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

galljga1 · 23-04-2015 08:41AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I did.

I read a part saying you're not that bothered what other people do.

I then saw the part where you said you are a probable No voter.

These don't make a lot of sense, because of what I pointed out.

These values don't tally. I'm just pointing out the logical flaw.

This is an example of a 'no' voter who is probably now undecided as he was open to discussion.
There are a lot of people out there who are not fully clued in and are getting bushwhacked by soundbites from various idiotic groups and just could not be bothered to find out more: adoption, surrogacy, child being denied a mother, father etc. These are the people we need to convince that a yes vote is the only way to go because I am not sure this will be the landslide that was first envisaged.

Then there are the entrenched unenlightened. All we can do with these ....persons.... is shoot down their rather pathetic deflective arguments and move on.

Kiwi in IE · 23-04-2015 09:32AM

steamengine wrote: »

Thank you, I'm still actually thinking the thing through, at the moment it looks like I'll abstain, actually - I do listen and I hope others do to. That's it for now the golf course beckons.

Given your views on the matter, which I completely disagree with but you are entitled to hold, that is a really decent thing to do

katydid · 23-04-2015 10:46AM

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.

And since all this happens as it is now, to heterosexual couples, married or cohabiting, to same sex couples, and to single people, it has no relevance whatsoever to the proposed change in the referendum. Children will carry on being born through surrogacy arrangements whatever the result.

Bannasidhe · 23-04-2015 11:58AM

Re: Tactics.

yesequalitycork has responded to the erection of the 'surrogacy' posters across the North side of Cork city last night with a statement asking people to not take them down or deface them.
It urges people who feel the need to vent to pop in the yes campaign HQ for a rant and a cup of tea.

You may have seen the No side's posters going up over the last few days over our beautiful city and county. Maybe you've been finding them upsetting, or they make you really angry. We know - we understand and we feel like that too. It can be tempting to think about taking them down or defacing them - but please don't

https://www.facebook.com/yesequalitycork?fref=ts

Can anyone link me to where the No side has asked people not to break windows which display Yes posters?

oldrnwisr · 23-04-2015 12:19PM

hinault wrote: »

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

The lie which the poster conveys is that surrogacy is in any way relevant to the marriage equality debate. The poster above is expanded on in the claims made by the no side:

“The core of the issue is this: Frances Fitzgerald and Leo Varadker very prudently and very wisely are both in favour of legislative restrictions on donor-assisted human reproduction and on surrogacy. The effect of this referendum proposal is to give constitutional status to donor-assisted human reproduction and surrogacy, which means, in essence, that legislative restrictions are then cast in doubt … it is so exceptionally serious. To give constitutional status to donor assisted reproduction and surrogacy – it puts all legislative restrictions under constitutional attack, so to speak.”
Patrick Treacy

“… allow the Oireachtas to regulate it as it sees fit … if this passes, all the rights that married couples currently have will be transferred over the same-sex couples. That includes the right to procreate – but two men can only procreate if they use surrogacy or donor assisted human reproduction … that could be very plausibly framed as a constitutional right on behalf of the two men, in which case the Constitution will be denying, completely and absolutely in all senses, that the children have any sort of right to have a mother and a father where possible.”
Thomas Finegan, Mothers and Fathers Matter

The No side are arguing that, should the referendum be passed, that same-sex couples will be automatically granted the right to procreate via IVF, surrogacy or adoption. This is categorically and demonstrably untrue.
Firstly, adoption has already been dealt with by means of the Child & Family Relationships Act and so has no bearing on the marriage equality debate.
Secondly, as outlined in the link posted by Bannasidhe, case law in this area has never established a right to IVF or surrogacy, even for opposite-sex couples. What has been established is a right to natural procreation and that even this right is not without limits.

However, even if the No side were right about rights to surrogacy their argument would still be entirely dishonest. The reason for this is that the No side are suggesting that a child born through surrogacy would suffer because they are being deprived of a mother. However, we have been studying the outcomes of children for a very long time and we know that THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE between children raised by a same-sex couple and an opposite-sex couple. To summarise the consensus on the topic:

"First, fathers and mothers influence their children in similar rather than dissimilar ways.

Stated differently, students of socialization have consistently found that parental warmth, nurturance and closeness are associated with positive child outcomes regardless of whether the parent involved is a mother or father.

Secondly, as research has unfolded, psychologists have been forced to conclude that the characteristics of individual fathers - such as their masculinity, intellect, and even their warmth - are much less important, formatively speaking, than are the characteristics of the relationships they have established with their children.

Marital harmony is a consistent correlate of child adjustment, whereas marital conflict is a consistent and reliable correlate of child maladjustment."

katydid · 23-04-2015 01:13PM

hinault wrote: »

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.

So what? That has nothing to do with marriage. It is a biological process, that happens every day to married couples, co-habiting couples, gay or straight and to single people.

hinault · 23-04-2015 01:19PM

katydid wrote: »

And since all this happens as it is now, to heterosexual couples, married or cohabiting, to same sex couples, and to single people, it has no relevance whatsoever to the proposed change in the referendum. Children will carry on being born through surrogacy arrangements whatever the result.

You're entitled to your opinion. Your opinion doesn't justify what you say, but you're entitled to express that opinion.

The union of male and female are the only unions capable of creating new life. Without new life surrogacy cannot exist.

The poster on the lamp post therefore tells a more fundamental truth.

The poster asserts why male/female union should be given higher regard by society. The referendum is a chance to publicly articulate that assertion.

I will be voting NO because I agree with what the poster on the lamp post asserts namely the primacy of male female unions.
(I didn't need a poster on a lamp post to know the fundamental truth asserted by the poster).

23-04-2015 01:26PM

hinault wrote: »

You're entitled to your opinion. Your opinion doesn't justify what you say, but you're entitled to express that opinion.

The union of male and female are the only unions capable of creating new life. Without new life surrogacy cannot exist.

The poster on the lamp post therefore tells a more fundamental truth.

The poster asserts why male/female union should be given higher regard by society. The referendum is a chance to publicly articulate that assertion.

I will be voting NO because I agree with what the poster on the lamp post asserts namely the primacy of male female unions.
(I didn't need a poster on a lamp post to know the fundamental truth asserted by the poster).

Should a sterile man be allowed marry? His union could also not create life.

Delirium · 23-04-2015 01:41PM

hinault wrote: »

The union of male and female are the only unions capable of creating new life. Without new life surrogacy cannot exist.

Irrelevant to marriage equality referendum.

The poster on the lamp post therefore tells a more fundamental truth.

The poster asserts why male/female union should be given higher regard by society. The referendum is a chance to publicly articulate that assertion.

Nobody is required to reproduce to marry, nor marry to reproduce. Why should same-sex couples be lumbered with this?

I will be voting NO because I agree with what the poster on the lamp post asserts namely the primacy of male female unions.
(I didn't need a poster on a lamp post to know the fundamental truth asserted by the poster).

So you're opposing same-sex marriage because you oppose anyone (be they male+female or same-sex couple) availing of surrogacy?

The logical way to proceed would be to campaign for laws/regulations around surrogacy that you wish to see in place. Voting no does nothing to ensure that those laws/regulations will happen.

EDIT:

with regards to surrogacy. From a press release by Lawyers for Yes:

The other assisted reproductive technique is surrogacy. A surrogate is a woman who agrees to gestate a pregnancy on the agreement that she will give up the child to its intended parents on birth. Surrogacy can take two different forms.

A ‘traditional’ surrogate uses her own egg whereas a ‘gestational’ surrogate
has an embryo, created through the use of IVF, implanted in her uterus. In the former case the surrogate has the same genetic link to the child as any biological mother, in the latter the surrogate has no genetic link to the child at all. Traditional surrogacy is now extremely rare. Heterosexual couples and same-sex male couples generally use sperm provided by one of them, an egg provided by a donor, and a gestational surrogate.

Irish law currently does not regulate surrogacy and makes no specific provision for the attribution of parenthood in the context of a surrogacy arrangement. In the case of M.R. v An t-Árd Chláraitheoir, the Supreme Court found that it was the surrogate mother, who gave birth to the child, and not the genetic mother, who was to be registered as the mother of the child for the purposes of the Civil Registration Act 2004.

Surrogacy can only be addressed through careful regulation. But these issues apply equally to surrogacy arrangements entered into by opposite-sex and same-sex couples alike. Again, very many of the couples availing of surrogacy are heterosexual. Surrogacy is availed of by couples in Ireland without regulation at the present time. This usually involves the couple travelling abroad to a country where commercial surrogacy is available. The passing or otherwise of the Marriage Equality Referendum will not affect this. The only change will be when legislation is introduced to regulate surrogacy.

Link to source PDF. (On page 12)

hinault · 23-04-2015 01:52PM

SW wrote: »

Irrelevant to marriage equality referendum.

I disagree.

I choose to discriminate in favour of male/female unions.
I will vote NO therefore.

MrPudding · 23-04-2015 01:57PM

hinault wrote: »

I disagree.

I choose to discriminate in favour of male/female unions.
I will vote NO therefore.

Thereby, discriminating against same-sex couples, actually real people, not a concept.

MrP

hinault · 23-04-2015 02:00PM

MrPudding wrote: »

Thereby, discriminating against same-sex couples, actually real people, not a concept.

MrP

If I prefer to discriminate against something, I'd have no compunction saying so here.

I have no compunction saying here that I prefer to discriminate in favour of male/female unions. Unions which are not a concept either.

NuMarvel · 23-04-2015 02:01PM

hinault wrote: »

You're entitled to your opinion. Your opinion doesn't justify what you say, but you're entitled to express that opinion.

The union of male and female are the only unions capable of creating new life. Without new life surrogacy cannot exist.

The poster on the lamp post therefore tells a more fundamental truth.

The poster asserts why male/female union should be given higher regard by society. The referendum is a chance to publicly articulate that assertion.

I will be voting NO because I agree with what the poster on the lamp post asserts namely the primacy of male female unions.
(I didn't need a poster on a lamp post to know the fundamental truth asserted by the poster).

Voting No won't stop unmarried couples (same sex or opposite sex) availing of surrogacy.

hinault · 23-04-2015 02:03PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Voting No won't stop unmarried couples (same sex or opposite sex) availing of surrogacy.

True.

It's also true that surrogacy cannot occur without the input of male/female.
This asserts the primacy of male/female unions.

Harika · 23-04-2015 02:08PM

hinault wrote: »

True.

It's also true that surrogacy cannot occur without the input of male/female.
This asserts the primacy of male/female unions.

It is also true that the earth is circling the sun, what shows that life benefits from it, and this is why I vote Yes in the referendum. So we have two true statements that are in no way related to the question of the referendum. (To keep in the logic of No Voters)

MrPudding · 23-04-2015 02:08PM

hinault wrote: »

If I prefer to discriminate against something, I'd have no compunction saying so here.

I have no compunction saying here that I prefer to discriminate in favour of male/female unions. Unions which are not a concept either.

No, is it a concept you are favouring. Opposite sex couples are not being effected in any way. So you are voting in favour of a concept, or, in your eyes, an ideal. You are doing this to the detriment of real actual people.

What do you have against gay people?

MrP

hinault · 23-04-2015 02:14PM

MrPudding wrote: »

. You are doing this to the detriment of real actual people.
MrP

Voting NO to assert the primacy of male/female unions isn't detrimental.

Asserting the truth is never detrimental.

I will vote NO.

This is my last post to this thread.

NuMarvel · 23-04-2015 02:16PM

hinault wrote: »

True.

It's also true that surrogacy cannot occur without the input of male/female.
This asserts the primacy of male/female unions.

So you accept that surrogacy and marriage are unrelated. Progress at last.

lazygal · 23-04-2015 02:21PM

hinault wrote: »

Voting NO to assert the primacy of male/female unions isn't detrimental.

Asserting the truth is never detrimental.

I will vote NO.

This is my last post to this thread.

Why should male/female unions have primacy? Does this only apply if the couple has biological children?

MrPudding · 23-04-2015 02:21PM

hinault wrote: »

Voting NO to assert the primacy of male/female unions isn't detrimental.

Yes it is. It is detrimental to the rights of same sex couples. I know you want to, but you can't separate the act of voting no with the detrimental effect it has on same sex couples.

hinault wrote: »

Asserting the truth is never detrimental.

This is patently wrong, if that is what you are doing here. It is clearly detrimental to same sex couples that want the right to be married.

hinault wrote: »

I will vote NO.

Yes, thereby discriminating against same sex couple that want to get married, and would do so at no detriment to you.

hinault wrote: »

This is my last post to this thread.

You sure? I expect I won't be the only one to miss your extremely proficient missing/ignoring the points made to you. I am, however, more disappointed that I won't find out what it is you have against gay people.

MrP

Harika · 23-04-2015 02:34PM

hinault wrote: »

Voting NO to assert the primacy of male/female unions isn't detrimental.

Asserting the truth is never detrimental.

I think this sentence appears in a different light when you know that 50 years ago the inequality of black and whites was defended by the same statement.

"Voting NO to assert the primacy of white Caucasian males isn't detrimental."

Edit: Nowadays unthinkable, same as your statement in 50 years.

marienbad · 23-04-2015 03:20PM

hinault wrote: »

Voting NO to assert the primacy of male/female unions isn't detrimental.

Asserting the truth is never detrimental.

I will vote NO.

This is my last post to this thread.

Good,it is just the same sloganeering over and over .....and over .

I just wish this referendum was over , why people care so much about the private lives of others is beyond me.

PopePalpatine · 23-04-2015 04:19PM

Bloody hell...hinault's still trying to make the word "discriminate" look good. Well, as long as it's not being used in a context like "discriminate against Catholics/Christians".

katydid · 23-04-2015 06:07PM

hinault wrote: »

I disagree.

I choose to discriminate in favour of male/female unions.
I will vote NO therefore.

You keep saying you disagree, but you fail to say WHY you disagree. Several people have pointed out to you that surrogacy can and is used by non-married couples and by single people and that therefore there is no connection between marriage and surrogacy.

You have refused either to acknowledge this fact, or to disprove it by coming up with some hitherto unheard of connection.

It is dishonest of you to link the two and to use that as your basis for voting not.

katydid · 23-04-2015 06:09PM

hinault wrote: »

If I prefer to discriminate against something, I'd have no compunction saying so here.

I have no compunction saying here that I prefer to discriminate in favour of male/female unions. Unions which are not a concept either.

Fine. But stop using arguments like surrogacy as a shield for your decision for doing so. Your reason is homophobic, pure and simple, not matter what spurious arguments you advance.

katydid · 23-04-2015 06:12PM

hinault wrote: »

True.

It's also true that surrogacy cannot occur without the input of male/female.
This asserts the primacy of male/female unions.

No, it asserts a biological fact.

It has nothing to do with the life connections between people who love each other; there, the connection is based on physical and emotional factors which vary from person to person.

In any case, it has absolutely nothing to do with civil marriage.

katydid · 23-04-2015 06:13PM

hinault wrote: »

Voting NO to assert the primacy of male/female unions isn't detrimental.

Asserting the truth is never detrimental.

I will vote NO.

This is my last post to this thread.

So you're not going to answer the very pertinent questions you've repeatedly avoided. Hmmm

Bannasidhe · 24-04-2015 09:21AM

Because time and time again the message that 'all' Christians oppose same-sex marriage is trotted out...

11917_10151970497846863_655721042033683988_n.jpg?oh=de4844dd0dd792276a2bbea1370e903c&oe=55E43BB4

11917_10151970497846863_655721042033683988_n.jpg?oh=de4844dd0dd792276a2bbea1370e903c&oe=55E43BB4

smacl · 24-04-2015 09:27AM

Rather nice and IMHO well considered piece by bishop Michael Burrows on the subject of marriage equality. The Catholic church would appear to have a lot of catching up to do when compared to their Anglican counterparts in this area.

Edit: The following extract really sums the argument up for me;

I could not vote against this proposal because of my utter abomination of homophobia, and I have to say that behind some (in fairness not all) of the case against same sex marriage lies a kind of intellectual and pseudo respectable homophobia akin to certain of the arguments against the ordination of women which struck me as no better than intellectualised misogyny. I have come to feel that homophobia must be fought in our society as an evil; at the time of the death of Nelson Mandela not long ago I reflected on his analogous view that apartheid must be fought absolutely as an evil. Part of the character of evil is that one simply cannot compromise with it. In a way that distresses me, I often find the church in effect compromising with homophobia by attempts to evade and fudge issues.

Mallagio · 24-04-2015 09:30AM

Lets hope love shines through & the good people of Ireland vote a resounding YES.

I couldn't give a toss what anyone does, each to their own - nobody should be different rules laid down for them because they are labelled as "different".

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

Comments