The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

Timberrrrrrrr

Black Menorca wrote: »

I revere Our Lord Jesus Christ, Mary the Mother of God, the Community of Saints and Pope Francis as our Shepherd on Earth.

But the Church are carried out grave wrongs that should be completely uncovered and amends made, as I have continuously stated on other, Christian based, forums.

So how should we force them to give up this information about adopted children's biological parents? Heavy fines? Seize land and buildings and other assets?

Black Menorca

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you on a phone and so did not see my bolding of your comments? I'll repost the quote with only the bolded included.

The Pandora's Box I refer to is future children being denied access to their biological mother and father to accommodate an adults right to marriage.

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

Yes, the risk is too great. Unfortunately the Govt has left us in this limbo.

If surrogacy had been sorted in legislation, I may well be voting Yes today.

so you're going to vote No to same-sex marriage to stop same-sex couples availing of surrogacy, even though there is no law currently to stop a civil partnered couple from avail of it?

That makes zero sense.

Black Menorca

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So how should we force them to give up this information about adopted children's biological parents? Heavy fines? Seize land and buildings and other assets?

its not al about the money you know. Especially to an abundantly organisation like the Catholic Church.

Moral pressure is far more effective I think.

Black Menorca

Black Menorca wrote: »

The Pandora's Box I refer to is future children being denied access to their biological mother and father to accommodate an adults right to marriage.

Okay, so are we now parking/disregarding the other appeals to tradition? That marriage has been between men and women only, and so should remain that way?

Are these appeals no longer forming part of your opposition to SSM?

Black Menorca

SW wrote: »

so you're going to vote No to same-sex marriage to stop same-sex couples availing of surrogacy, even though there is no law currently to stop a civil partnered couple from avail of it?

That makes zero sense.

If surrogacy were already banned, this wouldn't be an issue for many No voters today.

Black Menorca

Deleted User wrote: »

Okay, so are we now parking/disregarding the other appeals to tradition? That marriage has been between men and women only, and so should remain that way?

Are these appeals no longer forming part of your opposition to SSM?

Oh they most definitely play their part.

But I would probably have been open minded enough to allow the right to marriage be extended, despite my feelings on the tradition.

Frank Bullitt

Black Menorca wrote: »

If surrogacy were already banned, this wouldn't be an issue for many No voters today.

People aren't voting on surrogacy today, in case you were wondering.

Black Menorca

Gintonious wrote: »

People aren't voting on surrogacy today, in case you were wondering.

Correct. But that fact that the surrogacy is looming in the shadows means many voted No, who possible would have voted Yes otherwise.

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

If surrogacy were already banned, this wouldn't be an issue for many No voters today.

Voting Yes or No has no bearing on laws that don't exist.

Black Menorca

SW wrote: »

Voting Yes or No has no bearing on laws that don't exist.

Alas there is enough uncertainty out there to convince people it best to vote No.

I still expect the vote to carry by the way.

Not a NSA agent

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Have you been lobbying the Catholic church that you so revere to release the information about adopted childrens biological parents that they have refused to release for decades? If not then your hypocrisy is showing through.

Thats the odd thing about these groups. They all of a sudden invented this right to have your biological mother and father since gay people decided to get married. Nothing has been said for the years of same sex couples raising children or when the organisation they're tied to drags their feet over releasing such information.

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

Alas there is enough uncertainty out there to convince people it best to vote No.

I still expect the vote to carry by the way.

but that means they're just being scared into voting No, which is incredibly disappointing.

Frank Bullitt

Black Menorca wrote: »

Correct. But that fact that the surrogacy is looming in the shadows means many voted No, who possible would have voted Yes otherwise.

Which is precisely the point. Its an unrelated issue, but it used by the No campaign to bolster their position. I guess when you don't have a real reason to vote No, you will make up issues.

Black Menorca

SW wrote: »

but that means they're just being scared into voting No, which is incredibly disappointing.

And to top it off some individuals abuse them and pigeon hole them as being backward, homophobic bigots.

Sad indeed.

Black Menorca

Gintonious wrote: »

Which is precisely the point. Its an unrelated issue, but it used by the No campaign to bolster their position. I guess when you don't have a real reason to vote No, you will make up issues.

We all have our reasons.

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

And to top it off some individuals abuse them and pigeon hole them as being backward, homophobic bigots.

Sad indeed.

Which isn't right. But that doesn't mean that voting out of fear of same-sex marriage is the right response.

People should get informed and vote with some level of reasoning rather than fear.

Frank Bullitt

Black Menorca wrote: »

We all have our reasons.

I know, and of course you are entitled to vote whatever way you want. But for honesty sake, don't masquerade behind surrogacy, children, redefining marriage etc, just be open about it.

Timberrrrrrrr

Black Menorca wrote: »

its not al about the money you know. Especially to an abundantly organisation like the Catholic Church.

Moral pressure is far more effective I think.

Well it hasn't worked so let's hit em where it hurts, if it's not about money then why have the plate out at every chance to get money? You are all for forcing parents of adopted children to give this information so let's start with the biggest offenders first.

Black Menorca

Gintonious wrote: »

I know, and of course you are entitled to vote whatever way you want. But for honesty sake, don't masquerade behind surrogacy, children, redefining marriage etc, just be open about it.

Are you saying I have another reason?

Black Menorca

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Well it hasn't worked so let's hit em where it hurts, if it's not about money then why have the plate out at every chance to get money? You are all for forcing parents of adopted children to give this information so let's start with the biggest offenders first.

Keep tilting at those windmills, Don.

Timberrrrrrrr

Black Menorca wrote: »

Keep tilting at those windmills, Don.

Yeah


Something told me you wouldn't be a fan of punishing the CC.

Black Menorca

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Yeah


Something told me you wouldn't be a fan of punishing the CC.

I'll tel you what. Draft up the legislation and I'll give it the once over for you.

aloyisious

Black Menorca wrote: »

So if there is a No result tomorrow, you will continue to advocate, within the law, for Gay Marriage?

Good for you. I'd expect nothing less.

Absolutely I'd continue to advocate for the right to marriage equality in law between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, so they'd equally have the right to marry the person they love, regardless of their partners gender, if (and that look's to be unlikely) the 34th amendment failed to be voted into the constitution by us.

Peculiarly enough, I've become a dyed-in-the-wool person due to what Iona and it's mushrooming number of groupies have done to our country. They've probably us some service, by unifying us to defend the citizen and country from returning to the dark ages, before the 80's and 90's, of religious zealotry. Never again.....

Now please excuse me while I get back to my Friday meal of fish and chips, none of that meat on Friday stuff for me..........

Michael OBrien

Black Menorca wrote: »

If surrogacy were already banned, this wouldn't be an issue for many No voters today.

that is nothing but circular reasoning. Of course if something did not exist, it would not be a cause for dispute. The issue is that it should not be a cause for dispute in the first place, when talking about this referendum.

Frank Bullitt

Black Menorca wrote: »

Are you saying I have another reason?

Not at all, but if the referendum has zero to do with what I mentioned, then its obviously another reason...

Black Menorca

aloyisious wrote: »

Absolutely I'd continue to advocate for the right to marriage equality in law between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, so they'd equally have the right to marry the person they love, regardless of their partners gender, if (and that look's to be unlikely) the 34th amendment failed to be voted into the constitution by us.

Peculiarly enough, I've become a dyed-in-the-wool person due to what Iona and it's mushrooming number of groupies have done to our country. They've probably us some service, by unifying us to defend the citizen and country from returning to the dark ages, before the 80's and 90's, of religious zealotry. Never again.....

Now please excuse me while I get back to my Friday meal of fish and chips, none of that meat on Friday stuff for me..........

Can't beat fish n' chip on a Friday night.

You might be more Catholic than you think.

Black Menorca

Gintonious wrote: »

Not at all, but if the referendum has zero to do with what I mentioned, then its obviously another reason...

What is this mystery reason you think I'm hiding from you?

Frank Bullitt

Black Menorca wrote: »

What is this mystery reason you think I'm hiding from you?

I couldn't care less to be honest, but i'll hazard a guess its a faith-based reason, which to me lacks any serious thought or consideration to it.

Black Menorca

Gintonious wrote: »

I couldn't care less to be honest, but i'll hazard a guess its a faith-based reason, which to me lacks any serious thought or consideration to it.

So you're projecting a mystery reason for my No vote, for the heck of it. OK.

:rolleyes: