How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

I rarely come into this thread due to my blood pressure. The mental gymnastics the no voters have to do to explain their vote is something to behold.

frostyjacks wrote: »

Because you're saying that a same sex unit can do the same job as a traditional unit, which is illogical. It would be like my employers hiring a chimpanzee to work alongside me and pretending it's capable of doing the same job. Society is fragmenting enough as it is, we don't need to accelerate it.

do you have any evidence to support that? There is plenty of evidence that shows it isnt true so i'm curious to know what evidence you have. Unless of course you think its obvious and prefer not to educate yourself.

frostyjacks wrote: »

Because you're saying that a same sex unit can do the same job as a traditional unit, which is illogical. It would be like my employers hiring a chimpanzee to work alongside me and pretending it's capable of doing the same job. Society is fragmenting enough as it is, we don't need to accelerate it.

How will a No vote change this?

@Frostyjacks: how would voting NO protect the family unit which has gay children within it? How do you think a NO vote by you would protect the children's interests? While you are considering your response, please bear in mind that most gay (and LGBT generally) kids are born into heterosexual-parented families. Have you considered the chance that LGBT couples intent upon marrying have considered the way they were raised in traditional family units and (in the main) have seen that unit as a good thing to copy, and maybe raise children in?

We generally don't just pop up out of the blue, nor are born specifically through some sort of genetic engineering intended to increase the numbers of LGBT folk on our planet. This last sentence is made in reference to this in today's Irish Times, http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/no-vote-group-alleges-misleading-of-public-on-child-issues-1.2189504.. with these quotes in respect to the issue of surrogacy being mentioned by the NO vote campaigners.

No-vote group alleges misleading of public on child issues. Surrogacy and donor-assisted reproduction ‘clearly relevant to discussion’. About 180 people attended an event organised by Mothers and Fathers Matter, a group campaigning for the retention of the current definition of marriage in the Constitution, held in the Marino Institute of Education in Dublin.

A legal adviser to the Mothers and Fathers Matter group, Tom Finnegan, referred to a poster (above) erected by the group in recent days referring to surrogacy which he acknowledged was “probably the most controversial” of its three posters. The Government is “deliberately misleading the public” by claiming the same-sex marriage referendum has nothing to do with children, a conference advocating a No vote has heard. However, he said surrogacy and donor-assisted reproduction were issues that were “clearly relevant to the discussion about redefining marriage”. Mr Finnegan said that, if the referendum passes, homosexual married couples would have the same constitutional status as any other married couple.

‘Right to procreate’

He said married couples “currently enjoy the right to procreate”, adding that if the referendum passes “it would mean that all same-sex couples would have a similar right to procreate under the Constitution”. “For same-sex couples to procreate, to have a right to procreate... that right must necessarily entail a right to avail of things like donor assisted human reproduction or surrogacy,” he said.

Louise Doris, a consultant on bioethical issues and PhD student at the European University Institute, said surrogacy bans in place in other countries had come under increasing pressure because of the introduction of same-sex marriage. “What I have observed, particularly in Spain, France and now in Ireland, [is] that the confluence of assisted reproduction and the advent of same-sex marriage conspire to drive traditional family rights off their moorings,” she said.

......................................................................................................................................................

I honestly don't know where they get the notion that there is a section within the constitution granting the right to procreate, and that this supposed section is linked to marriage, or that LGBT people have been to the forefront of medical human reproduction science with the intent to have children. Maybe there's a study floating around somewhere that validates Louise's thoughts on how same-sex marriage and IVF/surrogacy science are co-mingled and that it's the ultimate Gay agenda.........................

My mind wandered: would she have thoughts about parents choosing their babies genetic make-up in advance.... like LGBT people will want what all parents want, a child made in their own image.... a deluge of LGBT babies.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Children or teary-eyed thoughts of the children? And the acceleration is therefore measured in teary-eyed thoughts of children/hour.

Is that an official SI unit?

Huntergonzo wrote: »

But the bible says we should kill homosexuals, didn't you read Leviticus 20:13 = "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them."

You can't go against the good book now can you?

you could just ignore it?

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Ignore the word of God, are you insane???

No. I've got a certificate and everything.

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Ignore the word of God, are you insane???

*sarcasm detector... initialising... initialising*

Voting yes

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'm not approaching it from a religious POV, it's just pure common sense. Two people of the same sex cannot do the same job as an opposite sex couple, however much the gay lobby try and spin it. It doesn't need proving, the thing proves itself. Why pretend otherwise?

Again, how will you voting No change it?