Prime Time Marriage Equality Debate

hotmail.com

Starting in a few minutes.

On the No side:

David Quinn (Patron of Iona and Columnist)
John Waters (Journalist)
Eileen King (Mothers and Fathers Matter/Catholic Comment)

On the Yes side:

Frances Fitzgerald (Minister for Justice)
Noel Whelan (Barrister and Columnist)
Grainne Healy (Chair of Marriage Equality)

Atlantic Dawn

I prefer the debates when they are standing up, sitting down is too relaxed.

hotmail.com

Noel Whelan making a powerful argument there. Here's Waters.

WoolyJumper

Waters is making a lot of noise but I'm still waiting for his point


"That's a red herring" - thats rich coming from John Waters

hotmail.com

Waters is beyond confusing.

aidoh

Ehhh, is John Waters wearing a leather suit?

















.... like... a gimp suit?

ThisRegard

The No side are pretty wound up in comparison to the Yes side so far. Shouty doesn't mean you're right guys.

WoolyJumper

ThisRegard wrote: »

The No side are pretty wound up in comparison to the Yes side so far. Shouty doesn't mean you're right guys.

Waters and Quinn are talking so fast it's hard to keep up. It looked like Waters was shaking at one point.

I haven't heard Noel debate before but he is doing really well

ThisRegard

Why was my obviously not serious post about Waters <Mod Snip> deleted? Are we really at the point in which nothing can be said against the man?

hotmail.com

Eileen another softly spoken gentle woman...who is actually battling hard to continue the discrimination of gay and lesbian people.

CptMackey

Why am i watching this. the no side will just wind me up to my wits end.

Why are they debating about children?

the goggles they do nothing

eviltwin

I wonder do Quinn's kids know where they came from

purplecow1977

Considering there are heterosexual couples who do not want children, presumably it will be the same for homosexual couples.

There are many families where the father is not around, or indeed, the mother. I taught a child before who ended up in foster homes as neither mother or father could look after him. I'd opt for a same sex loving couple any day.

Do some people believe that homosexuality is contagious?!

With sperm donors, surrogacy etc surely the rights of the children are at a similar disadvantage to the NO sides current argument about children without a mother and a father?

Lady Chatterton

ThisRegard wrote: »

Why was my obviously not serious post about Waters <Mod Snip> deleted? Are we really at the point in which nothing can be said against the man?

Mod Note:

Your post was deleted as it was in bad taste.

ThisRegard

Here goes John again. (Am I allowed to say that?)

Whelan wondering what the hell he let himself in for.

hotmail.com

The hate oozes from Quinn and Waters. They are disgusting.

CptMackey

purplecow1977 wrote: »

Considering there are heterosexual couples who do not want children, presumably it will be the same for homosexual couples.

There are many families where the father is not around, or indeed, the mother. I taught a child before who ended up in foster homes as neither mother or father could look after him. I'd opt for a same sex loving couple any day.

Do some people believe that homosexuality is contagious?!

I think the no do. stupidity seems to be catching on the no side of this debate. waters talking and talking and saying nothing as per usual.

bee06

John waters glasses are very distracting.

ThisRegard

MrsD007 wrote: »

Mod Note:

Your post was deleted as it was in bad taste.

OK, he looks like he's going to give himself a heart attack, of which he'll later fully recover from.

kevin12345

The No side are coming across as extremely angry and wound up. They are talking utter nonsense.

purplecow1977

CptMackey wrote: »

I think the no do. stupidity seems to be catching on the no side of this debate. waters talking and talking and saying nothing as per usual.

I remember listening to the FM104 Phone Show. (Don't judge me!)

One of the callers felt that if it was 'normal' to be gay (this was about 2 years ago so before the referendum talk) that everyone would wake up gay tomorrow & there would be no reproduction!

The mind boggles!

amovingstatue

Watery quote - "Equal doesn't mean the same.... "

tayto lover

I support Gay Marriage and will be voting "Yes" but for me children are better off in a natural father/mother marriage.

hotmail.com

Many of us I'm sure agree with or sympathise with John Waters' concerns.

But, it's a completely separate issue.

Zamboni

Frances Fitzgerald is an awful proponent.
Noel Whelan is far more articulate.

purplecow1977

amovingstatue wrote: »

Watery quote - "Equal doesn't mean the same.... "

To be fair, it's not as mad as it sounds.

In education, we would talk about a fair & equal education yet differentiate according to abilities.

But I fully support the Equality for All argument for this referendum.

Had to change address and unable to check the register. Typed in my town and gave me various options to choose from. It seems I'm not registered yet I'm no longer registered on my home address either so hopefully it will go through.

hotmail.com

Egg donation being brought into the debate on same sex couples marrying.

WoolyJumper

tayto lover wrote: »

I support Gay Marriage and will be voting "Yes" but for me children are better off in a natural father/mother marriage.

Assuming they loving parents who can provide a stable and safe home. That's not always the case

bee06

I can't wait for this referendum to be over. It's so frustrating listening to the ridiculous No debate!

purplecow1977

tayto lover wrote: »

I support Gay Marriage and will be voting "Yes" but for me children are better off in a natural father/mother marriage.

But are there any statistics or research to prove that they ARE better off?

I would often wonder if the children I teach would be better off with more male teachers? Out of 8 years in primary school, they might only have 1 male teacher. But really, does it make any difference?

dirkmeister

Why are they talking about children for the last 15 minutes?!?


How about a simple debate on why/why not gay people should be allowed to marry?!

Or am I missing something?!?!?

hmmm

I haven't been following the debate to date, and I have literally no idea what anyone is talking about. Danish sperm donors, fathers rights, surrogate wombs. What?

ThisRegard

WTF Quinn, marriage gives a couple a right to have children. Arrest all those unmarried mother's and father's so!

purplecow1977

dirkmeister wrote: »

Why are they talking about children for the last 15 minutes?!?


How about a simple debate on why/why not gay people should be allowed to marry?!

Or am I missing something?!?!?

Because it changes the definition of marriage and therefore has implications for 'the family' and children. (according to them)

tayto lover

purplecow1977 wrote: »

But are there any statistics or research to prove that they ARE better off?

I would often wonder if the children I teach would be better off with more male teachers? Out of 8 years in primary school, they might only have 1 male teacher. But really, does it make any difference?

There is a natural bonding in a biological family that could not be replicated with two men or women imo.

P_1

Whenever I see Waters or Quinn on the box this immediately springs to mind

hotmail.com

tayto lover wrote: »

There is a natural bonding in a biological family that could not be replicated with two men or women imo.

I presume you mean two gay men and two gay women?

Or would it be ok for two straight women to raise a child?

CptMackey

How do Iona through david quinn get so much air time. Do they want to go back to the bad old days of church run baby factories and systematic abuse.

Behind all their arguments about children is a hatred of homosexual people.

Can anybody tell me why they are on about children , surrogacy etc.
They are also on about rights of access for kids to their biological parents, what about children who were adopted and for who the church will not give access to records. hypocrites

tayto lover

WoolyJumper wrote: »

Assuming they loving parents who can provide a stable and safe home. That's not always the case

It's not guaranteed in any family.

ThisRegard

tayto lover wrote: »

There is a natural bonding in a biological family that could not be replicated with two men or women imo.

The bond may just be in blood. There's kids out there with stronger and more worthwhile bonds with adaptive parents than they ever will with their biological parents.

tayto lover

hotmail.com wrote: »

I presume you mean two gay men and two gay women?

Or would it be ok for two straight women to raise a child?

Yes I meant gays.

purplecow1977

tayto lover wrote: »

There is a natural bonding in a biological family that could not be replicated with two men or women imo.

I don't agree

hotmail.com

Waters is completely mad if he thinks this hasn't been debated in the last few years.

P_1

tayto lover wrote: »

There is a natural bonding in a biological family that could not be replicated with two men or women imo.

Thanks for discarding the relationship I have with my parents and brother...

tayto lover

purplecow1977 wrote: »

I don't agree

Why? Elaborate please.

hmmm

"John....and the majority have disagreed with you". Ouch.

aidanathome

I still don't understand the 'no' argument, and these people aren't helping!

Bellerstring

tayto lover wrote: »

I support Gay Marriage and will be voting "Yes" but for me children are better off in a natural father/mother marriage.

I support civil partnership and will be voting no because of the hugely populist social media campaign by "celebrities" and politicians and ex politicians from all sides.
If Mary mcalesse and bressie and Kian Egan and that Mark fella from westlife are voting yes.....then I'm voting no.

kevin12345

hmmm wrote: »

I haven't been following the debate to date, and I have literally no idea what anyone is talking about. Danish sperm donors, fathers rights, surrogate wombs. What?

This is their tactic, they talk about EVERYTHING else but the true matter at hand to try to fool people into believing that if this referendum passes then SS couples will be stealing babies from the wombs of women impregnated by Danish sperm donors.

hotmail.com

tayto lover wrote: »

Yes I meant gays.

So would it be ok for two straight women to raise a child?

Serious question.

purplecow1977

Bellerstring wrote: »

I support civil partnership and will be voting no because of the hugely populist social media campaign by "celebrities" and politicians and ex politicians from all sides.
If Mary mcalesse and bressie and Kian Egan and that Mark fella from westlife are voting yes.....then I'm voting no.

Silly reason to vote no.

Maybe it shows the diverse range of people that are willing to vote yes?
Maybe it shows that it is the right decision to make?

Going against the grain for the sake of it is not admirable.