Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

1…150151153155156…218

Comments

  • #4562
    3wayswitch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 310 ✭✭3wayswitch


    steamengine wrote: »
    No, It was for the purpose intended.

    But if you are saying that the mixed sex biological parents of a child are the ideal, then by extension you are saying that non biological parents aren't, regardless of the gender or genders that couple comprises of.

    Not sure how any of this ties into the upcoming referendum.
    steamengine wrote: »
    In particular I find commercial surrogacy he mentioned to be particularly repulsive.

    That's not really a gay issue though, straight couples avail of those services too.


  • #4563
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    steamengine wrote: »
    I was trying to find out what YES posters thought of traditional parentage versus same sex parentage.

    As I said previously I found Paddy Mannings video very thought provoking and I would seriously like to see all the YES posters here to watch the video, regardless of how they intend to vote.

    In particular I find commercial surrogacy to be particularly repulsive and I'm a male.

    To be honest I am finding it difficult following your train of thought . I know from reading your posts on other threads that you never had any intention of voting anything other than no . And it seems like you are looking for a rationale to bolster that view .

    None of this talk about adoption, surrogacy , etc. has any relevance to the referendum on ssm , so what point are you making exactly ?


  • #4564
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    steamengine wrote: »
    Briefly, that children of SSMs are being short changed - surrogacy and associated exploitation of women - biological parents being cut out of the picture - children not feeling a part of anything etc etc.

    Why don't you look at it for yourself, it's only 25 minutes long ?

    What makes sense to me might not to you though.

    Since surrogacy is already available and both single and married people can avail of it, the extension of marriage to same sex couples will have no effect whatsoever on the issue. if a co-habiting same sex couple, or one in a civil partnership want to avail of surrogacy, they can already do so.
    It makes no sense at all. So...a red herring.

    You want me to spend twenty five minutes listening to an argument that has nothing to do with the issue?


  • #4565
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    See you tomorrow then. Looking forward to learning what ideal is and why myself and my girlfriend will become inferior parents if we have problems conceiving. Maybe someone else might be kind enough to explain before then.

    I'll try now. By ideal I meant - What is the best way for a child to be parented ?
    A - to be conceived by their mixed sex parents

    OR

    B to be acquired by adoption (for the sake of this comparison) and raised by same sex parents.

    Re yourself and your girlfriend - No way, I'm genuinely sorry if you took it that way.

    BTW my attitudes are softening too, as I said Paddy impressed me immensely. I need to watch that video again.


  • #4566
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,938 ✭✭✭galljga1


    steamengine wrote: »
    I was trying to find out what YES posters thought of traditional parentage versus same sex parentage.

    As I said previously I found Paddy Mannings video very thought provoking and I would seriously like to see all the YES posters here to watch the video, regardless of how they intend to vote.

    In particular I find commercial surrogacy he mentioned to be particularly repulsive.

    To be honest, I stuck it out for 16 minutes. I found Paddy Manning to be particularly repulsive.


  • Advertisement
  • #4567
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    3wayswitch wrote: »
    But if you are saying that the mixed sex biological parents of a child are the ideal, then by extension you are saying that non biological parents aren't, regardless of the gender or genders that couple comprises of.

    Not sure how any of this ties into the upcoming referendum.



    That's not really a gay issue though, straight couples avail of those services too.

    No I'm not, perhaps best and second best though.


    That just doesn't lessen the exploitation though. Straights do it, so gays can do it too.


  • #4568
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Me and my husband could head off to India tomorrow and organize a surrogate. What does that have to do with marriage equality? We also didn't need to be married to have our children and we were never asked during registration of intent to marry or during the marriage ceremony if we intended to have children or whether we were fertile. What does the ability to procreate have to do with marriage equality?


  • #4569
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    galljga1 wrote: »
    To be honest, I stuck it out for 16 minutes. I found Paddy Manning to be particularly repulsive.

    That's a pity. How do you mean 'repulsive' - in what way ?


  • #4570
    steamengine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭steamengine


    Sorry folks, I have to break off now. See you tomorrow, it was enjoyable chewing the fat with you. :D


  • #4571
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    steamengine wrote: »
    He's not imposing anything, he's on one side of a debate. The referendum is the vote, the people will impose.

    Probably none, but overall it's less than the ideal of the traditional married arrangement - you know a father, mother !

    Fair enough - that's your opinion.

    Do you tolerate different opinions to your own ? I'm curious.

    He is saying that because HE doesn't want to marry a partner of his own gender, he doesn't want other to have this option either. That is trying to impose HIS wishes on others.

    There are many ideals in life, but it doesn't mean that the "ideal" set up is always the right one. A child can have a mother and father who fight all the time or abuse them, and they can have a single mother or father or a same sex coupe who value and cherish them. You can't possible make an assumption that one family set up is the perfect one.

    Of course I tolerate opinions other than my own. The difference is that I don't try to impose my opinions on other people.


  • Advertisement
  • #4572
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    steamengine wrote: »
    Would you not think though, that the ideal situation is the traditional father and mother scenario and their own child ?

    It depends on the mother and father concerned. Were Rosemary and Fred West an ideal mother and father?


  • #4573
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    steamengine wrote: »
    Each to his own, it's just that quite a lot of people would consider the traditional arrangement the ideal for all sorts of reason. Hence, apart from religious convictions, why one would vote NO in the referendum.

    Whether or not this amendment passes, family arrangements won't change. Traditional families will still have children, same sex couples will still have children, single parents will still have children.

    This amendment has NOTHING TO DO with this fact.

    Why are you perpetuating this red herring? Is it mischievous or do you really not grasp this?


  • #4574
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    katydid wrote: »
    Whether or not this amendment passes, family arrangements won't change. Traditional families will still have children, same sex couples will still have children, single parents will still have children.

    This amendment has NOTHING TO DO with this fact.

    Why are you perpetuating this red herring? Is it mischievous or do you really not grasp this?

    According to her interview on Newstalk recently, Mary McAleese's view is that this referendum is only about children.


  • #4575
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    hinault wrote: »
    According to her interview on Newstalk recently, Mary McAleese's view is that this referendum is only about children.

    Yes gay children who grow into gay adults who might want to get married some day. Why would I not want my children to be able to get married regardless of their sexual orientation?


  • #4576
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    lazygal wrote: »
    Yes gay children who grow into gay adults who might want to get married some day. Why would I not want my children to be able to get married regardless of their sexual orientation?

    Homosexual children :rolleyes:


  • #4577
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    hinault wrote: »
    According to her interview on Newstalk recently, Mary McAleese's view is that this referendum is only about children.

    She's wrong. Clearly it isn't.


  • #4578
    3wayswitch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 310 ✭✭3wayswitch


    steamengine wrote: »

    What is the best way for a child to be parented ?

    A - to be conceived by their mixed sex parents

    OR

    B to be acquired by adoption (for the sake of this comparison) and raised by same sex parents.

    I'm still not understanding the purpose of this question. If kids were going to be forcibly taken from their biological parents and given to same sex couples if the referendum passes, then I could understand the reasoning for asking this. They aren't though.
    steamengine wrote: »
    That just doesn't lessen the exploitation though. Straights do it, so gays can do it too.

    I'm not saying it does. I'm saying don't make it strictly a gay issue when it isn't. It also has nothing to do with the upcoming referendum.


  • #4579
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    hinault wrote: »
    Homosexual children :rolleyes:

    My friend always knew he was gay. What's your point, that children don't know their own minds? Or that they've turned gay because of the liberal media or some such nonsense?


  • #4580
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    katydid wrote: »
    She's wrong. Clearly it isn't.

    Well McAleese is supporting the YES campaign.


  • #4581
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    steamengine wrote: »
    In particular I find commercial surrogacy he mentioned to be particularly repulsive.

    What has commercial surrogacy got to do with same sex marriage?


  • Advertisement
  • #4582
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    katydid wrote: »
    What has commercial surrogacy got to do with same sex marriage?
    Nothing. As a heterosexual couple we could pay a surrogate tomorrow if we wanted to go that route.


  • #4583
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    lazygal wrote: »
    My friend always knew he was gay. What's your point, that children don't know their own minds? Or that they've turned gay because of the liberal media or some such nonsense?

    That's exactly my point, children don't know their own mind.
    That's why adults have a duty of care to children because society, until recently, recognised that children do not possess the faculties to do so.

    I won't be relying upon the anecdotes of "your friend" to decide which way to vote.


  • #4584
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    hinault wrote: »
    That's exactly my point, children don't know their own mind.
    That's why adults have a duty of care to children because society, until recently, recognised that children do not possess the faculties to do so.

    I won't be relying upon the anecdotes of "your friend" to decide which way to vote.

    What age do they stop being children ?


  • #4585
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    hinault wrote: »
    Well McAleese is supporting the YES campaign.

    So?


  • #4586
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    hinault wrote: »
    That's exactly my point, children don't know their own mind.
    That's why adults have a duty of care to children because society, until recently, recognised that children do not possess the faculties to do so.

    I won't be relying upon the anecdotes of "your friend" to decide which way to vote.

    Are you relying on Paddy Manning's anecdotes?


  • #4587
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    katydid wrote: »
    So?

    She says that the referendum is about children, as she advocates for the YES side.


  • #4588
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    lazygal wrote: »
    Are you relying on Paddy Manning's anecdotes?

    No.

    I'm relying upon the Bible and the gospels, which advocate for male/female spouses.


  • #4589
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    hinault wrote: »
    She says that the referendum is about children, as she advocates for the YES side.
    Yes, children who are gay and then grow up into adults who are gay and might want to get married. What's your point? Nothing about reproductive rights or surrogacy or any such red herrings have anything to do with gay marriage. I could head off to SIMS tomorrow and purchase donor eggs and sperm and do Ivf and I'm a married heterosexual woman.


  • #4590
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    hinault wrote: »
    No.

    I'm relying upon the Bible and the gospels, which advocate for male/female spouses.

    Why is the bible a reliable source for a referendum on marriage equality? Do you also avoid women who are menstruating as I am.right now?


  • Advertisement
  • #4591
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    hinault wrote: »
    No.

    I'm relying upon the Bible and the gospels, which advocate for male/female spouses.

    A. The gospels are part of the Bible... How does the bible advocate for male/female spouses?

    B. What relevance does the Biblical view, or any other religious view of marriage, have to do with a referendum on civil, secular marriage?


Advertisement