Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Fidelma Healy Eames at it again. Claims SSM might mean that Mother's Day is banned!

Options
1…78101213…16

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    Realt Dearg Sec
    Registered Users Posts: 10,863 ✭✭✭✭Realt Dearg Sec


    bjork wrote: »

    I will inbreeding cause problems in a few generations?

    No.


  • Options
    #273
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    Eh no, don't get your point there at all, you don't seem to get the concept of an ideal family model and simple biology seems to be going over your head here. Infertile heterosexual couples, they are actually built to procreate, in terms of their biology and their opposite genders, although due to a medical disability or issue that causes a difficulty when it comes to the ability of that same couple to procreate, they are unable to have children. That is a different thing entirely from a homosexual couple wanting to have children, but at the same time their union or relationship, by virtue of them being of the same gender, specifically prohibits procreation on any level whatsoever..

    It makes fuck all difference, because inability to have children is an inability to have children.
    LordNorbury wrote:
    It is well known that women and men, or fathers and mothers, they bring different things to the table when it comes to rearing children, different skills, different experiences, different perspectives, that while often different, still compliment each other to create a well rounded child.

    Two people bring different experiences. This has nothing to do with gay marriage.
    LordNorbury wrote:
    A child having two mothers or two fathers, have we really thought any of this out at all? The truth is that no we haven't, because we are being bombarded with this mantra now where everyone has to be equal and if people are not equal then there is a profound wrong of some sort taking place.

    This has nothing to do with the gay marriage referendum.


  • Options
    #274
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    reprise wrote: »
    If it wasn't relevant, you should have stopped where you said so.

    Just trying to assist you in your quest for an education. You're welcome.


  • Options
    #275
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    Can't blame the gays if you will inbreeding.

    No but nobody will know who they genetically related to and won't know if they are sleeping with someone closely related


  • Options
    #276
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    bjork wrote: »
    No but nobody will know who they genetically related to and won't know if they are sleeping with someone closely related

    I don't realise you were running on an anti-adoption platform.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    LordNorbury wrote: »

    It is well known that women and men, or fathers and mothers, they bring different things to the table when it comes to rearing children, different skills, different experiences, different perspectives, that while often different, still compliment each other to create a well rounded child.

    Actually, this is well known. However, it's a well known myth. As in, it's not not true. In fact it's been disproven on a number of occasions.


  • Options
    #278
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Shrap wrote: »
    Just trying to assist you in your quest for an education. You're welcome.

    I wasn't looking to be schooled in ignorance, thanks anyway. :)


  • Options
    #279
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    bjork wrote: »
    No but nobody will know who they genetically related to and won't know if they are sleeping with someone closely related

    Meh, we'll just do like Iceland and start using an inbreeding app.


  • Options
    #280
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Sonics2k wrote: »
    Actually, this is well known. However, it's a well known myth. As in, it's not not true. In fact it's been disproven on a number of occasions.

    Maybe he has a point. The only people who should be allowed to raise children are 2 people of different race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, social class, education to ensure the most is brought to the table.


  • Options
    #281
    LordNorbury
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭LordNorbury


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Regardless of your views on gay couples having kids, you've been told over and over, it's irrelevant to this referendum. They can have kids anyway if they want. It's nothing to do with the ability to get married.

    Sorry, two gay people cannot conceive a child that is biologically descended from both of them.

    As I've said, in my view, SSM is about the furtherance of the right of gay people to have children as part of a FAMILY and a MARRIED gay couple being the head of that family, at the expense of a child's prime right to be reared by its biological parents where that is at all possible.

    You disagree, but I do not believe that that makes my point wrong or invalid in any way whatsoever.

    I do accept though that a new act was introduced that is allowing gay couples to adopt children, and the only reason this happened was because this government wanted to legislate for SSM and had to separate out the whole question of children, and legislate for what would simply never have been passed, had the subject of gay couples having the right to adopt children, been put to people in this SSM referendum.

    My point being is that it's awfully convenient that you can now argue that "SSM has nothing to do with the right of gay people to adopt children, this is a completely separate issue that has now been legislated for", when the whole debate has been specifically engineered by the government, essentially in your favour. And if you disagree, then you might explain to me why this legislation has been introduced immediately before the SSM referendum?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    The referendum is about marriage. nothing else.

    Are you missing out the part of changing the Constitution ? Redefining Marriage/the family. Only Lawyers and constitutional judges will be able to give us the whole run down on the after effects.


  • Options
    #283
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    The SSM referendum is nothing to do with adoption. NOTHING.

    Saying the same thing over and over again does not make it true.


  • Options
    #284
    anothernight
    Registered Users Posts: 2,541 ✭✭✭anothernight


    bjork wrote: »
    No but nobody will know who they genetically related to and won't know if they are sleeping with someone closely related

    Considering that Irish people used to interbreed with Irish people, and now you have people from all over the world in Ireland, and Irish people all over the world, I somehow think that's unlikely. The dangers of defects from incest have also been grossly overstated, not that they are in any way relevant to the introduction of same sex marriage.


  • Options
    #285
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    I don't realise you were running on an anti-adoption platform.

    That raises another good point. Will we see an increase in women being paid to incubate babies for gay couples? What's the going rate?


  • Options
    #286
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    reprise wrote: »
    I wasn't looking to be schooled in ignorance, thanks anyway. :)

    Well if you fancy pointing out anything ignorant that I've said to you or others, please do. Although perhaps without clogging up this thread - it's been bad enough all day having to counter your ridiculous claims that SSM shouldn't be allowed because of the "risk" of something that they will already be allowed do as couples, and already do do as single people.


  • Options
    #287
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    Sorry, two gay people cannot conceive a child that is biologically descended from both of them.

    Which is the same situation as they are in without marriage.

    Theres no shortage of kids growing up to straight single parents. Many more than are growing up with gay parents I'd wager.


  • Options
    #288
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    Sorry, two gay people cannot conceive a child that is biologically descended from both of them.

    As I've said, in my view, SSM is about the furtherance of the right of gay people to have children as part of a FAMILY


    How many times does it have to be explained to you that gay couples will be able to adopt regardless of the referendum?
    LordNorbury wrote: »
    You disagree, but I do not believe that that makes my point wrong or invalid in any way whatsoever.

    You have no point.


  • Options
    #289
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    bjork wrote: »
    That raises another good point. Will we see an increase in women being paid to incubate babies for gay couples? What's the going rate?

    The same rate as the ones doing it for infertile straight people probably.


  • Options
    #290
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    bjork wrote: »
    That raises another good point. Will we see an increase in women being paid to incubate babies for gay couples? What's the going rate?

    Probably the same rate as for straight couples.


  • Options
    #291
    anothernight
    Registered Users Posts: 2,541 ✭✭✭anothernight


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    Sorry, two gay people cannot conceive a child that is biologically descended from both of them.

    From Reuters: "3-parent babies: Britain first to legalize radical DNA treatment"
    http://rt.com/uk/235363-three-parent-babies-legalized/

    Reminder: 2016 is next year.


    Also, final attempt, can you please, please please answer my question?

    "In countries where SSM has been legal for years (Spain, Norway, Belgium, Canada, etc.), what, in your opinion, has been the impact upon the wider society?"

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94712067&postcount=223

    It's really annoying when someone makes a claim and then repeatedly ignores any questions about it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Are you missing out the part of changing the Constitution ? Redefining Marriage/the family. Only Lawyers and constitutional judges will be able to give us the whole run down on the after effects.

    You haven't given any indication as to how changing the constitution will create any problems. I'm sure there will be effects, and there will be a lot of busy lawyers and judges rewriting clauses and stuff, but why on earth will that be a problem?


  • Options
    #293
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Shrap wrote: »
    Well if you fancy pointing out anything ignorant that I've said to you or others, please do. Although perhaps without clogging up this thread - it's been bad enough all day having to counter your ridiculous claims that SSM shouldn't be allowed because of the "risk" of something that they will already be allowed do as couples, and already do do as single people.

    So you can give it out but not take it. How predictable. And you have completely misrepresented what I have been saying as is the norm in every single thread about SSM. Forgive me if I don't take public instructions from yourself on my participation here.


  • Options
    #294
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    The same rate as the ones doing it for infertile straight people probably.

    Which is how much? Is it regulated? Or is it a case if the highest bidder?


  • Options
    #295
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,353 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Shrap wrote: »
    Who cares? It's irrelevant.

    To try and answer what should be bleedin obvious though, adoption is a long, drawn out process and having their own (if they can) is much quicker, easier and cheaper.

    and more fun. well initially at least


  • Options
    #296
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    I do accept though that a new act was introduced that is allowing gay couples to adopt children, and the only reason this happened was because this government wanted to legislate for SSM and had to separate out the whole question of children, and legislate for what would simply never have been passed, had the subject of gay couples having the right to adopt children, been put to people in this SSM referendum.

    My point being is that it's awfully convenient that you can now argue that "SSM has nothing to do with the right of gay people to adopt children, this is a completely separate issue that has now been legislated for", when the whole debate has been specifically engineered by the government, essentially in your favour. And if you disagree, then you might explain to me why this legislation has been introduced immediately before the SSM referendum?
    No, this act was supposed to be far in advance of the referendum and was to allow BOTH straight and gay COUPLES to adopt, where previously only straight and gay SINGLE people could adopt. Which was ludicrous. Only married people or single people (regardless of their sexual orientation btw) could adopt, but not co-habiting couples. Stupid. Now they're fixing that, and about time too.


  • Options
    #297
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    bjork wrote: »
    Which is how much? Is it regulated? Or is it a case if the highest bidder?

    Is it relevant to SSM? No. Google it yourself.


  • Options
    #298
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Shrap wrote: »
    You haven't given any indication as to how changing the constitution will create any problems. I'm sure there will be effects, and there will be a lot of busy lawyers and judges rewriting clauses and stuff, but why on earth will that be a problem?

    There were lots of busy lawyers Td's Judges last week, After changing something as simple as a drug related law. Family law is infinitely more complex.


  • Options
    #299
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,551 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    So you can give it out but not take it. How predictable. And you have completely misrepresented what I have been saying as is the norm in every single thread about SSM. Forgive me if I don't take public instructions from yourself on my participation here.


    I don't think you want to bring up SSM threads you've been in reprise...


  • Options
    #300
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    There were lots of busy lawyers Td's Judges last week, After changing something as simple as a drug related law. Family law is infinity more complex.

    Again, so? That's what we pay them for.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,353 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Are you missing out the part of changing the Constitution ? Redefining Marriage/the family. Only Lawyers and constitutional judges will be able to give us the whole run down on the after effects.

    I'm missing nothing. Its a referendum. As the purpose of a referendum is to change the constitution i would that the rest followed quite obviously.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement