Same Sex Marriage Referendum Mega Thread - MOD WARNING IN FIRST POST

It's seriously starting to piss me off that people keep bringing children into this debate. We are voting on whether or not we are going to extend the right to marry to same sex couples. That's it. There's nowhere in the wording where it says that the day after the referendum passes a baby will be delivered to the door of every SS couple free of charge.

I don't know why the No side are assuming all gay couples want children anyway, either way, it's irrelevant.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

i am well aware of that but it does copper-fasten surrogacy and adoption for the same sex couples by completely changing the nature of the relationship both for the parents and the child.

There is no point ignoring the fact that adoption and surrogacy are very much tied into the debate even though both can be done already regardless of the result of the referendum. As the legal rights etc will have changed like another poster stated.

No.

Adoption is now allowed under law for all couples who are cohabiting or married or civil partnered. The referendum will not change this and will copperfasten nothing regarding this. Surrogacy will be subject to regulation regardless of this referendum.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

So your telling me the babies are not going to be used as fashion accessories or something? I hope not. Dil Wickremasinghe from Newstalk already has one on the way which may scare undecided people like me into voting no. if I am been honest.
However, the counter argument by the yes side would be this should be a reason to vote yes legal rights etc.

This is really really insulting suggesting that children are merely fashion accessories.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

You obviously have not heard the nursery rhyme first comes love then comes marriage then comes the baby in the golden carriage.:D

So your telling me the babies are not going to be used as fashion accessories or something? I hope not. Dil Wickremasinghe from Newstalk already has one on the way which may scare undecided people like me into voting no. if I am been honest.
However, the counter argument by the yes side would be this should be a reason to vote yes legal rights etc.

I think the children of such families would be deeply offended at being referred to as fashion accessories by the no side.

There are some parallels with how the RCC used to insult illegitimate children. See the film the Magdalene Sisters where babies were taken from single mothers. It was horrible. And that is still the way the Church sees gay people.

I will acknowledge though that Mam's local priest seems like a nice enough fello. He was visiting Mam when I turned up last. I did wonder was he trying to persuade her to vote no but she said they didn't discuss it.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

The vote no makes you evil argument is spurious and unfair. If people people that children are better served with a married mother and father based on whatever value they hold are they not entitled to the viewpoint? I thought we live in a democracy?

I agree with you that "vote no makes you evil argument is spurious and unfair"

However the thing is your belief/argument can be suggested and that's fine to have and express a viewpoint/opinion. Noone is stopping people put forward that opinion. However it is merely an opinion and it's an opinion that has been disproven and can be strongly refuted and challenged.

On Gormdubhgorm's talk of "values". Values can be unjust sometimes. I was fortunate in that my parents did not freak out when I told them I was gay. At that stage I was 22. But I began to have these feelings around 10 or 12. You gonna tell me Ireland was full of "gay propaganda" in 1990-2? It was actually a crime to be gay back then and I repressed it until I was 22. Gorm please believe me that sexual orientation is not something that is learned. It is the way someone is born and if parents insist on trying to "pray away the gay" all it will do is repeat the tragedies of the past with youth suicide.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I meant the ultra-religious slant of the no vote I will fix that typo.
I have no doubt that the issue raises pent up aggression from the gay community over the way that they were treated by society but the fact is when most people refer to a family unit it refers to mother and father, That is my issue with it. If gay people did not adopt children or have children via surrogacy, I would have no problem voting yes.

But at the moment it comes down to three choices for me:

1) Have a child brought into the world who has a mammy and a mammy or a daddy and a daddy. Which i think is unfair on the child. Not to mention the complication of the surrogate mother heaped in on top of this,

2) It is unfair that the gay people cannot marry as they do not have the same constitutional entitlements as the rest of society, Everyone should have the same rights etc etc.

3) Three abstain from voting on it

Families come in all shapes and sizes. Is a divorced woman and her children a family? What about a widowed father and his children - are they a family? A single mother and her children - are they family? What about Colm O Gorman his husband and their adopted children - are they a family? Were the Brady Bunch a family???

There was a time - not so long ago - that Irish society was so rigid in insisting that a family was Married Daddy + Mammy that we incarcerated unmarried mothers and stole their children. Did they not have the right to also be considered a family?

The No Campaign would say they did not have that right, that Colm doesn't have that right, that back in the day I didn't have that right because my partner was the same gender as me and we had a little boy who we loved and cherished and raised to be the man who did a AMA thread her on boards about what it was like to be raised by two mothers. We were and are a family.

But lets look at your concerns about children:

Firstly, Gay people already adopt children. At the moment they can only adopt as an individual even if in a Civil Partnership but with the signing into law of the Children and Family Relationship Act that is about to change (unmarried couples will also be able to adopt)

They will adopt children under the exact same lengthy, demanding, intrusive, exhaustive criteria that straight people do. They don't have a 'right' to adopt. They don't get extra points. They don't jump the queue. It is just as difficult for a gay person (soon to be couple) to adopt as a straight person/couple.

Gay people can and do already adopt - the main change when they will be able to do so as a couple will be the non-biological parent of a child that is already being raised by a same-sex couple will adopt the child as joint parent and this gives the child the security should the biological parent die or become incapacitated. The alternative - the way it has been up until now - is a child being raised by a same-sex couple is at risk of losing both parents if the biological parent dies as the 'other' parent is legally a stranger.

That's awful. Why would anyone want to put a child through that?

Adoption by a non-biological parent (step-parent) is already possible in heterosexual marriage - my own nephew was adopted by his step-father, a man he first met aged 10 and who has been an excellent (if grumpy) father.

Now - I am specifically talking about children that were conceived and born into a same-sex couple. When the children are from a previous heterosexual relationship the same rules apply as if the (divorced/unmarried) mother married a man.


Also 'common' (given adoption in Ireland is extremely rare) is gay people adopting a foster child (usually an older child) who due to circumstance ended up in care. Most people don't want to adopt older children, they are left to the tender mercies of the HSE. Isn't it better that a child in long-term foster is given the security of having legally recognized parents?

But - all of this comes under the Children and Family Relationship Act which is now law. Voting No will not make one iota of difference to this.

If the Referendum doesn't pass gay couples in a Civil Partnership will still be able to adopt as a couple and unmarried cohabiting for more than 3 years couple will still be able to adopt as a couple.


Secondly, most people who use surrogacy are heterosexual - are you against that as well? It is also very rare as it is damn expensive - and no, we are not talking about 'buying' a baby - just the expenses of finding a willing surrogate, medical expenses, living expenses - c 50 k... do you really think there are that many gay couples in Ireland who can afford that? If there are they ain't giving large donations to the Yes campaign.
Surrogacy is an ethically fraught issue and one government urgently needs to legislate for - and whatever legislation they do finally introduce will apply to gay and straight equally even if the referendum isn't passed so voting no will not make one iota of difference there either.

No matter what happens with the Referendum adoption by gay couples is already legal, surrogacy has to be legislated for but the law will apply to gay and straight equally and lesbians will continue to give birth to children.

Children who are not 'accidents' by the way - children who are planned and wanted. I know because I gave birth to a very wanted child in 1984 - I had to do it in England as at the time if my son had been born in Cork we both could very well have ended up in Bessborough, my son taken away from me, given up for adoption without my consent and denied any knowledge of me.

Ironic eh - Irish lesbians went to England so their biological children wouldn't be taken from them and now we are being accused of wanting to deny children a mother or a father by the ideological bedfellows of those who called unmarried mothers degenerates.

I do ask you to look deep inside yourself and honestly examine why you have a problem with same-sex parents?
Do you think we will harm our children?
What is causing you concern?

Now, I would like to thank you for your honesty, politeness and openess in a genuine discussion. I understand your fears - I do but all I can say is apart from being gay (and veh veh arty :cool:) I am a typical middle aged Irish woman who grew up watching Wanderly Wagon, thought Dev was like, president for-ever, did me inter and leaving and would lay down my life to protect my child (grown man with a beard now but still my child)- and I would do the same for my grandchildren. I am an Irish mammy who is also gay.

Vote as your conscience tells you but please understand that adoption, surrogacy, parenting are not part of this. They really aren't. This really is just whether or not two people of the same gender can enter into a contract of marriage. That's it.
Some of them want a quiet, tasteful little ceremony, some of them want to be bridezillas (and that's just the men ), some just want to pop into the registry office in a low key way. They just want what straight people want - to get married.

My son is about to get married yet ironically his parents can't because both his parents are women. You have to laugh at the how absurd that is when you think about it.

Personally I'd rather stick toothpicks under my fingernails (and I think my long-term monogamous life partner would willingly hand them to me) than get married *shudder* but that's me. Others dream of it -just like many straight people.

Is that really too much to ask for?

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I think i might just right "yes but no but" on the ballot paper.

So far I have been told only one decent argument which has made me think maybe yes is the way to go.

Think of the same-sex couples who already have kids and how voting yes would improve the kids situation on a legal basis.

Most of the rest of the arguments I have read on this thread so far have made me think I should vote no. As they lump all the no side into one group. It is a very complex issue for the non gay community particularly older generations.

I think people on the thread should realise that to convince or swing undecided voters like me a passionate simplistic statement will not sway me, it has to make me think like the above argument.

Despite this i think I am 55/45 no after reading this thread.

With respect, if you cannot understand, after being told multiple times, that this referendum has nothing to do with children, then I do not think you should be looking for something other than a simplistic argument.

If you vote No based on your current concerns, you will be voting no for reasons that completely unconnected to this referendum, a fact which you should by now be aware of.

Do you accept that?

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I see the argument put by a few people where heterosexuals are infertile and adopt/go for the surrogate mother option that it negates the argument on procreation.

But in my view that is trying to aid the creation of the family unit of the mother and father. Rather then completely rip up nature and have two males or two females as the legal parents of a child.

At the moment after reading the bit of this thread I am no nearer deciding.

I will either vote no or spoil my vote instead. That is as far as I have got!

Gotcha - you are going to vote no because the idea of same-sex parenting makes you feel kinda icky. Despite the fact that it really has no bearing on what we will be voting on. Or the fact that you have neither experience nor knowledge about the effects of same sex parenting - just a sort of gut feeling that it would be sort of icky if two men or two women were partners and parents. But you have nothing against gays - goodness no! You would not stand in the way of anyone's happiness, and you are a live and let live kinda guy.

It's ok. What you are suffering from is low-grade aversion to homosexuality. It is not your fault - it is the way you were brought up. Just try to remember that those gay people could be your sons and daughters, your nieces and nephews, your friends and your neighbors, and then decide if you would tell them, to their face, that they cannot marry the person they love because you would feel kinda icky over something they can do anyway.

If you would be happy to say that to your gay son / cousin / nephew / daughter / friend / whatnot, then you should vote no. If you would not, then you should probably vote yes. Anything else is just dishonest beating about the bush.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I am going on gut feeling starting to feel like it is not my battle and and will spoil my vote rather then not vote (because those lads from 1916 might haunt me for not voting!)

How is spoiling your vote any more useful to society than staying at home that day?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I do ask you to look deep inside yourself and honestly examine why you have a problem with same-sex parents?
Do you think we will harm our children?
What is causing you concern?

Ok I decided to answer your question do I think that same-sex parents wll harm our children?

Absolutely not unless you happened to be some mad deranged person regardless of sexual ordination.

What is my concern? I feel that it is a further break down of the traditonal family unit. Everyone should be given the chance to have a Mam and a Dad as their family where possible.

There are already ready plenty of broken families in the hetrosexual world. This has the potential to further complicate things. Although the referendum will not change adoption it will change the rights of the child because the parents are now married.
Will there be a fad of the gay community wanting to "create families" as a result of this referendum to be a family.
Will the child get bullied at school because he/she has two mammy's or daddy's?
Will this result in hetrosexual surrogates been "farmed" for payments by the gay community to produce children.

Will this be the final nail in the coffin for the traditional family and the al a carte family will be come the norm?

This in turn could lead to the acceptance of genetically modified babies where requests are put in and the baby produced. As the necessity for natural procreation decreases. (I know this is far fetched but that is what I see the future as in about 100 years).