How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

Ave Sodalis

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Here is Kate Bopp's husband agreeing with someone that nobody can love a child as much as it's birth mother. This just shows you what they think of adoptive mothers and also fathers Who'd do anything for there kids.

Also seriously undermines the children who come from abusive homes...

smash

LordNorbury wrote: »

If I was in your situation, I'd be very wary of the fact that my child will at some stage want to reach out and find it's biological other parent.

This is not true, it's just your assumption. And donor eggs OR sperm means that the child will be with at least 1 of it's biological parents.

Bannasidhe

LordNorbury wrote: »

I'm straight, I'm single, I would love to have kids, but I have the grace to accept that it hasn't happened for me. I genuinely don't get the obsession people these days have with having children. If I was in your situation, I'd be very wary of the fact that my child will at some stage want to reach out and find it's biological other parent.

None of this has anything to do with marriage be it same-sex or not.

kunst nugget

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Here is Kate Bopp's husband agreeing with someone that nobody can love a child as much as it's birth mother. This just shows you what they think of adoptive mothers and also fathers Who'd do anything for there kids.

That guy's an utter dipstick. He's been a comment troll on facebook on all the major Irish papers over the last couple of weeks on any article vaguely to do with gay marriage.

AtomicHorror

LordNorbury wrote: »

I'm voting no, there ya go, I just said it! Not a bigot, not a homophobe, not a practicing Catholic,

There's no assumption here that you're any of these things, but isn't it possible you've misunderstood something? Maybe we can convince you.

LordNorbury wrote: »

just think that children is EVERYTHING to do with marriage, and equating a family with two fathers, or two mothers, to a family where the child is being raised by its biological parents, is one of the silliest things I have ever heard.

In your view, how would a yes vote "equate" one kind of family with another? They're clearly different kinds of family, no argument there. That's not going to change if we vote yes.

The referendum is about ensuring that these different kinds of families (which already exist in Ireland) cannot be treated differently by the law, so that the children, for example, don't find themselves legally orphaned if just one parent dies.

LordNorbury wrote: »

And the yes folks banging on like raging lunatics that this referendum has NOTHING to do with children, that's just a downright insane argument to ask anyone to believe and trying to argue otherwise in my eyes has discredited everything about the yes campaign.

It has a bit to do with children, but the reason why the yes campaigners often lose patience over this line of discussion is because of the implication often made that the referendum has some baring on adoption or surrogacy. It doesn't, as both pathways will be open to homosexuals and transgender people regardless of the outcome of the referendum.

LordNorbury wrote: »

It is also ridiculous that this forum, where I am anonymous, is the only place I can state these genuinely held views without invoking bile and rage down on top of myself, such is the level aggression that is fueling the yes campaign.

It's an emotive issue. Try to imagine yourself in a society where your marriage is considered to be either less than other people's or even possibly invalid entirely. Now put that revelation at the end of decades of having people tell you that sleeping with people of the opposite sex is sick and wrong. Imagine if the dominant religion in the country considered you to be a sinner, and preached (oh-so-generously) that you were to be pitied for your corruption and that people shouldn't hate you but should be disgusted by your sins.

Anyway, if you're going to vote a particular way because the other path seems to be dominated by pushy or aggressive people, you're not making a rational choice, you're being contrary. Whatever way you do vote, don't make it about the personalities of those on either side.

LordNorbury wrote: »

I've tried looking at this from every single angle and there is just no way I can see how giving gay people the right to a recognition of their family within our constitution, makes one single iota of sense.

We already agree as a society that all people have the right to procreate. The right to raise children is subject to some conditions. We already agree as a society that consenting adults may engage in whatever sexual and romantic relationships they wish. As a consequence of these rights, families now exist in which children are being raised by homosexual couples. These are already subject to the child-rearing conditions already mentioned, which can result in the right being denied in some cases. So we now have a situation where children are being raised in families which can be dismantled under the law just as any family can, but which are given fewer protections under the law as a counterbalance.

If your concern is for the children, that ought to be reason enough to vote yes.

LordNorbury wrote: »

This is about the selfish need of people who cannot, as a matter of human design, ever create children within their own relationship, wanting to turn nature and biology on its head and demand that they can not just have children, (and they can), but then demand that we now recognise them on the very same terms as a family that can procreate and create children from within their own relationship, and not just that, but that we now give them constitutional protection as well? Seriously?!? If it wasn't such a serious matter it would be hilarious.

Why do you consider the desire to procreate to be selfish when one cannot do it naturally, but not selfish when one can?

Other animal species display both homosexual behaviour and same-sex child-rearing groups, so while heterosexual pairings are more common, it's not really correct to say that homosexual couples or same-sex child rearing is turning nature on its head. Aside from this, turning nature on it's head is an argument against almost everything that humans do, from IVF to air travel, so it doesn't really get us anywhere.

Huntergonzo

LordNorbury wrote: »

I've tried looking at this from every single angle and there is just no way I can see how giving gay people the right to a recognition of their family within our constitution, makes one single iota of sense.

Why, are they lesser human beings than you are? Why have you got the right to recognition but homosexuals don't?

paperclip2

LordNorbury wrote: »

I'm straight, I'm single, I would love to have kids, but I have the grace to accept that it hasn't happened for me. I genuinely don't get the obsession people these days have with having children. If I was in your situation, I'd be very wary of the fact that my child will at some stage want to reach out and find it's biological other parent.

Why? It happens all the time with adoption. Or do you think that being a parent means you get exclusive rights to dictate what your child will choose to do in life. If so then your view of parenting needs a little work. Hypothetically If I have done my job correctly then I would never need to fear my child looking for his biological heritage. Also has nowt to do with SSM.

LordNorbury

bruschi wrote: »

well gay people can currently adopt under legislation right now, so this vote has nothing to do with children as the constitution has already covered that point. so you're no vote has no consequence on the reason you profess.

secondly, how is it not considered to be homophobic that you think gay people raising children is hilarious, silly, selfish? Why are you better than a gay person? Why is their sexuality a precursor to their ability to raise children?

Also, your point about turning nature and biology on its head, does that go for heterosexual people who cannot procreate? would you call those people selfish for wanting to have kids but use modern scientific advances to have a family? And if not, why not, considering you think its selfish for gay people to want to have kids.

you absolutely have your right for your opinion and your vote, but you are totally misguided in your logic for voting no

I'm not "better" than any gay person. In a union with someone of the opposite sex, I possess the ability to conceive human life that will be descended from me and the partner I conceive that child with and I believe that is what we should be ideally aiming for as a family unit and as the basic building block of society. I that singular respect, I am very different from a gay person or couple who can never conceive a child with their partner. There is no getting away from this!!!

A child has never been born on this earth since time began, that hasn't had a biological mother and a father, that's a major statement and the yes campaign are so caught up in their own bullshít, that they can't see that playing around with childrens lives like this, people want to be able to debate this and raise their concerns and "ta for gra" and "yes for equality", it just doesn't cut it!

This is how fúcked up this campaign has gone, that unless you are wearing some badge with a "yes for equality" on it, that you have no right to raise concerns, that you have no right to say you might well vote no, it's the worst type of personality cult type group think I have ever seen emerge in this country.

kunst nugget

LordNorbury wrote: »

Single parents have NOTHING to do with this debate! Any single parents I know, serious regret that they are single parents, they wish their family unit was still intact. They will openly admit that their partner let them down and their life is a financial struggle since they became single parents and that the job of them raising their children would be a lot easier if their relationship had not broken down. But in any event single parents have absolutely NOTHING to do with the SSM debate.

Let's face it though, if this referendum is only about parenting then we're going to have to sort out the single parents. I reckon we start a DNA database and we can match up the kids to the parents and do some sort of enforced matrimony. I'm kind of at a loss at the moment what to do with dead parents though but we'll figure something out.

I have friends that are 'married' but don't have kids. Should I tell them that if they're not going to bother popping out the sprogs, they should hand back in the marriage licence?

Ave Sodalis

LordNorbury wrote: »

I'm not "better" than any gay person. In a union with someone of the opposite sex, I possess the ability to conceive human life that will be descended from me and the partner I conceive that child with and I believe that is what we should be ideally aiming for as a family unit and as the basic building block of society. I that singular respect, I am very different from a gay person or couple who can never conceive a child with their partner. There is no getting away from this!!!

A child has never been born on this earth since time began, that hasn't had a biological mother and a father, that's a major statement and the yes campaign are so caught up in their own bullshít, that they can't see that playing around with childrens lives like this, people want to be able to debate this and raise their concerns and "ta for gra" and "yes for equality", it just doesn't cut it!

This is how fúcked up this campaign has gone, that unless you are wearing some badge with a "yes for equality" on it, that you have no right to raise concerns, that you have no right to say you might well vote no, it's the worst type of personality cult type group think I have ever seen emerge in this country.

But what you're saying isn't relevant to this referendum! Do you know what you are voting on?

folamh

5th May-page0001.jpg

I took 5 minutes to compile a very basic flyer reminding people to register to vote by 5th May. Feel free to print and distribute.

sjb25

LordNorbury wrote: »

are so caught up in their own bullshít,.

Cough cough pot kettle black:rolleyes:

jobbridge4life

LordNorbury wrote: »

it's the worst type of personality cult type group think I have ever seen emerge in this country.

dfd.PNG

aloyisious

PutDownArtist wrote: »

No amount of internet bullying will make me vote yes.:o

Brown envelope????

LordNorbury

kunst nugget wrote: »

Let's face it though, if this referendum is only about parenting then we're going to have to sort out the single parents. I reckon we start a DNA database and we can match up the kids to the parents and do some sort of enforced matrimony. I'm kind of at a loss at the moment what to do with dead parents though but we'll figure something out.

I have friends that are 'married' but don't have kids. Should I tell them that if they're not going to bother popping out the sprogs, they should hand back in the marriage licence?

In some respects you are actually right, enforced matrimony is clearly a stupid idea, but yes, there are thousands and thousands of fathers out there who have fathered children and contribute absolutely nothing to the upbringing of children that they fathered, and this is a burden to the taxpayer who steps in and pays their liability for them. But what have single mothers got to do with SSM??? As I said, single mothers I know hate the fact that they ended up being single mothers and where the father is not involved in their kids lives, they hate that more than anything else.

ohnonotgmail

LordNorbury wrote: »

I'm not "better" than any gay person. In a union with someone of the opposite sex, I possess the ability to conceive human life that will be descended from me and the partner I conceive that child with and I believe that is what we should be ideally aiming for as a family unit and as the basic building block of society. I that singular respect, I am very different from a gay person or couple who can never conceive a child with their partner. There is no getting away from this!!!

A child has never been born on this earth since time began, that hasn't had a biological mother and a father, that's a major statement and the yes campaign are so caught up in their own bullshít, that they can't see that playing around with childrens lives like this, people want to be able to debate this and raise their concerns and "ta for gra" and "yes for equality", it just doesn't cut it!

This is how fúcked up this campaign has gone, that unless you are wearing some badge with a "yes for equality" on it, that you have no right to raise concerns, that you have no right to say you might well vote no, it's the worst type of personality cult type group think I have ever seen emerge in this country.

perhaps you could try listening to what people are telling you. this referendum will have not have an effect on children's lives. that has already been legislated for. whether this referendum is passed or not there will be gay couples with children. and nothing you can do will change that.

Neyite

LordNorbury wrote: »

I'm straight, I'm single, I would love to have kids, but I have the grace to accept that it hasn't happened for me. I genuinely don't get the obsession people these days have with having children. If I was in your situation, I'd be very wary of the fact that my child will at some stage want to reach out and find it's biological other parent.

You appear to know little about clinical donor processes, because its anonymous by default. Its not like I can borrow an egg from my neighbour like a cup of sugar you know.

If I was raising a child that biologically belonged to one or neither of us, I would be open and honest with them in an age appropriate way from an appropriate age. Secrecy surrounding parentage and birth is hugely damaging to a child, as evidenced by the thousands of forced, concealed and secret adoptions in our recent history.

Ave Sodalis

LordNorbury wrote: »

As I said, single mothers I know hate the fact that they ended up being single mothers and where the father is not involved in their kids lives, they hate that more than anything else.

Single mothers I know wouldn't go back to the father of their children for any amount of money. They broke up for a reason.

Please stop making this about the children when it's not.

AtomicHorror

LordNorbury wrote: »

I'm not "better" than any gay person. In a union with someone of the opposite sex, I possess the ability to conceive human life that will be descended from me and the partner I conceive that child with and I believe that is what we should be ideally aiming for as a family unit and as the basic building block of society.

Why? If that building block is consistently better than other building blocks then I concede the point, but the evidence shows that the traditional family unit has a very, very wide spread in terms of quality. Some solid blocks, some very fragile.

By comparison, it appears that adoptive families have less variability. These building blocks tend to be more consistently solid.

The research suggests that a similar rule holds for same-sex parent families, mostly due to the tight control over adoption.

So why is building block type A to be the standard unit of society?

LordNorbury wrote: »

A child has never been born on this earth since time began, that hasn't had a biological mother and a father, that's a major statement and the yes campaign are so caught up in their own bullshít, that they can't see that playing around with childrens lives like this, people want to be able to debate this and raise their concerns and "ta for gra" and "yes for equality", it just doesn't cut it!

Everyone knows that all children have a biological mother and father. What does that mean?

LordNorbury wrote: »

This is how fúcked up this campaign has gone, that unless you are wearing some badge with a "yes for equality" on it, that you have no right to raise concerns, that you have no right to say you might well vote no, it's the worst type of personality cult type group think I have ever seen emerge in this country.

Not quite. You have no right to raise concerns unchallenged. That has always been true.

kunst nugget

LordNorbury wrote: »

In some respects you are actually right, enforced matrimony is clearly a stupid idea, but yes, there are thousands and thousands of fathers out there who have fathered children and contribute absolutely nothing to the upbringing of children that they fathered, and this is a burden to the taxpayer who steps in and pays their liability for them. But what have single mothers got to do with SSM??? As I said, single mothers I know hate the fact that they ended up being single mothers and where the father is not involved in their kids lives, they hate that more than anything else.

Because of the children, LordNorbury. Obviously single parents are as bad as gay people who marry because even if the gay couple don't want to have kids they're depriving the hypothetical children that they might have no interest in having of at least one of their natural parents. That's why I'm determined to ban single parents after we get rid of gay marriage.

Neyite

LordNorbury wrote: »

In some respects you are actually right, enforced matrimony is clearly a stupid idea, but yes, there are thousands and thousands of fathers out there who have fathered children and contribute absolutely nothing to the upbringing of children that they fathered, and this is a burden to the taxpayer who steps in and pays their liability for them. But what have single mothers got to do with SSM??? As I said, single mothers I know hate the fact that they ended up being single mothers and where the father is not involved in their kids lives, they hate that more than anything else.

I dunno. But you started it by saying there should be a man and a woman as parents.

One eyed Jack

LordNorbury wrote: »

YES I HAVE!!! What are you trying to argue here? A heterosexual couple, save in the case of infertility, which might not even be a disability, it could simply be down to the age of the mother, can conceive children. A gay couple can't. A straight couple who decide not to have kids, or cannot have kids, or are too old to have kids, how do you take those facts concerning a straight couple and them supplant them straight into an SSM debate to argue that people who can simple never conceive their own children by virtue of their same sex, can act as if they are a family and now want the constitution to say so?!? It's nothing short of ridiculous in my opinion.

I'll try and make it simpler for you. These are the legal prerequisites for entering into marriage in Ireland as it currently stands -

Rules:

To contract a legally valid marriage in Ireland the parties to the marriage must:

• have the capacity to marry each other
  
• freely consent to the marriage. Free consent may be absent if, at the time of the marriage, a person is suffering from intoxication, brain damage, mental disability, mental instability or insanity to the extent that he/she is not able to understand the implications of marriage. Additionally, if someone agrees to marry because of threats or intimidation, his/her apparent consent may also be invalid and the marriage may be void.
  
• observe the necessary formalities

Capacity to marry:


To be legally entitled to marry, both of you must fulfil all of the following requirements at the time the marriage takes place. Both parties must:

• Be over 18 years of age or have a Court Exemption Order if this is not the case.
• Have given the Registrar three months notification of the marriage (or have a Court Exemption Order if this is not the case) and have been issued by the Registrar with a Marriage Registration Form.
• Be either single, widowed, divorced, a former civil partner of a civil partnership that ended through death or dissolution, or have had a civil annulment of a marriage or civil partnership or a valid foreign divorce or dissolution.
• Be of opposite sexes - for legal purposes, a person's gender is deemed to be the one he/she had at birth, even if he/she subsequently had medical procedures to alter his/her gender.
• Have the mental capacity to understand the nature of marriage
• Not be related by blood or marriage to a degree that prohibits you in law from marrying each other. If you are related to your proposed spouse by blood or by marriage, you should contact a solicitor to ensure that you do not fall within the prohibited degree of relationship. (See "Further information" below on prohibited degrees.

If either party doesn't fulfil even one of the above requirements, any subsequent marriage ceremony is legally void.


Now, in the above conditions, there is no legal prerequisite that requires that a couple have the ability to procreate in order to enter into marriage. There is no onus on a couple to have children in order to be recognised as a family. A couple are recognised as a family once they are married, whether they have children or not. That is the current constitutional position. Children are not a requirement nor condition of marriage and they are neither a requirement nor a condition in order for a couple to be recognised as a family by the State.

The only condition or criteria that is to be decided upon in this referendum is whether we should insert an amendment into the constitution to amend one of the conditions of marriage that says the two parties must be of the opposite sex in order to meet the criteria for civil marriage.

If this referendum is passed, then couples of the same sex will have the option of entering into civil marriage, and therefore be legally recognised as a family by the State, and they still will not be required to reproduce.

This referendum is about allowing more people to enter into civil marriage. It has nothing to do with a couple's reproductive capabilities. Nobody has to ask for the right to reproduce, they can do that already with or without this referendum being passed, and this referendum will have no bearing on that.

Smiles35

aloyisious wrote: »

Brown envelope????

compo!

sjb25

sup_dude wrote: »

Single mothers I know wouldn't go back to the father of their children for any amount of money. They broke up for a reason.

Please stop making this about the children when it's not.

I know a father despite a child being the image of the chap he says it's not his and the mothers is a tramp yet he won't go get a DNA test to make sure so how people think that child would be better with a prick like that for a father because he is biologically. Rather than say a loving gay couple or his mother who is a single mother and is bring him up is beyond me well I know what it is a loads bollocks......

eviltwin

I am fcuking sick of hearing about children's rights like children are the only ones who matter in this debate. Everyone matters but if kids are so important don't kids of gay couples have the right to say the parents are married just like those of straight couples do? Has anyone even spoken to the kids of gay couples and asked if they would like to see their parents marry? I imagine most of them would be supporting a yes vote.

seamus

LordNorbury wrote: »

A child has never been born on this earth since time began, that hasn't had a biological mother and a father

I'm confused.

You seem to be under the impression that allowing same-sex marriage within our own social constructs is going to somehow fundamentally alter our biology.

Please elaborate.

Maximus Alexander

LordNorbury wrote: »

I'm not "better" than any gay person. In a union with someone of the opposite sex, I possess the ability to conceive human life that will be descended from me and the partner I conceive that child with and I believe that is what we should be ideally aiming for as a family unit and as the basic building block of society. I that singular respect, I am very different from a gay person or couple who can never conceive a child with their partner. There is no getting away from this!!!

Would you be in favour of state imposed fertility tests as a pre-requisite for marriage then? I suspect I won't be answered.

OldNotWIse

LordNorbury wrote: »

Single parents have NOTHING to do with this debate! Any single parents I know, serious regret that they are single parents, they wish their family unit was still intact. They will openly admit that their partner let them down and their life is a financial struggle since they became single parents and that the job of them raising their children would be a lot easier if their relationship had not broken down. But in any event single parents have absolutely NOTHING to do with the SSM debate.

My godson's mother is a single mother. She left the father of the child when her baby was a week old. He was in a temper with her because, at 8 - 9 months pregnant, she didn't really want to have sex with him. He kicked her in the stomach and induced labour. Her child could have died. She could have died. She bled so much that when I visited the next day there was still blood in her hair. In the hospital she cried for her mother. He pretended he couldn't get through to her mother on the phone. He attacked the nurse for agreeing to give her pain relief because he wanted her to feel the natural pain of birth. He attacked her when she didn't want to have sex five days after birth. Her baby was on the bed beside her at the time.








































































She really regrets being a single parent and wishes her family unit was still intact.

Blahblah2012

Considering one father doesn't have equal rights as a parent....it's laughable to be looking at the rights of 2....only in Ireland!!!!

Without doubt...the cart before the horse

smash

OldNotWIse wrote: »

My godson's mother is a single mother. She left the father of the child when her baby was a week old. He was in a temper with her because, at 8 months pregnant, she didn't really want to have sex with him. He kicked her in the stomach and induced labour. Her child could have died. She could have died. She bled so much that when I visited the next day there was still blood in her hair. In the hospital she cried for her mother. He pretended he couldn't get through to her mother on the phone. He attacked the nurse for agreeing to give her pain relief because he wanted her to feel the natural pain of birth. He attacked her when she didn't want to have sex five days after birth. Her baby was on the bed beside her at the time.

That's horrific