FixdePitchmark wrote: » But - what do you call a union between a man and a women now. A bit daft - in fact, flawed logic to look for a marriage. Of course, a bill of additional equal rights would have been passed within the term civil partnership. But, telling people in a marriage , that they are not now in a marriage - is not going to be passed. Daft and confused logic. Missed opportunity.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » The overwhelming evidence of over 30 years of research into families and children parented by lesbian and gay couples paints a positive picture. Adoption assessors should assess based on ability to parent not on sexual orientation.
FixdePitchmark wrote: » But how can you redefine a union between a man and a woman. It is daft logic. And - I've a good feeling the public will not go for it. Yes give them full rights within a civil partnership.
Atlantic Dawn wrote: » Yes but from a kid of knows what's going on age (4 or 5 onwards) they are due to the media and the way they are currently schooled have an expectation of a mother and a father being male and female.
eviltwin wrote: » It's not redefining anything. Straight marriage remains unchanged. As someone who is married it won't affect my relationship. Why will it affect yours?
FixdePitchmark wrote: » Because - whilst people have a right to a civil partnership . A man and a woman have a right to a marriage, defined in law, history , religion , society , family , procreation. Why should their right to that be diluted or undermined for the folly and fun of others. Anyway - entirely flawed , it sounds like the child going " I want that too" Even when they have it already. But just wants the two of them. Honestly - think bringing the word marriage into it, was almost a folly. I'd be extremely progressive, but they have this totally wrong. Will be very surprised if passed.
FixdePitchmark wrote: » Well best of luck if that is how a referendum is going to be won. A marriage is a union between a man and a woman - that is it. Your going to have to try convince the public that it isn't - best of luck.
eviltwin wrote: » There was also a time marriage was for life and then we got divorce. How's that for redefining marriage.
FixdePitchmark wrote: » Yes - a marriage between a man and a women could end. Was passed. A marriage is not a marriage. Best of luck with that one.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » Then you just explain to the kid he has two mums or two dads. Simple really.
Atlantic Dawn wrote: » That's all good but their friends, possibly teachers will mostly reject this as being normal (currently)
Joeytheparrot wrote: » Thats just a non argument of "It is because it is"
FixdePitchmark wrote: » And if it is because I am insecure - lol, This is a referendum to the public lads - need more info
FixdePitchmark wrote: » So if we had a referendum that a bike is now called a car - and all that had a car must now have a bike , because the people who did not have a car felt it was unfair - so from now on all with a car should be on a bike only, Again - this is a referendum going to the Irish people. Coming with an attitude , not respecting the institution of marriage , saying , get over yourself we want that too. Your insecure This is in real trouble as an approach - watch this space. And also , if you question it - oh, your homophobic too :rolleyes: Is that honestly how the debate and referendum will be won. This is not like the X-Factor , you are trying to change a Union between a man and a woman , just because we want it too. Sorry lads , try harder.
Joeytheparrot wrote: So the institution of marriage has changed and can change. Like when Irish law allowed 12 year old girls and 14 year old boys to marry.
Mars Bar wrote: » Because no straight couple has ever got married for the folly and fun and then divorced when they got bored. There are many straight marriages out there who make an absolute mockery of the whole thing. I doubt a truly loved up homosexual couple is gonna make any more a mockery of the whole thing.
