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

steamengine wrote: »

You are aware that C of I was the establishment Church in Ireland, and whilst now portraying a socially liberal outlook have amongst its membership some of the most conservative people you could ever meet. Some ok people too though.

Catholics have taken a leaf out of the Protestant book in recent decades, in that they don't let the priests push them round, the way some of them used to, hence the bullying charge is OTT IMO.

I am talking about Ireland today and since the establishment of the free state not prior to it. The RCC has controlled the state since the state was established and is very reluctant to relinquish that control over civic issues, where religion should have no place in a secular republic.

I am also talking about the C of I and the RCC as organisations and how they represent themselves as such. Whether individual members are very conservative or very liberal is irrelevant.

Anyhow, we will be told to take this to the Catholic/Protestant thread shortly, so had best get back on topic. My point was that you seem to think there is something wrong with a church telling its members to vote on civic issues according to their conscience. Personally I think that is highly commendable. I also think its deplorable for the opposite to occur where a church tells its members to vote against the equal rights of a minority group.

steamengine wrote: »

Its advising, recommending - that's a big difference.

Like it was 'advising, recommending' which way TDs should vote when they were threatened over abortion?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

People screaming homophobe at anyone who disagrees is nothing something I agree with - although with the qualification that some people are actually homophobic and should be called on it. But let's stick to the posters for now if that's ok.



I am genuinely trying to work out why some - and I am not saying you - No supporters believe it is ok to lie. Particularly those who are viewing this referendum through religious eyes. If one's religion is informing one's position then surely one is faced with an ethical dilemma when one sees blatant lies being employed.

What lie is the poster (shown on that lamp post) conveying?

hinault wrote: »

What lie is the poster (shown on that lamp post) conveying?

The lie that voting No will have any impact on whether or not same sex couples or individuals will become parents.

Gay people are already parents.
They will continue to become parents.

Surrogacy is a matter for legislation and what ever is decided neither a Yes or a No vote will have any impact on that. It is a lie to link it to this Referendum.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The lie is the implication that there is any relationship between this referendum and surrogacy. Surrogacy will continue to occur regardless of the outcome.

Surrogacy results, and can only result, from a union of male and female.
A male and female union is a heterosexual union.

Therefore what lie is the poster (shown on that lamp post) conveying?

hinault wrote: »

Well a child can only be conceived by the union of a man and a woman.
So that union is inherently heterosexual, and not homosexual.

What lie is the poster (shown on that lamp post) conveying?

Did you actually read my response?

And no - a child is conceived when a oocyte is fertilised by a spermatozoid. This usually - but not exclusively - occurs when a male and a female have sexual intercourse. There is no requirement for the male and female to be married. Sometimes it is not possible for fertilisation to occur during sexual intercourse so other methods are employed. This use of alternative methods is more common among heterosexuals than homosexuals.

At the moment due to a lack of legislation to regulate surrogacy, the woman who carried the child is considered the mother even though she may not be biologically related to the child. Surrogacy is more common among heterosexuals than homosexuals.

Now - care to tell us why you believe the poster is relevant to a debate on allowing two people of the same gender enter into a civil contract of marriage?

Straight answer (pun intended) please and none of your semantics as I really can't be bothered getting into a discussion with someone who only wants to play word games and engage is some ridiculously childish point scoring.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

a child is conceived when a oocyte is fertilised by a spermatozoid. This usually - but not exclusively - occurs when a male and a female have sexual intercourse. There is no requirement for the male and female to be married. Sometimes it is not possible for fertilisation to occur during sexual intercourse so other methods are employed. This use of alternative methods is more common among heterosexuals than homosexuals

So you do agree that conception is the union of male and female, and is therefore and can only be heterosexual.

Good.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

D

At the moment due to a lack of legislation to regulate surrogacy, the woman who carried the child is considered the mother even though she may not be biologically related to the child. Surrogacy is more common among heterosexuals than homosexuals.

You accept that surrogacy can only result from the union of male and female,
and is therefore, and can only be, heterosexual in cause?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Now - care to tell us why you believe the poster is relevant to a debate on allowing two people of the same gender enter into a civil contract of marriage?

Straight answer (pun intended) please and none of your semantics as I really can't be bothered getting into a discussion with someone who only wants to play word games and engage is some ridiculously childish point scoring.

Surrogacy can only result from the union of male and female, a heterosexual union. That being the case, surrogacy asserts the primacy of heterosexual unions because without a heterosexual union surrogacy is not possible.

Is surrogacy and the right to homosexual marriage related? Without a heterosexual union creating new life, homosexuals would not be able to adopt what hasn't been created.

hinault wrote: »

So you do agree that conception is the union of male and female, and is therefore and can only be heterosexual.

Good.



You accept that surrogacy can only result from the union of male and female,
and is therefore, and can only be, heterosexual in cause?




Surrogacy can only result from the union of male and female, a heterosexual union. That being the case, surrogacy asserts the primacy of heterosexual unions because without a heterosexual union surrogacy is not possible.

Is surrogacy and the right to homosexual marriage related? Without a heterosexual union creating new life, homosexuals would not be able to adopt what hasn't been created.

We both know I said nothing of the kind. Sperm can fertilize egg without male ever even meeting female but apparently in your world that is a 'union' so it is clear you have chosen the childish word games response.

It is a shame that you appear to be incapable of engaging in discussion as an adult but such is life. Some people are like that.

hinault wrote: »

There are no childish word games here. Basic human biology perhaps.

Sperm can only come from a male, and an egg can only come from a female.
Sperm is intrinsically male, the egg is intrinsically female.

Male + Female = heterosexual.
Life can only be conceived through heterosexuality.

Surrogacy can only result from the successful conception via heterosexuality of human life.

No-one is disputing that males produce sperm and females produce ovum. What is being disputed is that conception only occurs when they have sexual intercourse.

1978 Louise Brown was born. No sexual intercourse was involved in her conception.

In vitro fertilization (IVF) is the most common and most effective type of assisted reproductive technology (ART) to help women become pregnant.

The procedure involves fertilizing an egg outside the body, in a laboratory dish, and then implanting it in a woman's uterus.....

To date, IVF has contributed to approximately 5 million births.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/262798.php

5 million children conceived with no sexual intercourse involved.

So yes - you are playing silly word games again.

Mind you - it may soon be possible to conceive via a 'lesbian' union - while I am not sure how I feel about this I would enjoy reading your attempts to twist it into being somehow a 'heterosexual' union.

Scientists from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne led by biologist Karim Nayernia discovered a method of creating partly developed sperm cells, otherwise known as "spermatogonial" stem cells, from the bone marrow of both sexes, entirely in-vitro (outside the human body), and is seeking funding to see whether such techniques can be used to make female sperm....

If created, a "female sperm" cell could fertilize an egg cell, a procedure that, among other potential applications, might enable female same-sex couples to produce a child that would be the biological offspring of its two mothers. It is also claimed that production of female sperm may stimulate a female to be both the mother and father (similar to asexual reproduction) of an offspring produced by her own sperm even though many queries both ethical as well as moral may arise on these arguments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_sperm

You still haven't explained what surrogacy has to do with the Referendum by the way. Did you forget that was the original question?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No-one is disputing that males produce sperm and females produce ovum. What is being disputed is that conception only occurs when they have sexual intercourse.

1978 Louise Brown was born. No sexual intercourse was involved in her conception.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/262798.php

5 million children conceived with no sexual intercourse involved.

You appear to be trying to dispute it.

Sexual intercourse? Sexual intercourse is merely one means of enjoining the sperm with the egg.

Whether conception takes place through sexual intercourse, or conception is derived through some other means, is extraneous to the point that it is only through male + female that human life can be conceived.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You still haven't explained what surrogacy has to do with the Referendum by the way.

The poster appears to be asserting the primacy of heterosexuality. And the poster appears to be asserting that surrogacy can only result via heterosexual union.

hinault wrote: »

There are no childish word games here. Basic human biology perhaps.

Sperm can only come from a male, and an egg can only come from a female.
Sperm is intrinsically male, the egg is intrinsically female.

Male + Female = heterosexual.
Life can only be conceived through heterosexuality.

Surrogacy can only result from the successful conception via heterosexuality of human life.

Now tell us how marital status plays a role in any of this, and you could be halfway to explaining the relevance of surrogacy in a discussion about marriage equality.