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

Stark · 16-03-2015 08:35PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

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.

Good ****ing Lord. This is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read in my time on boards.

Realt Dearg Sec · 16-03-2015 08:36PM

kylith wrote: »

So, given that:

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?

Because CHILDREN!!!

LordNorbury · 16-03-2015 08:40PM

Nodin wrote: »

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?

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 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.

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.

LDN_Irish · 16-03-2015 08:41PM

Assuming I agreed with all of your points LordNorbury, how will allowing SSM cause prospective adoptees to multiply?

LordNorbury · 16-03-2015 08:41PM

Stark wrote: »

Good ****ing Lord. This is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read in my time on boards.

Why is it ignorant? If it is ignorant, why do people choose to try to have their own children first, rather than try to adopt other people's children first, can you explain that to me?

Stark · 16-03-2015 08:42PM

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.

How about googling "same sex parenting research" or speaking to children of same sex couples rather than peddling mistruths about "no-one having thought any of this out".

ohnonotgmail · 16-03-2015 08:42PM

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 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.

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.

Not only has it been thought through it has been widely practiced in more enlightened parts of the world. So far, without incident.

Stark · 16-03-2015 08:43PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

Why is it ignorant? If it is ignorant, why do people choose to try to have their own children first, rather than try to adopt other people's children first, can you explain that to me?

Because it's a million times easier to have a biological child than it is to go through the adoption process? Not to mention the number of unplanned conceptions.

anothernight · 16-03-2015 08:43PM

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

I have a friend who has two mothers. Shall I tell her that she didn't turn out well, because... you say so?

Also, can I please get an answer?

anothernight wrote: »

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 08:43PM

Stark wrote: »

How about googling "same sex parenting research" rather than peddling mistruths about "no-one having thought any of this out".

oooh, introducing facts. that's dirty fighting.

Shrap · 16-03-2015 08:43PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

Why is it ignorant? If it is ignorant, why do people choose to try to have their own children first, rather than try to adopt other people's children first, can you explain that to me?

Well, it's a lot easier for a start. Failing that though, they look for other ways to become parents.

kylith · 16-03-2015 08:44PM

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 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.

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.

But gay people can already adopt. Gay couples will be able to adopt regardless of the outcome of the SSM vote. Gay people can and do have biological children through surrogacy or sperm donors. Gay people are just as 'built to procreate', biologically, as straight people.

Do you have any other argument against SSM that doesn't involve something that has already happened?

shruikan2553 · 16-03-2015 08:45PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

oooh, introducing facts. that's dirty fighting.

There's always the instruction manual for these situations.

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/evidence-youre-wrong-comic.jpg

LordNorbury · 16-03-2015 08:45PM

Shrap wrote: »

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.

Again, how is it disgraceful? And as I asked the last poster, if what I have said is not true, then why do people choose to try to have their own children before trying to adopt a child? If it is all the same, why does every couple only try to adopt after failing to conceive their own child? If you are correct, why are couples who can have children, not trying to adopt instead of trying to have their own children first, maybe you might explain that to me?

LordNorbury · 16-03-2015 08:46PM

kylith wrote: »

But gay people can already adopt. Gay couples will be able to adopt regardless of the outcome of the SSM vote. Gay people can and do have biological children through surrogacy or sperm donors.

Do you have any other argument against SSM that doesn't involve something that has already happened?

So 2 gay people can now create a child that is biologically related to both of them? Can you explain how that can be possible please?

LDN_Irish · 16-03-2015 08:46PM

kylith wrote: »

But gay people can already adopt. Gay couples will be able to adopt regardless of the outcome of the SSM vote. Gay people can and do have biological children through surrogacy or sperm donors.

Do you have any other argument against SSM that doesn't involve something that has already happened?

That's an unfair accusation! He also has things that have never and will never happen!

ohnonotgmail · 16-03-2015 08:47PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

Again, how is it disgraceful? And as I asked the last poster, if what I have said is not true, then why do people choose to try to have their own children before trying to adopt a child? If it is all the same, why does every couple only try to adopt after failing to conceive their own child? If you are correct, why are couples who can have children, not trying to adopt instead of trying to have their own children first, maybe you might explain that to me?

because making your own is a whole lot easier, cheaper and much more fun than adopting.

Stark · 16-03-2015 08:48PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

Again, how is it disgraceful? And as I asked the last poster, if what I have said is not true, then why do people choose to try to have their own children before trying to adopt a child? If it is all the same, why does every couple only try to adopt after failing to conceive their own child? If you are correct, why are couples who can have children, not trying to adopt instead of trying to have their own children first, maybe you might explain that to me?

There are 14 times more people looking to adopt in Ireland than there are children available to adopt. http://www.thejournal.ie/adoption-ireland-1538973-Jun2014/

bodice ripper · 16-03-2015 08:48PM

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.

Translation: Please, PLEASE tell me these things are fundamental. I have a lot invested in these ideas. I need to believe they are inherently true, otherwise I might have to take responsibility for my own choices.

Guy:Incognito · 16-03-2015 08:48PM

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.

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.

PopePalpatine · 16-03-2015 08:48PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

So 2 gay people can now create a child that is biologically related to both of them? Can you explain how that can be possible please?

Yeah, science!

Shrap · 16-03-2015 08:49PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

Again, how is it disgraceful? And as I asked the last poster, if what I have said is not true, then why do people choose to try to have their own children before trying to adopt a child? If it is all the same, why does every couple only try to adopt after failing to conceive their own child? If you are correct, why are couples who can have children, not trying to adopt instead of trying to have their own children first, maybe you might explain that to me?

Some of them do both. Also, sex is fun and between two fertile people of opposite gender, results quite frequently in pregnancy. Did you do biology in school? You probably don't need that explained to you then.

However, you clearly have a tentative grasp of love and attachment.

Anyway, NONE of this, and I repeat NONE of this relates to what we will be voting on in May. Gay people can and do already have children, so will you PLEASE stop banging on about fertility now?

kylith · 16-03-2015 08:51PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

So 2 gay people can now create a child that is biologically related to both of them? Can you explain how that can be possible please?

They can have children that are biologically related to one of them - just as heterosexual people who marry people who already have children do. Gay men can even mix their sperm together so that no-one knows who the child is biologically fathered by.

BUT since gay couples will be able to adopt regardless of the outcome of the SSM vote do you have any argument against SSM that does not involve children, since children and adoption are irrelevant BECAUSE GAY PEOPLE ALREADY CAN AND DO ADOPT.

reprise · 16-03-2015 08:51PM

Stark wrote: »

There are 14 times more people looking to adopt in Ireland than there are children available to adopt. http://www.thejournal.ie/adoption-ireland-1538973-Jun2014/

It doesn't say how many of them have turned to adoption in preference to having children themselves, which is LordNorbury's point.

bjork · 16-03-2015 08:54PM

In a few years we won't have to worry about mothers day because no one will know who their mother is, just like half of them now don't know who their father is.

I will inbreeding cause problems in a few generations?

Shrap · 16-03-2015 08:54PM

reprise wrote: »

It doesn't say how many of them have turned to adoption in preference to having children themselves, which is LordNorbury's point.

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.

16-03-2015 08:54PM

There is a limit to how seriously people should take someone who calls himself after a blackguard like Lord Norbury

bodice ripper · 16-03-2015 08:55PM

bjork wrote: »

In a few years we won't have to worry about mothers day because no one will know who their mother is, just like half of them now don't know who their father is.

I will inbreeding cause problems in a few generations?

Can't blame the gays if you will inbreeding.

Shrap · 16-03-2015 08:55PM

bjork wrote: »

In a few years we won't have to worry about mothers day because no one will know who their mother is, just like half of them now don't know who their father is.

I will inbreeding cause problems in a few generations?

Are you on the funny stuff again bjork? You're beginning to sound like Fidelma Healy whatsherface now....

reprise · 16-03-2015 08:55PM

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.

If it wasn't relevant, you should have stopped where you said so.

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

Comments