Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

SSM why are you voting no?

12467…88

Comments

  • #92
    LordNorbury
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭LordNorbury


    galljga1 wrote: »
    Do you think a yes vote is going to result in thousands of gay couples scouring the country/world for babies?
    Do you think a yes vote will result in an increase in the number of gay couples scouring the country/world for babies?
    If you answered yes to either of the above, please explain the logic by which you reached your answer.

    Of course it will! It is conferring the constitutional meaning of a family status on a gay married couple in the event of a yes vote, the exact same status that a male female couple will enjoy if they are married. Do you think that same sex couples just want to have the right to get married and not "have" kids, seriously?!? That's 300,000 gay couples who will have constitutional right to "have" a family, although not one single one of these "families" by virtue of both parties having the same gender, will have the biological ability to "have" a family?!?

    And when people like me who are genuinely confused by all of this, attempt to ask where all these babies are going to come from, you try to tell me that none of them will want to actually use the absolutely equal constitutional right that they will then enjoy, to have to "have" a family, although that isn't a biological possibility by virtue of their same gender?!?


  • #93
    LordNorbury
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭LordNorbury


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    So gay couples shouldn't be allowed marry because they can't have children.

    Straight couples should be allowed marry even though they can't have children

    And yet you will still claim you are not homophobic. :rolleyes:

    The yes campaign are attempting to invoke a tiny minority of situations to argue for same sex marriage. It looks absolutely ridiculous because one has nothing to do with the other when you stand back and examine what they are trying to say are one and the same thing.


  • #94
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    Of course it will! It is conferring the constitutional meaning of a family status on a gay married couple in the event of a yes vote, the exact same status that a male female couple will enjoy if they are married. Do you think that same sex couples just want to have the right to get married and not "have" kids, seriously?!? That's 300,000 gay couples who will have constitutional right to "have" a family, although not one single one of these "families" by virtue of both parties having the same gender, will have the biological ability to "have" a family?!?

    And when people like me who are genuinely confused by all of this, attempt to ask where all these babies are going to come from, you try to tell me that none of them will want to actually use the absolutely equal constitutional right that they will then enjoy, to have to "have" a family, although that isn't a biological possibility by virtue of their same gender?!?

    Adoption and surrogacy are dealt with by the Children and Family Relationships Bill. Whether the marriage referendum passes or not, gay couples can adopt. The marriage referendum is not going to change this.


  • #95
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,866 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    In the vast vast majority of occasions, children are conceived and raised by their biological parents. Attempting to invoke a tiny fraction of situations where this is not the case, is not sufficient grounds in my opinion for putting a same sex couple on the same constitutional standing with regard to having a family status, as a heterosexual couple.
    Yes, we've noticed. The question is: why?

    We don't require that opposite-sex couples be willing, interested or even able to conceive before allowing them to marry. As such, the suggestion that same-sex couples should be prevented from marrying on the basis of not being able to make babies is, frankly, nakedly discriminatory.
    My honestly and genuinely held view is that there is a massive difference between a same sex couple and a male-female couple.
    So what? Why does that difference justify discrimination?
    No amount of trying to pretend that they are the same thing, with the same capabilities, in the name of "equality" is going to wash with me, because I simply do not believe that they are the same thing with the same capabilities.
    A difference in capabilities is not valid grounds for discrimination. Even if it were, we're back to the fact that elderly couples also lack the capability to conceive, and we don't discriminate on that basis.

    Let's stop talking about the ability to conceive, because you've basically admitted that that's not the basis on which you want to discriminate: it was a transparent front for a desire to discriminate against same-sex couples. So, leaving baby-making aside: why do you want to discriminate against same-sex couples?
    It might scare you to hear that there are many people I have been speaking to in the last week who hold the very same view.
    Scares me? No. Saddens me? Yes.
    Do you agree or disagree that the vast vast majority of children that are conceived in this state are raised by their biological parents, or do you disagree with that fact?
    I agree.
    That is what I think is worthy of protection in terms of how our constitution strives to protect that basic unit of society.
    Whoah, wait. Are you trying to claim that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, that the vast majority of children that are conceived in this state will not be raised by their biological parents? Because that's, frankly, one of the wackiest arguments I've seen in this whole debate to date.
    If this was just about two gay people wanting to marry, I'd vote yes no problem but it isn't just about that.
    Actually, that's the sum total of what it's about. Seventeen words. Don't read between the lines; there's nothing written between them.
    It is about a whole lot more, and that "whole lot more", we are told we are not allow to discuss, so there isn't a chance I'm voting yes on this.
    Jesus, again with the "not allowed". Can't you see how ridiculous it is to keep banging on and on and on about how you're not allowed to discuss the very topic you're discussing?


  • #96
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,304 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    constance tench wrote: »
    A prime example of this logical fallacy in operation here:



    http://www.independent.ie/style/celebrity/celebrity-news/lovehates-robert-says-no-voters-are-homophobic-31208468.html

    https://twitter.com/robmsheehan

    Actors and celebs should be banned from making any comments on any election.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • #97
    my friend
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,129 ✭✭✭my friend


    constance tench wrote: »
    The lack of posts on this thread speaks volumes.

    Perhaps their voices will be reflected where it matters?

    That is, in the polling booth.


  • #98
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,210 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    The yes campaign are attempting to invoke a tiny minority of situations to argue for same sex marriage. It looks absolutely ridiculous because one has nothing to do with the other when you stand back and examine what they are trying to say are one and the same thing.

    As are the no side by claiming this is all about children when in fact it has nothing to do with children or adoption, the no side are just using this as an emotion blackmail tactic because they know that modern Ireland is moving onwards and it scares them.


  • #99
    LordNorbury
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭LordNorbury


    galljga1 wrote: »
    Adoption and surrogacy are dealt with by the Children and Family Relationships Bill. Whether the marriage referendum passes or not, gay couples can adopt. The marriage referendum is not going to change this.

    It is going to put a same sex couple in the exact same constitutional standing in relation to family status, as a male female couple. The only inescapable fact left to consider is that one of these couples, the straight couple, can conceive, the other couple, the same sex couple, cannot conceive. That is the big fat lie at the centre of this campaign, that one couple can pro create, the other can't, this is a very simple biological fact, yet we are being asked, in fact we are not being asked, we are now being instructed, to vote in a manner which attempts to equate these two very different types of couples so that they will both have the same right to family recognition pursuant to our constitution in the event of a yes vote! People are now seeing straight through it, no pun intended!

    So you argue now that giving a gay couple an absolute constitutional right to "have" a family, is not going to result in a demand for children for these families? Where are these children going to come from I ask again? It seems that folks on thread don't want to get into any of that...


  • #100
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,866 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    It is going to put a same sex couple in the exact same constitutional standing in relation to family status, as a male female couple. The only inescapable fact left to consider is that one of these couples, the straight couple, can conceive, the other couple, the same sex couple, cannot conceive.
    No. No, no, no, no, no.

    Yet again, you're trying to sneak in the claim that only fertile couples are considered to have family status. Not only has this been demonstrated to be false, but you've already backed away from it with some arm-waving about minorities.

    The fact is that the constitution doesn't require fertility as a prerequisite for marriage, so constantly bringing it up is the reddest of herrings.

    If you want to discriminate against couples who can't conceive, say so. If you only want to discriminate against same-sex couples, put away the conception figleaf; it's not hiding anything.
    That is the big fat lie at the centre of this campaign, that one couple can pro create, the other can't, this is a very simple biological fact, yet we are being asked, in fact we are not being asked, we are now being instructed, to vote in a manner which attempts to equate these two very different types of couples so that they will both have the same right to family recognition pursuant to our constitution in the event of a yes vote!
    Jesus, the victim complex is strong in this one. First you're not allowed to discuss the topic you're discussing (you've yet to explain who is denying you permission to discuss it), and now you're being "instructed" to vote in a particular way.

    Do you have any idea how whiny that sounds?

    Oh yeah: and again, drop the fertility argument, it's broken.
    So you argue now that giving a gay couple an absolute constitutional right to "have" a family, is not going to result in a demand for children for these families? Where are these children going to come from I ask again? It seems that folks on thread don't want to get into any of that...
    There. Is. No. Right. To. Have. Children.

    It is deeply dishonest to keep repeating an argument that has been debunked without even having to courage to rebut the debunking.


  • #101
    LordNorbury
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭LordNorbury


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Yes, we've noticed. The question is: why?

    We don't require that opposite-sex couples be willing, interested or even able to conceive before allowing them to marry. As such, the suggestion that same-sex couples should be prevented from marrying on the basis of not being able to make babies is, frankly, nakedly discriminatory. So what? Why does that difference justify discrimination? A difference in capabilities is not valid grounds for discrimination. Even if it were, we're back to the fact that elderly couples also lack the capability to conceive, and we don't discriminate on that basis.

    Let's stop talking about the ability to conceive, because you've basically admitted that that's not the basis on which you want to discriminate: it was a transparent front for a desire to discriminate against same-sex couples. So, leaving baby-making aside: why do you want to discriminate against same-sex couples? Scares me? No. Saddens me? Yes. I agree. Whoah, wait. Are you trying to claim that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, that the vast majority of children that are conceived in this state will not be raised by their biological parents? Because that's, frankly, one of the wackiest arguments I've seen in this whole debate to date. Actually, that's the sum total of what it's about. Seventeen words. Don't read between the lines; there's nothing written between them. Jesus, again with the "not allowed". Can't you see how ridiculous it is to keep banging on and on and on about how you're not allowed to discuss the very topic you're discussing?

    If I have 2 apples in one hand, and 2 oranges in the other hand, when I tell the 2 apples that they are not 2 oranges, I am not "discriminating" against either the pair of apples or the oranges. By recognising that they are not the same thing, I am not putting one down at the expense of the other! The apple pips will never bear an orange tree, the orange pips will never bear an apple tree, they are fundamentally different things! Only human's, intelligent and all as we are meant to be, seem to take some sort of silly offence if we cannot bring ourselves to believe that our "equality" or our "biological comparability", is not absolute and total.

    You wouldn't see a cat taking offence because he can't be called a dog, only human's seem to carry on like this, where in our modern day obsession with our political correctness, and now our crazy obsession with "equality" that anyone can now be anything they like without consequence, as a matter of right and to disagree with the conferring of these absolute rights that are now being demanded, is to "discriminate"!


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    It is going to put a same sex couple in the exact same constitutional standing in relation to family status, as a male female couple. The only inescapable fact left to consider is that one of these couples, the straight couple, can conceive, the other couple, the same sex couple, cannot conceive. That is the big fat lie at the centre of this campaign, that one couple can pro create, the other can't, this is a very simple biological fact, yet we are being asked, in fact we are not being asked, we are now being instructed, to vote in a manner which attempts to equate these two very different types of couples so that they will both have the same right to family recognition pursuant to our constitution in the event of a yes vote! People are now seeing straight through it, no pun intended!

    So you argue now that giving a gay couple an absolute constitutional right to "have" a family, is not going to result in a demand for children for these families? Where are these children going to come from I ask again? It seems that folks on thread don't want to get into any of that...

    Nobody is lieing about the inability of same sex couples to procreate on their own. Calling a couple a family, regardless of their ability to procreate does not give them the right to demand children.
    There is not now nor has there ever been a constitutional right to have children. Voting yes or no is not going to change this.
    Currently gay couples are on an equal footing as differing sex couples in that they can both apply for the right to be evaluated for suitability to adopt. Voting yes or no is not going to change this.


  • #103
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,210 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    It is going to put a same sex couple in the exact same constitutional standing in relation to family status, as a male female couple. The only inescapable fact left to consider is that one of these couples, the straight couple, can conceive, the other couple, the same sex couple, cannot conceive. That is the big fat lie at the centre of this campaign, that one couple can pro create, the other can't, this is a very simple biological fact, yet we are being asked, in fact we are not being asked, we are now being instructed, to vote in a manner which attempts to equate these two very different types of couples so that they will both have the same right to family recognition pursuant to our constitution in the event of a yes vote! People are now seeing straight through it, no pun intended!

    So you argue now that giving a gay couple an absolute constitutional right to "have" a family, is not going to result in a demand for children for these families? Where are these children going to come from I ask again? It seems that folks on thread don't want to get into any of that...

    But not all can right?


  • #104
    TheChizler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,559 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    The yes campaign are attempting to invoke a tiny minority of situations to argue for same sex marriage. It looks absolutely ridiculous because one has nothing to do with the other when you stand back and examine what they are trying to say are one and the same thing.
    Are you saying that a tiny minority of cases shouldn't affect our decision either way? (the number of marriages currently that don't 'result' in children is more than tiny, but anyway...)

    Last night on Claire Byrne Dr. Geoffrey Shannon (chairman of the Adoption Authority of Ireland) gave these figures (I can't quite remember the exact numbers but you get the idea): Each year around 120 children are adopted in Ireland. Roughly 8-10 of these would be to single applicants. On average over the years about 1-2% OF THESE are homosexual men and women. He doesn't envision this number changing significantly now that same sex couples can adopt. Therefore the number of adoptions you are showing concern for are about 0.067-0.167% of cases per year. Throughout the world the number of surrogacies is dwarfed by the number of adoptions, so I think it would be fair to say that these figures wouldn't change greatly even IF surrogacy was legal.

    So, are you trying to invoke a tiny minority of situations to argue against same sex marriage?


  • #105
    LordNorbury
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭LordNorbury


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    No. No, no, no, no, no.

    Yet again, you're trying to sneak in the claim that only fertile couples are considered to have family status. Not only has this been demonstrated to be false, but you've already backed away from it with some arm-waving about minorities.

    The fact is that the constitution doesn't require fertility as a prerequisite for marriage, so constantly bringing it up is the reddest of herrings.

    If you want to discriminate against couples who can't conceive, say so. If you only want to discriminate against same-sex couples, put away the conception figleaf; it's not hiding anything. Jesus, the victim complex is strong in this one. First you're not allowed to discuss the topic you're discussing (you've yet to explain who is denying you permission to discuss it), and now you're being "instructed" to vote in a particular way.

    Do you have any idea how whiny that sounds?

    Oh yeah: and again, drop the fertility argument, it's broken. There. Is. No. Right. To. Have. Children.

    It is deeply dishonest to keep repeating an argument that has been debunked without even having to courage to rebut the debunking.

    We just aren't going to agree on this sorry, your logic is downright dysfunctional in my view, nothing you have said makes the slightest bit of sense to me, or to the vast majority of people who have enjoyed being reared by their biological parents, and who are not going to give in to this crazy and defective groupthink that has taken over the country, that is trying to argue that because an 90 year old male female couple cannot conceive but yet can marry, that therefore this is sufficient grounds to allow two same sex people who can never conceive a family, the right to be a family, which invariably will involve "having" children, as an absolute right pursuant to the constitution.

    So sorry, as I said in my OP, it is a big fat no from me and I'm not up for changing. You are simply being disingenuous with the truth and with basic biological facts in my opinion.


  • #106
    Rubberchikken
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,303 ✭✭✭Rubberchikken


    someone asked me the other day how a person who is religious, goes to mass (service, whatever), obeys God's word, believes that what is in the bible is to be followed and that what the church (catholic and otherwise) preaches is to be adhered to can go out and vote yes to allow two people of the same sex to marry.

    isn't that hyprocritical? how can people accept religious teachings that homosexuality is wrong and practice their religion and then vote for something like this?

    maybe i'm not wording this very well (probably not) but it's a viewpoint.

    i'm probably voting no. haven't decided yet. have no religion, no issues with anyone's sexuality, just find the fact that the govt can spend so much time and energy on something like this when there are so many things in the country that should have been sorted first, a little hard to deal with.


  • #107
    Paul.k.b.90
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 113 ✭✭Paul.k.b.90


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    Where are these children going to come from I ask again? It seems that folks on thread don't want to get into any of that...

    The same place the straight couples that cant have children get to start a family. By adopting kids not wanted by their biological parents or children who have tragically lost both parents, or surrogacy


  • #108
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,866 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    If I have 2 apples in one hand, and 2 oranges in the other hand, when I tell the 2 apples that they are not 2 oranges, I am not "discriminating" against either the pair of apples or the oranges. By recognising that they are not the same thing, I am not putting one down at the expense of the other!
    No - but by telling the apples that they can't have the same rights as the oranges, you are discriminating.
    The apple pips will never bear an orange tree, the orange pips will never bear an apple tree, they are fundamentally different things! Only human's, intelligent and all as we are meant to be, seem to take some sort of silly offence if we cannot bring ourselves to believe that our "equality" or our "biological comparability", is not absolute and total.
    Straw man. Nobody's claiming that straight and gay couples are the same; only that they should have the same rights.

    You are claiming that gay couples should have lesser rights than straight couples. You tried to argue that this is because they can't conceive; that was debunked. You tried to argue that this is because they are "different"; that was debunked.
    You wouldn't see a cat taking offence because he can't be called a dog, only human's seem to carry on like this, where in our modern day obsession with our political correctness, and now our crazy obsession with "equality" that anyone can now be anything they like without consequence, as a matter of right and to disagree with the conferring of these absolute rights that are now being demanded, is to "discriminate"!
    Yeah, uppity gays. Why can't they just know their place as inferiors?


  • #109
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    If I have 2 apples in one hand, and 2 oranges in the other hand, when I tell the 2 apples that they are not 2 oranges, I am not "discriminating" against either the pair of apples or the oranges. By recognising that they are not the same thing, I am not putting one down at the expense of the other! The apple pips will never bear an orange tree, the orange pips will never bear an apple tree, they are fundamentally different things! Only human's, intelligent and all as we are meant to be, seem to take some sort of silly offence if we cannot bring ourselves to believe that our "equality" or our "biological comparability", is not absolute and total.

    You wouldn't see a cat taking offence because he can't be called a dog, only human's seem to carry on like this, where in our modern day obsession with our political correctness, and now our crazy obsession with "equality" that anyone can now be anything they like without consequence, as a matter of right and to disagree with the conferring of these absolute rights that are now being demanded, is to "discriminate"!
    Aples, oranges, different.
    Cats, dogs, different.
    Heterosexuals, homosexuals different.

    I do not think that anyone can argue with the above.
    However, this is no reason not to allow a same sex couple to marry.
    Please leave out adoption and surrogacy because this is covered by the Children and Family Relationships Bill not the upcoming referendum.
    Please leave out the right to have children because this does not exist for anyone, single, married, hetero, homo, apples, oranges, cats or dogs.


  • #110
    TheChizler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,559 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Rubberchikken wrote: »
    i'm probably voting no. haven't decided yet. have no religion, no issues with anyone's sexuality, just find the fact that the govt can spend so much time and energy on something like this when there are so many things in the country that should have been sorted first, a little hard to deal with.
    Is feeling there are better things to deal with first a good reason to vote no though? There are real peoples lives here that will be affected. Out of respect for them would you consider what you are actually being asked to vote on instead of a no because you have problems with the government? Remember this amendment to the constitution will outlast this government.


  • #111
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,866 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    We just aren't going to agree on this sorry, your logic is downright dysfunctional in my view, nothing you have said makes the slightest bit of sense to me, or to the vast majority of people who have enjoyed being reared by their biological parents, and who are not going to give in to this crazy and defective groupthink that has taken over the country, that is trying to argue that because an 90 year old male female couple cannot conceive but yet can marry, that therefore this is sufficient grounds to allow two same sex people who can never conceive a family, the right to be a family, which invariably will involve "having" children, as an absolute right pursuant to the constitution.
    Given that I've already repeatedly pointed out that there is no such right, and that you've repeatedly ignored that point without challenging it, it is at best breathtakingly dishonest to repeat it yet again as a bald statement of fact.
    So sorry, as I said in my OP, it is a big fat no from me and I'm not up for changing. You are simply being disingenuous with the truth and with basic biological facts in my opinion.
    Well, thanks for playing. I hope you didn't get into too much trouble with whomever told you not to discuss the topic.
    Rubberchikken wrote: »
    someone asked me the other day how a person who is religious, goes to mass (service, whatever), obeys God's word, believes that what is in the bible is to be followed and that what the church (catholic and otherwise) preaches is to be adhered to can go out and vote yes to allow two people of the same sex to marry.

    isn't that hyprocritical? how can people accept religious teachings that homosexuality is wrong and practice their religion and then vote for something like this?
    Probably for the same reason they can eat lobster, wear different fabrics and all the other nonsense they're not supposed to be doing according to the Old Testament.
    i'm probably voting no. haven't decided yet. have no religion, no issues with anyone's sexuality, just find the fact that the govt can spend so much time and energy on something like this when there are so many things in the country that should have been sorted first, a little hard to deal with.
    Good for you. Denying same-sex couples basic civil rights is exactly the right way to hit the government where it hurts.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    TheChizler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,559 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    galljga1 wrote: »
    Aples, oranges, different.
    Cats, dogs, different.
    Heterosexuals, homosexuals different.

    I do not think that anyone can argue with the above.
    However, this is no reason not to allow a same sex couple to marry.
    Please leave out adoption and surrogacy because this is covered by the Children and Family Relationships Bill not the upcoming referendum.
    Please leave out the right to have children because this does not exist for anyone, single, married, hetero, homo, apples, oranges, cats or dogs.
    Exactly, this is about how we treat things legally/constitutionally, not about acknowledging obvious differences. To continue the strange analogy the state doesn't ban shops from selling apples and oranges.


  • #113
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    We just aren't going to agree on this sorry, your logic is downright dysfunctional in my view, nothing you have said makes the slightest bit of sense to me, or to the vast majority of people who have enjoyed being reared by their biological parents, and who are not going to give in to this crazy and defective groupthink that has taken over the country, that is trying to argue that because an 90 year old male female couple cannot conceive but yet can marry, that therefore this is sufficient grounds to allow two same sex people who can never conceive a family, the right to be a family, which invariably will involve "having" children, as an absolute right pursuant to the constitution.

    So sorry, as I said in my OP, it is a big fat no from me and I'm not up for changing. You are simply being disingenuous with the truth and with basic biological facts in my opinion.

    Again, I and others will repeat to you that there is not now, never has been and if the referendum is passed, still will not be a constitutional right to have children.

    Vote no as is your right but please do not use this invalid argument as a reason for so doing.


  • #114
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Exactly, this is about how we treat things legally/constitutionally, not about acknowledging obvious differences. To continue the strange analogy the state doesn't ban shops from selling apples and oranges.

    Putting apples and oranges on the same fruit rack can only lead to chaos and if you start mixing them in the same "any two bags for 3 euro" offer, then we are doomed.


  • #115
    LordNorbury
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 ✭✭✭LordNorbury


    galljga1 wrote: »
    Aples, oranges, different.
    Cats, dogs, different.
    Heterosexuals, homosexuals different.

    I do not think that anyone can argue with the above.
    However, this is no reason not to allow a same sex couple to marry.
    Please leave out adoption and surrogacy because this is covered by the Children and Family Relationships Bill not the upcoming referendum.
    Please leave out the right to have children because this does not exist for anyone, single, married, hetero, homo, apples, oranges, cats or dogs.

    How about I swap the word "right" with the word "ability", in the context of having children? If the right to have children does not exist in the constitution, the ability to have children does exist within heterosexual couples, and it clearly does not exist in the same sense, within same sex couples. It is that key biological difference in my opinion that is currently afforded a special status within our constitution, the basic family unit, that fundamental building block upon which our society is based. We are being asked to extend the protection of that family unit, into same sex marriages. This creates a right to have a family or to be a family, and it is a right that implies the right to have children brought into that family in my view. The only problem is that a same sex couple cannot have children, so we are back to apples being fundamentally different from oranges again.

    Trying to tell an apple that it has a right to be an orange, so that it is not being discriminated against, so that our current day silly standard of political correctness is therefore left intact and undisturbed, that just sounds bat shít crazy to me, sorry!


  • #116
    TheChizler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,559 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    Trying to tell an apple that it has a right to be an orange, so that it is not being discriminated against, so that our current day silly standard of political correctness is therefore left intact and undisturbed, that just sounds bat shít crazy to me, sorry!
    I don't think anybody would disagree with you there.


  • #117
    Squeeonline
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,588 ✭✭✭Squeeonline


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    How about I swap the word "right" with the word "ability", in the context of having children? If the right to have children does not exist in the constitution, the ability to have children does exist within heterosexual couples, and it clearly does not exist in the same sense, within same sex couples. It is that key biological difference in my opinion that is currently afforded a special status within our constitution, the basic family unit, that fundamental building block upon which our society is based. We are being asked to extend the protection of that family unit, into same sex marriages. This creates a right to have a family or to be a family, and it is a right that implies the right to have children brought into that family in my view. The only problem is that a same sex couple cannot have children, so we are back to apples being fundamentally different from oranges again.

    Trying to tell an apple that it has a right to be an orange, so that it is not being discriminated against, so that our current day silly standard of political correctness is therefore left intact and undisturbed, that just sounds bat shít crazy to me, sorry!

    Right, so shall we ready the fertility tests before we issue heterosexual marriage licences?

    Giving homosexual couples equal rights to heterosexual couples is not going to suddenly endow them with the ability to bear children. What this referendum intends to give is equal rights to homosexual couples that heterosexual couples have enjoyed for years, such as tax, inheritance, next of kin.

    As a straight person, I have no idea what other rights are not afforded to gay couples, which is definitely my own ignorance. I am sickened to think that they are not treated equally with respect to the things I mentioned above and more. Honestly, I thought that this is what the Civil Partnership bill brought. Apparently, there's a lot more.


  • #118
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    How about I swap the word "right" with the word "ability", in the context of having children? If the right to have children does not exist in the constitution, the ability to have children does exist within heterosexual couples, and it clearly does not exist in the same sense, within same sex couples. It is that key biological difference in my opinion that is currently afforded a special status within our constitution, the basic family unit, that fundamental building block upon which our society is based. We are being asked to extend the protection of that family unit, into same sex marriages. This creates a right to have a family or to be a family, and it is a right that implies the right to have children brought into that family in my view. The only problem is that a same sex couple cannot have children, so we are back to apples being fundamentally different from oranges again.

    Trying to tell an apple that it has a right to be an orange, so that it is not being discriminated against, so that our current day silly standard of political correctness is therefore left intact and undisturbed, that just sounds bat shít crazy to me, sorry!

    No one is arguing that same sex couples can have children. We all know that they can not do so. Please enlighten me as to the constitutional definition of family and where exactly is any mention of the 'ability' or the 'right' to have children.


  • #119
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    This debate is getting a bit too fruitist for my liking. I do like apples but I have to say, a sweet ripe orange is hard to beat.


  • #120
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,210 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    LordNorbury wrote: »
    We just aren't going to agree on this sorry, your logic is downright dysfunctional in my view, nothing you have said makes the slightest bit of sense to me, or to the vast majority of people who have enjoyed being reared by their biological parents, and who are not going to give in to this crazy and defective groupthink that has taken over the country, that is trying to argue that because an 90 year old male female couple cannot conceive but yet can marry, that therefore this is sufficient grounds to allow two same sex people who can never conceive a family, the right to be a family, which invariably will involve "having" children, as an absolute right pursuant to the constitution.

    So sorry, as I said in my OP, it is a big fat no from me and I'm not up for changing. You are simply being disingenuous with the truth and with basic biological facts in my opinion.

    Let's start slowly

    At this time, Can a gay couple adopt a baby/child?


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    gypsy79
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,783 ✭✭✭gypsy79


    Many reasons:

    Not the most offensive part of said article
    Could have been done without a referendum
    Why rewrite a tiny part of a broken document to pander to minor groups
    Been pissed off that governments keep using referendums as a ego builder
    The constant bullying by the Yes side


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement