Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

1…457910…16

Comments

  • #182
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    Nope, I have no issue with adoption for a small minority of children, where it will not be possible that they will be raised by their biological parents. However the vast vast majority of children are raised by their biological parents, and this is what I think we ought to protect and aspire to as an inter generational model of best practice when it comes to how we pro create, and if there are to be any changes, then we should be able to discuss them without those who hold genuine concerns in this area being ridiculed, patronised and hissed and sneared at by what is clearly an increasingly aggressive gay lobby movement in this country, who now believe that any view that is not in communion with their own, is somehow backward, unequal, unjust or homophobic.


    But children are not going to be grabbed off their biological parents and given to gay couples, anymore than they were grabbed off them to give to heterosexual couples wishing to adopt.


  • #183
    LordNorbury
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭LordNorbury


    desertcircus wrote: »
    Wait, you called the property crash correctly therefore gay marriage is wrong because biological parents?

    No child who would have been raised by their biological parents will be taken from those parents and given to a same-sex couple if and when SSM passes. So every nonsensical word you've said is irrelevant, unless you think being raised by anything other than both biological parents is worse than never existing. In which case: go to hell.

    Another aggressive deliberate misinterpretation of what I actually said. What I actually said was: there were people who called out the property insanity that was going on in this country, previous to the crash, who were told to commit suicide if they could not get behind the populist opinion at the time, which was "let's continue flipping properties and selling to one another"...

    People who reasonably questioned who was winning in all of this madness at the time, and where the wider best interests of society actually stood, were written off as idiots, loo-laa's and clowns who basically had no business commenting on things unless their views were positive and accommodating, in respect of the property speculation that was going on at that time. Those people who refused to get behind the populist economic narrative at the time, which was that we should basically all become property speculators in some form or another, have since been proven to have been absolutely and entirely correct in hindsight with regard to the position they adopted at the time.

    This SSM debate would appear to be another instance of this kind of human psychology, where as we can see on this thread and elsewhere, any view that is not fully in communion with the view that gay couples and straight couples are fully equal and that all laws of the land need to be brought into line with that belief, are being treated disgracefully by the gay community in this country.

    I personally do not believe that a gay couple and a straight couple are equal because biologically a straight couple in the vast majority of cases can pro create and can create children that both parents have genetically created, and by virtue of their same sex, a gay couple cannot accomplish that. It isn't me saying they are not equal, it is just me recognising a simple biological fact that exists with respect to how we and other mammals happen to procreate.


  • #184
    Shrap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    I personally do not believe that a gay couple and a straight couple are equal because biologically a straight couple in the vast majority of cases can pro create and can create children that both parents have genetically created, and by virtue of their same sex, a gay couple cannot accomplish that. It isn't me saying they are not equal, it is just me recognising a simple biological fact that exists with respect to how we and other mammals happen to procreate.
    :pac:

    Jaysus wept. A gay couple and a straight couple are not the same (as the gender mix is different), but they are equal. And should be treated equally. No matter how much you bang on about biology and how straight couples can procreate and how that's a difference, it doesn't change the fact that SSM has NOTHING TO DO WITH FERTILITY or the fact that fertility is not the factor in people (of any gender) being allowed to marry.

    Women past menopause can marry, yes? People with disabilities who cannot bear children can marry, yes? And they're all allowed to adopt or go for AHR, yes? Your argument is bullsh1t, and that's why you are being called on it. In a non-aggressive fashion, I might add.


  • #185
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    LordNorbury wrote: »

    I personally do not believe that a gay couple and a straight couple are equal because biologically a straight couple in the vast majority of cases can pro create and can create children that both parents have genetically created, and by virtue of their same sex, a gay couple cannot accomplish that. It isn't me saying they are not equal, it is just me recognising a simple biological fact that exists with respect to how we and other mammals happen to procreate.

    So do an infertile couple not deserve the same status of marriage as a fertile couple?


  • #186
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    floggg wrote: »
    Lol. If anything our inheritance laws evidence evidence the view that marriage is a commitment for and between adults - not a child centric institution.

    I could be wrong, but given that the children are not getting married, that would seem to make a whole pile of sense.
    floggg wrote: »
    Under inheritance law you are legally obligated to make provision for your spouse but have no absolute obligation to provide for your children.

    Are you saying they are entitled to nothing if they are not expressly taken care of at the time of marraige? I think you will find that is not true.
    floggg wrote: »
    Therefore, for inheritance tax purposes at least, the support and maintenance of children is clearly not viewed as the primary purpose of the institution. The support and maintenance of your spouse is.

    Are tax issues not catered for in civil partnership?

    If not - feel free to campaign for the necessary changes.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    LordNorbury
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭LordNorbury


    Nodin wrote: »
    But children are not going to be grabbed off their biological parents and given to gay couples, anymore than they were grabbed off them to give to heterosexual couples wishing to adopt.

    Where did I say that that would happen? It is this exact type of childish and pointless approach to debating this subject that a lot of people are starting to actually get fairly sick of. I never once stated that I have concerns that children will be taken from straight couples and placed into the care of gay parents.


  • #188
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,227 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    This SSM debate would appear to be another instance of this kind of human psychology, where as we can see on this thread and elsewhere, any view that is not fully in communion with the view that gay couples and straight couples are fully equal and that all laws of the land need to be brought into line with that belief, are being treated disgracefully by the gay community in this country.

    I personally do not believe that a gay couple and a straight couple are equal because biologically a straight couple in the vast majority of cases can pro create and can create children that both parents have genetically created, and by virtue of their same sex, a gay couple cannot accomplish that. It isn't me saying they are not equal, it is just me recognising a simple biological fact that exists with respect to how we and other mammals happen to procreate.

    Theyre not being treated disgracefully by the gay community. Personally I would have a dim view of people with such silly views that include discriminating against a couple because of their sexuality. I'm firmly in the heterosexual community, so you can rest assured the views are as unwelcome in both communities equally.

    I have 2 kids and myself and their mother aren't married. In fact, there was quite a while after they came along where we didn't even live together. Maybe we should go full on back to good old Catholic Ireland and have her locked in a home. My 2 boys can be taken from her and sold to some couple in America who are obviously more deserving of them because they are straight and married.


  • #189
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    Where did I say that that would happen? It is this exact type of childish and pointless approach to debating this subject that a lot of people are starting to actually get fairly sick of. I never once stated that I have concerns that children will be taken from straight couples and placed into the care of gay parents.

    Then what was that post about?


  • #190
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,227 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    Where did I say that that would happen? It is this exact type of childish and pointless approach to debating this subject that a lot of people are starting to actually get fairly sick of. I never once stated that I have concerns that children will be taken from straight couples and placed into the care of gay parents.

    How will a change to the constitution to allow 2 people of the same gender marry each other change anything to do with any kids or adoption from the 20mins before the change is made?


  • #191
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    Nope, I have no issue with adoption for a small minority of children, where it will not be possible that they will be raised by their biological parents. However the vast vast majority of children are raised by their biological parents, and this is what I think we ought to protect and aspire to as an inter generational model of best practice when it comes to how we pro create, and if there are to be any changes, then we should be able to discuss them without those who hold genuine concerns in this area being ridiculed, patronised and hissed and sneared at by what is clearly an increasingly aggressive gay lobby movement in this country, who now believe that any view that is not in communion with their own, is somehow backward, unequal, unjust or homophobic.

    You are going around in circles but not actually stating any position to even debate.

    Everybody agrees that it's preferable that kids be raised by their biological parents in a stable, healthy and loving environment.

    But marriage equality doesn't threaten or change that at all. The issues is irrelevant to those types of families (save where some of the children grow up to be lgbt).

    Where people are challenged is where they argue lgbt people cannot or should not marry or raise children.

    That argument is challenged robustly - and rightly so. All ideas should be open to challenge and criticism.

    If the idea cannot withstand the challenges or criticism than its the idea that is at fault, not the critics.

    While you are entitled to your own opinions and to express them, you are not entitled to your own facts nor are your automatically opinions entitled to any sort of respect.

    Unless and until arguments against same sex marriage or same sex parents can be substantiated by facts and evidence, they will rightly be dismissed.

    That's how intelligent debate works. The people advocating those positions aren't being victimised, bullied it silenced by the debate - they are just losing it.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    anothernight
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭anothernight


    I don't get it. All those people against SSM because gay couples can't have children together by natural means, like God intended (!!!)
    Why aren't they pushing for a referendum that disallows the heterosexual marriage of infertile people? >_>


  • #193
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    reprise wrote: »
    I could be wrong, but given that the children are not getting married, that would seem to make a whole pile of sense.



    Are you saying they are entitled to nothing if they are not expressly taken care of at the time of marraige? I think you will find that is not true.



    Are tax issues not catered for in civil partnership?

    If not - feel free to campaign for the necessary changes.

    i was responding to your comment which appeared to suggest it was children who would or should inherit their parents property.

    Therefore your agreement above with the current laws which don't provide for any automatic right of inheritance seems at odds with your previous post.

    And, no I wasn't saying they weren't entitled to anything if not expressly "taken care of" at the time of marriage. That doesn't even make sense or reflect our inheritance law.

    Under law, you are essentially obligated to leave your spouse a fixed portion of your estate. Where you fail to do so, the spouse can challenge your will and claim that portion as a right.

    On the other hand, you have no obligation to leave your child anything. They can challenge your will under certain conditions, but have no automatic entitlement to anything whatsoever.

    If kids are the be all and end all of marriage, why does our law think your primary obligation is to your spouse not your kids.

    And no, I'll campaign for full marriage equality thank you very much. I have no interest in your separate but equally nonsense.


  • #194
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,366 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Why are people talking about SSM and gay adoption as if they are somehow related? The referendum is about SSM. there is a separate bill going through the dail around gay adoption rights and similar stuff. Even if the SSM referendum is not passed that has no effect on the adoption bill which is a done deal at this stage. People (especially the yes side) need to make it clear what the referendum is all about. they are allowing the No side to muddy the waters with talk of gay adoption. Healy Eames cretinous tweet yesterday is a perfect example of the conflation of these two issues.


  • #195
    Shrap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    People (especially the yes side) need to make it clear what the referendum is all about. they are allowing the No side to muddy the waters with talk of gay adoption. Healy Eames cretinous tweet yesterday is a perfect example of the conflation of these two issues.

    Well, we've been here trying to point this out to two posters today. They are still conflating the issues. We are not allowing them to get away with this conflation, but they are taking this up as "aggression" and of course nobody is in the business of wanting to actually shut down free speech, even if the folks who's opinions are being resoundingly demolished think that this is what we're doing.


  • #196
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    floggg wrote: »
    (.......)

    If kids are the be all and end all of marriage, why does our law think your primary obligation is to your spouse not your kids.

    Because, as I already said, children cannot get married and therefore cannot form part of the marital contract.
    floggg wrote: »
    And no, I'll campaign for full marriage equality thank you very much. I have no interest in your separate but equally nonsense.

    I have no interest in your overstretched analogies.


  • #197
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Why are people talking about SSM and gay adoption as if they are somehow related? The referendum is about SSM. there is a separate bill going through the dail around gay adoption rights and similar stuff. Even if the SSM referendum is not passed that has no effect on the adoption bill which is a done deal at this stage. People (especially the yes side) need to make it clear what the referendum is all about. they are allowing the No side to muddy the waters with talk of gay adoption. Healy Eames cretinous tweet yesterday is a perfect example of the conflation of these two issues.

    Not really, Redefining marriage/the Family is a huge issue constitutionally. It will have a larger knock on affect than people think.


  • #198
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,227 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    . It will have a larger knock on affect than people think.

    Such as?


  • #199
    Tombi!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,689 ✭✭✭Tombi!


    thelad95 wrote: »
    Slightly off topic but I'd just like to say I'd give her one.

    mod: don't bother with these kinds of posts in future


  • #200
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Such as?

    Family law for a start, Rights to do with that and the Child.


  • #201
    LordNorbury
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭LordNorbury


    floggg wrote: »
    You are going around in circles but not actually stating any position to even debate.

    Everybody agrees that it's preferable that kids be raised by their biological parents in a stable, healthy and loving environment.

    But marriage equality doesn't threaten or change that at all. The issues is irrelevant to those types of families (save where some of the children grow up to be lgbt).

    Where people are challenged is where they argue lgbt people cannot or should not marry or raise children.

    That argument is challenged robustly - and rightly so. All ideas should be open to challenge and criticism.

    If the idea cannot withstand the challenges or criticism than its the idea that is at fault, not the critics.

    While you are entitled to your own opinions and to express them, you are not entitled to your own facts nor are your automatically opinions entitled to any sort of respect.

    Unless and until arguments against same sex marriage or same sex parents can be substantiated by facts and evidence, they will rightly be dismissed.

    That's how intelligent debate works. The people advocating those positions aren't being victimised, bullied it silenced by the debate - they are just losing it.

    It doesn't threaten anything if you believe that marriage is not also about pro creation and having children and basically at the end of the day, creating the next generation from our generation, regardless of whether the parents are married or not married I might add. While there is no law on the statute book that states that the act of marriage and having a family are one and the same thing, in practice they essentially are one and the same thing, so to say SSM is not also about family and children, to me, is simply not a credible thing to say.

    If on the other hand you do not believe though that marriage and a family unit are also about having children, and the creation of the next generation, and if you are in denial about the clear fact that the next generation of children are born from our generation of adults and that the vast majority of children and families fit into this category and that the vast vast majority of children are created from and raised by their biological parents, then you will obviously feel that children and the creation of a family are not in any way connected to SSM.


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    FouxDaFaFa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,850 ✭✭✭FouxDaFaFa


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Why are people talking about SSM and gay adoption as if they are somehow related? The referendum is about SSM. there is a separate bill going through the dail around gay adoption rights and similar stuff. Even if the SSM referendum is not passed that has no effect on the adoption bill which is a done deal at this stage.
    Because it is the perfect tactic for the No side to use, confusing people by making them think that gay adoption and this referendum are linked. A frightening number of people think this.


  • #203
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    FouxDaFaFa wrote: »
    Because it is the perfect tactic for the No side to use, confusing people by making them think that gay adoption and this referendum are linked. A frightening number of people think this.

    There is no confusion, Redefining Marriage/the family under the constitution will have a knock on effect.


  • #204
    FouxDaFaFa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,850 ✭✭✭FouxDaFaFa


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    There is no confusion, Redefining Marriage/the family under the constitution will have a knock on effect.
    There are people out there who think that if they vote "no" in this referendum, it will stop gay people from being able to adopt. That is their motivation. And the "no" side are not doing much to correct them.


  • #205
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    FouxDaFaFa wrote: »
    There are people out there who think that if they vote "no" in this referendum, it will stop gay people from being able to adopt. That is their motivation. And the "no" side are not doing much to correct them.

    It won't, And well there is enough information out and about to get the gist of what's going on.


  • #206
    LordNorbury
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭LordNorbury


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Not really, Redefining marriage/the Family is a huge issue constitutionally. It will have a larger knock on affect than people think.

    The most disturbing feature of this whole debate is that we are not allowed ask that key question, which is what affect will it have? The attitude to those who ask that question is that if they do not believe in SSM as a cause for equality, then they are in some way disordered or not capable of looking at the facts or are simply incorrect in their analysis. If you ask that question you are simply inviting abuse and being labelled as intolerant of gay people.

    And this intransigent thing lately of: "SSM has nothing to do with children, stick to the facts please!!!", that is just utterly mind boggling, how someone can argue that redefining a family unit carries no consequences for children who may be part of such a redefined family unit in the future, sorry, I cannot for the life of me get my head around how that position that people in favour of SSM are adopting. It seems to me that that statement is more about trying to bully people into supporting SSM when they do not wish to do so.


  • #207
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,227 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    The most disturbing feature of this whole debate is that we are not allowed ask that key question, which is what affect will it have? The attitude to those who ask that question is that if they do not believe in SSM as a cause for equality, then they are in some way disordered or not capable of looking at the facts or are simply incorrect in their analysis. If you ask that question you are simply inviting abuse and being labelled as intolerant of gay people.

    And this intransigent thing lately of: "SSM has nothing to do with children, stick to the facts please!!!", that is just utterly mind boggling, how someone can argue that redefining a family unit carries no consequences for children who may be part of such a redefined family unit in the future, sorry, I cannot for the life of me get my head around how that position that people in favour of SSM are adopting. It seems to me that that statement is more about trying to bully people into supporting SSM when they do not wish to do so.

    In what way is the family unit different for 2 gay men raising a child if they are allowed to marry each other? Is society going to fall apart because these 2 men , that were together anyway, have a piece of paper to say they are married?


  • #208
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    The most disturbing feature of this whole debate is that we are not allowed ask that key question, which is what affect will it have? The attitude to those who ask that question is that if they do not believe in SSM as a cause for equality, then they are in some way disordered or not capable of looking at the facts or are simply incorrect in their analysis. If you ask that question you are simply inviting abuse and being labelled as intolerant of gay people.

    And this intransigent thing lately of: "SSM has nothing to do with children, stick to the facts please!!!", that is just utterly mind boggling, how someone can argue that redefining a family unit carries no consequences for children who may be part of such a redefined family unit in the future, sorry, I cannot for the life of me get my head around how that position that people in favour of SSM are adopting. It seems to me that that statement is more about trying to bully people into supporting SSM when they do not wish to do so.

    You're allowed to ask that "key" question. Its just whenever anyone asked what you think will happen they receive only silence or the question repeated.


  • #209
    anothernight
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭anothernight


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    The most disturbing feature of this whole debate is that we are not allowed ask that key question, which is what affect will it have?

    Er... see post #198. Here's a link: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94711526&postcount=198


    In fairness, in some countries it's been legal for about a decade, and I've yet to see these great knock-on effects.


  • #210
    mickstupp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,764 ✭✭✭mickstupp


    @LordNorbury

    Why do you think that adding to the definition of 'family unit' would in any way threaten the traditional family unit?

    So you have a new type of family unit, with homosexual parents. Whatever you might think of that particular setup, it has absolutely zero effect on any traditional family whatsoever.

    Why is adding to the definition any threat in this case?

    My family unit is traditional. The one next door is gay. That has no impact whatsoever on my family unit.

    What am I missing here?


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    LordNorbury
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭LordNorbury


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    In what way is the family unit different for 2 gay men raising a child if they are allowed to marry each other? Is society going to fall apart because these 2 men , that were together anyway, have a piece of paper to say they are married?

    Because it will become the norm that children are no longer being raised by parents who are biologically connected to their children. I don't know if you know any people who were adopted who never got to have the company of their biological parents but I do and I have seen huge emotional turmoil being the result when people cannot establish where they came from, I know one man who has been very negatively affected throughout his whole life, due to the circumstances surrounding his birth and subsequent adoption. Despite the best efforts of everyone who tried to create a healthy childhood environment for this child at the time, he has carried bitterness and negativity all throughout his life, concerning the fact that he never knew one of his biological parents.

    To normalise this kind of a situation now and to not just normalise it but to then put it on a parity with marriage as we have always understood marriage to mean, without a proper debate as to what we are doing and the possible side affects, in my opinion is selfish and plain wrong. But in this debate the needs of children to be raised by biological parents wherever possible doesn't matter, the rights of gay people to have those kids is considered a highly priority, the right of a child to be raised by their actual parents, is in fact superseded by the right of gay couples to have families and to "have" children that they simply cannot create themselves as a couple.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement