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

kylith · 16-03-2015 07:57PM

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 fact that my father cannot compel me to marry one of his business associates/business associates' sons/friend of his, and that I can decide to marry whomever I choose means that marriage has ALREADY been redefined.

LordNorbury wrote: »

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.

Marriage is, traditionally, a business deal; a merger of two power structures. You have a rope making business and a son, you know someone who has an anchor making business and a daughter. You arrange for your son to marry his daughter and ye form a one-stop-shop for all your ship tethering needs. You have a daughter and a cattle breeding business, you know someone with a farm and a son, you arrange for them to be married and your daughter gets kept and he gets a good deal on top-notch cows. If children came into it at all it was only because you needed someone to leave all your stuff to after you died. That is what 'traditional' marriage is - the forming of alliances. It is only shockingly recently that two people could decide to marry each other without their parents' approval.

Guy:Incognito · 16-03-2015 08:01PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

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.

So you'd support SSM if they weren't allowed to have kids?

LDN_Irish · 16-03-2015 08:04PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

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.

It's amazing how none of that matters when we're talking about infertile straight couples because "the vast majority of straight couples are fertile." Kids are so understanding sometimes, it's nice.

shruikan2553 · 16-03-2015 08:04PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

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.

To become the norm the majority of people would have to take part. The majority of couples are capable of producing their own children so unless we all turn gay as soon as SSM is brought in we'll have to start swapping children in order to make it the norm.

LordNorbury · 16-03-2015 08:06PM

mickstupp wrote: »

@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?

What you are very obviously missing is that just because one set up doesn't impact negatively on the set up next door, I believe it impacts upon the wider society.

If you have a traditional family unit, do you believe if you have children, that you enjoy the same close relationship with your children, as the gay couple enjoy with their adopted children?

As a friend of mine once argued, the love you have for your children is not the same as the love you have for your partner, because your children are literally "of you", they have your features, they are your flesh and blood. You would throw yourself in front of a bus for your children, probably not so for your partner. There is simply a stronger biological bond between parents and their biological children that cannot be replicated in my view. That is not to say that adoptive parents do not do a fantastic job of raising children that are not born from them, but it is simply not the same thing in my view as having your own children.

Think about this for a second, if you know any single women in their 30's, why do they say, "I want to have a baby"??? Why are they not saying, "I want to adopt a baby?"... The truth is simply that in the vast majority of cases, people are programmed to procreate and create children from their own DNA, and that means they want to have their own children and raise them as part of a family unit.

kylith · 16-03-2015 08:08PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

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.

All of which are issues with adoption, not SSM. People not biologically related to them are already raising children, both heterosexual and homosexual people. I know two people who were adopted in infancy and they have no such issues. Gay people can already adopt children, allowing them the same marital rights and responsibilities as anyone else will not change the fact that gay people already can and do adopt children.

LordNorbury wrote: »

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.

In the circumstances of adoption the biological parents do not want/cannot raise the children they have handed the child over to the state. They have nothing to do with the child raising because they don't want to or can't. Gay people will not be snatching children in the street. The government will not take children from their parents to give them to gay couples. The biological parents have abdicated responsibility for childrearing. Do you suggest that people who have given their children up for adoption be forced to take them back if the prospective adoptive parents are gay?

reprise · 16-03-2015 08:08PM

LDN_Irish wrote: »

It's amazing how none of that matters when we're talking about infertile straight couples because "the vast majority of straight couples are fertile." Kids are so understanding sometimes, it's nice.

So, to extrapolate, if a married couple has a child that dies, you think they should no longer qualify as married?

LDN_Irish · 16-03-2015 08:10PM

reprise wrote: »

So, to extrapolate, if a married couple has a child that dies, you think they should no longer qualify as married?

If you explain that logic I will gladly indulge you. I have no idea how you got that from what you've quoted.

ohnonotgmail · 16-03-2015 08:11PM

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 referendum is about marriage. nothing else.

Nodin · 16-03-2015 08:12PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

Because(............) themselves as a couple.

Gay couples will be allowed adopt by law before the referendum is held.

I have to say I find it quite difficult to understand what you're on about.

Guy:Incognito · 16-03-2015 08:12PM

reprise wrote: »

So, to extrapolate, if a married couple has a child that dies, you think they should no longer qualify as married?

You're confusing yourself here. You and LordNorbury are the only ones saying that certain people should be denied marriage, the rest of us are happy to let any couple, regardless of the Gender or physical condition of body parts of either, to marry each other.

anothernight · 16-03-2015 08:13PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

What you are very obviously missing is that just because one set up doesn't impact negatively on the set up next door, I believe it impacts upon the wider society.

Honest 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?

ohnonotgmail · 16-03-2015 08:13PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

What you are very obviously missing is that just because one set up doesn't impact negatively on the set up next door, I believe it impacts upon the wider society.

If you have a traditional family unit, do you believe if you have children, that you enjoy the same close relationship with your children, as the gay couple enjoy with their adopted children?

As a friend of mine once argued, the love you have for your children is not the same as the love you have for your partner, because your children are literally "of you", they have your features, they are your flesh and blood. You would throw yourself in front of a bus for your children, probably not so for your partner. There is simply a stronger biological bond between parents and their biological children that cannot be replicated in my view. That is not to say that adoptive parents do not do a fantastic job of raising children that are not born from them, but it is simply not the same thing in my view as having your own children.

Think about this for a second, if you know any single women in their 30's, why do they say, "I want to have a baby"??? Why are they not saying, "I want to adopt a baby?"... The truth is simply that in the vast majority of cases, people are programmed to procreate and create children from their own DNA, and that means they want to have their own children and raise them as part of a family unit.

The SSM referendum is nothing to do with adoption. NOTHING.

reprise · 16-03-2015 08:15PM

LDN_Irish wrote: »

If you explain that logic I will gladly indulge you. I have no idea how you got that from what you've quoted.

What point were you making with regard to infertile couples?

LordNorbury · 16-03-2015 08:16PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So you'd support SSM if they weren't allowed to have kids?

To me, marriage is about a man and a woman forming a contract to spend their lives together (it's not a contract that I would personally sign up to), and central to that, in the vast majority of cases, is usually a desire to have a family. It may turn out to be the case that that isn't possible, or they may sometimes enter into that contract not wishing to have children, as is their right, but in the vast majority of cases, that is what the concept and purpose and real world meaning of marriage is ultimately about.

Gay couples have civil partnership, I simply don't understand this obsession with SSM in the name of equality. At some point, it becomes a fact that a straight married couple and a gay married couple, do not have the same capabilities and are in fact not biologically equal at all, this becomes very obvious when it comes to the ability to procreate. Trying to plough through this fact as if it is not a fact and then continuing to bang on about SSM and how unfair it is that gay people feel unequal and how unfair it is that gay people feel inferior to straight people because they cannot marry and now somehow feel gravely offended that they cannot marry, sorry, I don't accept any of it for a minute.

What annoys me the most in all of this debate is that I can't state that openly in a debate without being attacked as intolerant.

shruikan2553 · 16-03-2015 08:19PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

To me, marriage is about a man and a woman forming a contract to spend their lives together (it's not a contract that I would personally sign up to), and central to that, in the vast majority of cases, is usually a desire to have a family. It may turn out to be the case that that isn't possible, or they may sometimes enter into that contract not wishing to have children, as is their right, but in the vast majority of cases, that is what the concept and purpose and real world meaning of marriage is ultimately about.

Gay couples have civil partnership, I simply don't understand this obsession with SSM in the name of equality. At some point, it becomes a fact that a straight married couple and a gay married couple, do not have the same capabilities and are in fact not biologically equal at all, this becomes very obvious when it comes to the ability to procreate. Trying to plough through this fact as if it is not a fact and then continuing to bang on about SSM and how unfair it is that gay people feel unequal and how unfair it is that gay people feel inferior to straight people because they cannot marry and now somehow feel gravely offended that they cannot marry, sorry, I don't accept any of it for a minute.

What annoys me the most in all of this debate is that I can't state that openly in a debate without being attacked as intolerant.

Men and women aren't biologically equal. Should we not attempt to have them as equal as possible in terms of the state and law?

You have yet to say anything that is unique to a same sex couple.

Nodin · 16-03-2015 08:19PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

To me, marriage is about a man and a woman forming a contract to spend their lives together (it's not a contract that I would personally sign up to), and central to that, in the vast majority of cases, is usually a desire to have a family. It may turn out to be the case that that isn't possible, or they may sometimes enter into that contract not wishing to have children, as is their right, but in the vast majority of cases, that is what the concept and purpose and real world meaning of marriage is ultimately about.

Gay couples have civil partnership, I simply don't understand this obsession with SSM in the name of equality. At some point, it becomes a fact that a straight married couple and a gay married couple, do not have the same capabilities and are in fact not biologically equal at all, this becomes very obvious when it comes to the ability to procreate. Trying to plough through this fact as if it is not a fact and then continuing to bang on about SSM and how unfair it is that gay people feel unequal and how unfair it is that gay people feel inferior to straight people because they cannot marry and now somehow feel gravely offended that they cannot marry, sorry, I don't accept any of it for a minute.

What annoys me the most in all of this debate is that I can't state that openly in a debate without being attacked as intolerant.

If the inability to have children should lead to a lesser official status of a relationship, then why do you not follow your own logic and demand that infertile heterosexual couples be denied the ability to marry?

reprise · 16-03-2015 08:23PM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Men and women aren't biologically equal. Should we not attempt to have them as equal as possible in terms of the state and law?

You have yet to say anything that is unique to a same sex couple.

I'm fairly sure he is talking about opposing sex couples.

LordNorbury · 16-03-2015 08:23PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The SSM referendum is nothing to do with adoption. NOTHING.

So a married gay couple will invariably not want children, is that what you are trying to argue?

Realt Dearg Sec · 16-03-2015 08:24PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

At some point, it becomes a fact that a straight married couple and a gay married couple, do not have the same capabilities and are in fact not biologically equal at all, this becomes very obvious when it comes to the ability to procreate.

It's also a fact that an unmarried straight couple and a married straight couple DO have the same biological capabilities, so it seems to me that marriage didn't really have anything to do with biology or procreation, so maybe that nonsense shouldn't factor in the debate?

LDN_Irish · 16-03-2015 08:24PM

reprise wrote: »

What point were you making with regard to infertile couples?

I was saying that LordNorbury isn't against adoption, but is against SSM that has nothing to do with adoption, because, erm, adoption.

You got my argument confused with the one you've been making the entire thread, and then actually argued against it!

*hope that wasn't too aggressive, I'd hate to convince all the "undecideds" to vote against.

Nodin · 16-03-2015 08:26PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

So a married gay couple will invariably not want children, is that what you are trying to argue?

Jesus Christ -

The referendum is on whether same sex couples can marry.

Legislation is coming into law before the referendum that will see that gay couples will be able to adopt regardless of the outcome of the referendum.

ohnonotgmail · 16-03-2015 08:26PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

So a married gay couple will invariably not want children, is that what you are trying to argue?

HUH? Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

what i am saying is that a gay couple will be able to adopt (as a couple) irrespective of the outcome of the referendum. The referendum is purely about letting gay people marry

Shrap · 16-03-2015 08:26PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

If you have a traditional family unit, do you believe if you have children, that you enjoy the same close relationship with your children, as the gay couple enjoy with their adopted children?

YES. Oh my god, do you have ANY notion of how cruel you are being to adopted children here? There are also thousands of families where a step parent would lay down their lives for their children regardless of the lack of blood ties. It is children themselves who generate that love.

To say that this is somehow lesser than a biological parent's love (is it only good biological parents you are talking about, or all of them?) must be incredibly hurtful to the thousands of wonderful non-biological parents out there. For shame - that's disgraceful.

reprise · 16-03-2015 08:27PM

LDN_Irish wrote: »

I was saying that LordNorbury isn't against adoption, but is against SSM that has nothing to do with adoption, because, erm, adoption.

You got my argument confused with the one you've been making the entire thread, and then actually argued against it!

*hope that wasn't too aggressive, I'd hate to convince all the "undecideds" to vote against.

Not aggressive at all, I think we got our lines crossed. No bother.

reprise · 16-03-2015 08:29PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

HUH? Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

what i am saying is that a gay couple will be able to adopt (as a couple) irrespective of the outcome of the referendum. The referendum is purely about letting gay people marry

Why would a married couple not have an advantage in adopting children?

Guy:Incognito · 16-03-2015 08:30PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

So a married gay couple will invariably not want children, is that what you are trying to argue?

Will they want children because they are married? Or would they have wanted children anyway?

ohnonotgmail · 16-03-2015 08:31PM

reprise wrote: »

Why would a married couple not have an advantage in adopting children?

I fail to see the relevance of what you are asking. There seems to be a lot of that going on.

Realt Dearg Sec · 16-03-2015 08:32PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

So a married gay couple will invariably not want children, is that what you are trying to argue?

Clearly not, but if that helps you along here...

kylith · 16-03-2015 08:34PM

So, given that:

Nodin wrote: »

Legislation is coming into law before the referendum that will see that gay couples will be able to adopt regardless of the outcome of the referendum.

can we please forget about adoption and can anyone give any reason not connected to children or adoption that same sex couples should not be entitled to the same marriage rights and responsibilities as a heterosexual couple?

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

Comments