposition does not require an answer.

As for your statement “the constitution that favours the mother of any children to be an automatic preference for custody” … Dave please, please buy a copy of the Irish Constitution (Eason’s €2.75?) and please, please read it.

Secondly Dave, There is nothing wrong with the Irish Constitution as far as Families are concerned but there is a great deal wrong with how it is being misquoted and misused, especially by the Family Law industry. Why don’t you read our “Parental Rights in Ireland, November 2004 - An Analysis” on our web page www.family-men.com . That’s the truth. You might not agree but you must have an informed opinion and if we are wrong then please tell us, we will certainly change what is said if you show us where we are wrong.

Your statement about automatic mother’s custody identifies that you have also found the Family Law system to be unjust; if so then it seems that we have a common enemy. We also say that any system that automatically eliminates fathers from their families also automatically removes the stabilising affect of both parents for their children’s lives and just as importantly forces the mothers to become dependent on the state and into conflict with the father and the children at some time or another is vile.

Most importantly, that system is acting in direct contradiction to the Irish Constitution, which expressly forbids the state from interfering in a Married family except where there is exceptional need.

Article 42.5
“In exceptional cases, where the parents for physical or moral reasons fail in their duty towards their children, the State as guardian of the common good, by appropriate means shall endeavour to supply the place of the parents, but always with due regard for the natural and imprescriptible rights of the child.”

The Irish Constitution exists for the sole purpose of protecting the people from the state.

There is something very important to be considered now. If the Irish people realise the power of their Constitution and fight back to stop the subversives in the state from trying to annihilate the Irish family which is based on Marriage and which is the only possible social family structure that is defendable against attack then the only children that would be available to homosexual partners will on the whole, have to come from lone parents or those who might be otherwise vulnerable.

Dave, marriage works! Take Domestic Violence for example. There are about 4% of people in relationships that inflict violence on each other or on the children in their care. From that 4% there is about 3% that apparently experience violence within Marriage. Now I do not mean 3% of the lot but 3% of the 4% or about 1.2 in a thousand. According to published statistics, of that 1.2 figure, the share is slightly more for wives when compared to their husbands. So now the figure becomes miniscule, not that it is not hugely important to eliminate by the proper use of statistics and criminal law, but that the amount of violence that is perpetrated within Marriage has been manoeuvred out of all proportions for some obviously sick reason.

What is most interesting was that we conducted a straw poll of people in both urban and rural areas around Ireland and found that 96% of Irish people would agree with marriage even in view of the fact that marriage is being attacked from all quarters. The people on the street know the truth.

Do you remember Gilbert O’Sullivan’s song ‘Marriage’… it went;

“I don’t wish to hurry you love but have you seen the time, its’ quarter to ten and we’re supposed to be there at nine…”

Let’s pray that this isn’t the “Ends in Alas!” he was talking about.

Harry Rea
Treasurer, National Men’s Council of Ireland
www.family-men.com

by Dave Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:28

Answer my questions Harry

by mr brown Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:55

this natural law of married family and God sounds very interesting, can you tell me was God in his natural human form as the Christ ( I presume you're one of those ) - married?
And if he wasn't married - why wasn't he?

by Lurkalot Thu Nov 25, 2004 02:18

Ah now, mr brown, don't be asking awkward questions. Harry has already avoided discussing the original question, which may I remind yiz all was "Should Ireland become the 51st State of America?".

Harry has not told us whether he thinks young Irishmen should be sent out to places like Iraq to do the dirty work for the thugs who rule America, because that would be the inevitable outcome of what he advocates. So how can he claim to represent the interests of Irish men?

Or is it that he did not take that issue into account when he thought up the title of his article? In which case he obviously does not have the foresight and analytical skills needed to give any type of leadership to the males of this country.
(or any other country for that matter)

by Eoger Eldridge - National Men's Council of Ireland Thu Nov 25, 2004 23:57 eldridgeandco at eircom dot net Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon 071-9667138

If I may I would like to comment on the development of this thread.

I am the Chairman of the National Men's Council of Ireland and when I saw the questions coming in I asked Harry if I could respond.

With the pressure of family commitments - including earning some money - it has been impossible to come in until now and if that has left a bit of a vacuum I apologise for that.

I must say I am a little alarmed at the tone of the responses to Harry's initial letter and especially since I asked him to desist from replying and let me reply. Some of the comments conjure up images of wolves circling a buck deer who is trying to defend his family or worse the all-too-often reality of a group of drunken thugs on a Saturday night - young men who have not had the benefit of being properly fathered - who round on a passer-by simply because he had the 'audacity' of walking along the same street as them but in the opposite direction.

Back in 2002 all the groups that represented men and fathers were invited to attend a series of meetings in Athlone and Galway to see if there was sufficient common ground for the groups to work together under a unified umbrella.

A line of division arose between two groupings.

The groups who formed the National Men's Council of Ireland saw the way forward by following the natural aspirations of men which is to take on the role of husbanding the family within the institution of Marriage. The Irish Constitution recognises this role as being for the common good and forces the state to respect the fathers position as head of the family. It seems natural therefore to support Marriage and the family founded on it.

We see non-feminist women as our allies and work closely with them in supporting and promoting the benefits of marriage to counter the outpourings of anti-marriage propaganda from the feminist media and the state. We see the family as a unit that provides enormous benefits for all its members and as the basis of any civilised society. We have conducted a straw poll in both urban and rural areas and found that 94% of both men and women in Ireland in 2004 are either currently married or aspire to be married at some time. We represent the perspective of those men.

The groups under the umbrella of the National Men's Council of Ireland consider themselves as protecting families, marriage, and parenting and naturally the role of men is central to this. There is a list of some of the participating organisations at the end of our Preliminary Report on the Family and Marriage in Ireland in 2003. (Downloadable from our website www.family-men.com.) History tells us that men have never organised themselves in order to obtain superior rights or benefits for themselves. Whenever men have successfully joined together it has always been altruistically for the benefit of the dependent women and children of society.

It is difficult and somewhat presumptuous to speak for the remaining men's groups who were reluctant to follow our route. My impression was that they found it difficult to accept that marriage had benefits for them and so rejected it and because they appeared to be more interested in obtaining rights for men as separate individuals to their families. Some of the group's formed under the banner of the very similar name of the Men's Council of Ireland which has caused some confusion. The fairest thing to do is to visit their website where they can explain their position.

The work we have done since 2002 has mostly taken the path of researching into the legal basis for how and why the state has sought to undermine the institution of Marriage and create a phoney war between the sexes. This work has uncovered some remarkable facts and also started to reveal the identities of those who are engaged in this subversion.

Can I also say, on a personal note, to the men reading this that the law of averages suggests that sooner or later (perhaps already) you will meet a woman who will mean more to you than all the rest and you will want to share your life with her. You will hope that she feels the same and you will desperately want her to be faithful. The trouble here is that so many young people today are persuaded by Marxism/feminism and mimic the Bolshevik dream of "free love" in the hope of fulfilling their empty lives.

However if you are really really lucky your loved woman will decide (yes she decides) that she wants to have a child and please God she will want to share the joys and tribulations of his crying and smiling and puking and fumblings and first steps with you and you will then realise that you have finally discovered your only true purpose in life, why you exist at all on this planet.

And doubtless every day you will make the sacrifice that fathers have always made of leaving the comfort of their own home and the warmth and company of their loved ones in order that they might better protect them from the harsh realities of life.

And then you will perhaps, like many fathers today have your love and devotion wiped out at a stroke and you will be told you no longer have the right to protect your child. Told by a state who has such a poor record of caring for children that it is already paying out millions in compensation - and the real claims haven't even started yet.

I have six beautiful children. I was there when each and every one of them was born, helping them into this world. I have no intention now or ever of giving up my duty to care for my children with all my heart and strength and love.

The men who make up the National Men's Council of Ireland are as passionate about their families as me and because of this commitment we work 24 hours a day seven days a week in order that our children will have a future and men like you will be able to have a secure family life.

For that to be realised you need to know the truth about what the state is doing to destroy any chance of that happening.

I suggest that if you go to our website www.family-men.com you will increase manyfold, for your future wife and children, the chances that they will enjoy the benefits of having a family man like you in their life to protect them.

Roger Eldridge,
Chairman. National Men's Council of Ireland,
Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon
Www.family-men.com
Tel: 00 353 (0) 071-9667138 email: eldridgeandco@eircom.net

***


A man who wants a family must find a woman who will promise him her sexual
loyalty {through marriage} and he must live in a society which will
guarantee this loyalty by assuring him that he cannot be deprived of his
children at her pleasure — that she cannot play her Motherhood Card while he
is prevented from playing his Money Card.

The stability of society requires that males shall be induced to accept
responsibility for the support of two-parent families and the socializing of
children within them.

But in the feminist scenario, where women are “unchained,” the marriage
contract gives men no reproductive rights and when the contract is annulled
the law rivets chains on him.

THE CASE FOR FATHER CUSTODY by Daniel Amneus, Ph.D.; pp 316. (Full book available to download from the Reference Library section of our website www.family-men.com )

by open debate Fri Nov 26, 2004 05:14

"Some of the comments conjure up images of wolves circling a buck deer who is trying to defend his family or worse the all-too-often reality of a group of drunken thugs on a Saturday night - young men who have not had the benefit of being properly fathered - who round on a passer-by simply because he had the 'audacity' of walking along the same street as them but in the opposite direction."

Now that is stretching it a bit. Harry published an article and other people asked questions and put forward conflicting positions. If you look at some of the other articles on this public forum you will see much more vigorous debate, the responses on this thread have been quite mild in comparision. I think you are exaggerating by claiming that Harry is being victimised.

As for your question "May I join this thread?", obviously ANYONE can join this discussion - you (or anyone else) do not need the permission of Harry or anyone. Feel welcome to put your positions, but remember other people have the right to question those positions and put their own theories forward.

Comparing legitimate opponents to "wolves" and "drunken thugs" is a bullying tactic. That attitude indicates that you just want to sermonise without other people having the right to reply, in which case you have chosen the wrong place. Welcome to the adult world.

by MJ Fri Nov 26, 2004 06:08

bullying tactics - The reality:
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=67645

by David C. Tue Nov 30, 2004 06:02

Good on ya Harry/Roger!!!

Troll of the year, i'd say!!

by pate Fri Dec 03, 2004 12:38

As long as we get american passports it will be cool with me!

by Linda Vaitkus Wed Nov 08, 2006 19:48 linda_vaitkus at yahoo dot com PO Box 692564; Quincy, MA 02269 617-346-1299

I agree with the proposition of including Ireland as a US state. It just makes sense. The Irish population has added value to my community and I often have found myself joking that I live in "County Quincy" ... That's Quincy, Massachusetts! We are one, and have been for decades, and it would set a precedent for other nations who may act the same. My parents were immigrants from Lithuania, and are the best example of Americans I know! Cheers to Ireland becoming a US state! But let's be clear, this would need to be voted upon by the Irish. It should not be a "neo-Communist" takeover. It should be by free will of the Irish people. You cannot own people, you know? As much as you love the Irish -- you can never own the Irish!