SSM why are you voting no?

LordNorbury · 12-05-2015 05:45PM

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Listen I don't have time to read the whole thread in all honesty, just give me the short version, bullet points will do if you want, I'm just curious as to why people are voting No, if you don't have time that's fair enough.

Equally I don't have the time to be repeating the points I've already previously made, they are all there on thread if you can be bothered finding the time to read them.

fergus1001 · 12-05-2015 05:45PM

BoJack Horseman wrote:

Treating a kid 'gender neutral' isnt about some grey androgynous dystopia....

Have to disagree if he's a boy he's a boy ect. Threat him/her that way. When they are old enough they will make up their own minds

gravehold · 12-05-2015 05:48PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

My Lord, its you that misses the point.

Treating a kid 'gender neutral' isnt about some grey androgynous dystopia....

Its about letting the child grow as they prefer.

If a girl wants to kick ball & play in the muck... Then fine.
If a little boy wants to play 'tea party' & mess with mommy's make up, then also fine!

You are using a misinterpretation as a bad straw man argument.

Weak sauce.

This the pc side saying gender is a social construct really rubs me the wrong way, if a boy want's to play rough house he should be allowed, there is studies showing genders havr different preferences from birth. So this it's a social construt really annoys me and as a trans women I find it kinda transphobic to say your gender is a social construct you really arn't male or female you just want to be what society thinks that gender is about.

Huntergonzo · 12-05-2015 05:52PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

Equally I don't have the time to be repeating the points I've already previously made, they are all there on thread if you can be bothered finding the time to read them.

Nobody is saying that gay people or their relationships are inferior, however it is a simple biological and inescapable fact that a same sex couple cannot conceive children. Some people happen to believe that this not insignificant ability to procreate, is what is at, or is what ought to be at, the centre of what the constitution is protecting when it protects the family.

I happen to believe that, it doesn't make me a homophobe when I state openly and clearly that I believe that there is a very fundamental and simple difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple and that one is deserving of constitutional protection because one can procreate and can develop into a family unit, and the other simply cannot.

No amount of screaming at me that some heterosexual married couples cannot conceive children is going to make me change that reasonably held view that I have set out above. No amount of screaming at me that this has nothing to do with family or children and screaming at me that I'm not allowed to discuss concerns about family and in particular children, is going to make me change that view, because if you think that children, family and marriage are not very closely interconnected, then I think you have a fundamental problem with your assessment of how we procreate as a species.

And as for our great leader Enda refusing to come out and debate this, that is the icing on the cake for me as a no voter who is not up for changing.

Is that your first post and do you stand by it?

BoJack Horseman · 12-05-2015 05:53PM

fergus1001 wrote: »

if he's a boy he's a boy ect.

Yep.... What with penises & all.

Threat him/her that way.

Or, let them play at what they enjoy!

I'm a relatively recent father, my 7 month old isn't quite ready to be out fightin' & birding & footy-ing with the rest of the lads.... But time will tell.

However if he's caught rubbing his moms lipstick on his face or having a tea party with his teddies, I won't force him to do an oil change or anything specifically 'manly' to compensate.... If he's happy, I'm happy.

When they are old enough they will make up their own minds

I'm confident my lad will always know that he's male..... See the "penis" thing above.

(Unless your one of those who thinks the second a boy picks up a doll he's on the path to inevitable transsexuality?)

Irish people & referendums..... This is why we can't have nice things!!

I swindled the NSA · 12-05-2015 05:55PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Would you allow your son to play with his Mothers make up?

No

He can go and get his own.

gravehold · 12-05-2015 05:59PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Yep.... What with penises & all.

Or, let them play at what they enjoy!

I'm a relatively recent father, my 7 month old isn't quite ready to be out fightin' & birding & footy-ing with the rest of the lads.... But time will tell.

However if he's caught rubbing his moms lipstick on his face or having a tea party with his teddies, I won't force him to do an oil change or anything specifically 'manly' to compensate.... If he's happy, I'm happy.

I'm confident my lad will always know that he's male..... See the "penis" thing above.

(Unless your one of those who thinks the second a boy picks up a doll he's on the path to inevitable transsexuality?)

Irish people & referendums..... This is why we can't have nice things!!

And this is how a good parent treats the gender of his kid. None of this it's social construct like the @ ireland woman they let the kids play with what they want.

Denying a child what they want to do or which toys they want to play with cause you don't agree with it cause you think society is forcing roles onto them is stupid

languagenerd · 12-05-2015 05:59PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

But now that you mention it, here is exactly why I disagree with gay adults being allowed to raise children & this is exactly why I disagree that we should change our constitution to meet their crazy demands... A woman named Dil Wickremasinghe, a lesbian who is strongly campaigning for the yes side and is currently moderating an account called @ireland on Twitter, she is also a broadcaster, has tweeted these views within the hour:

Basically her view of having a child is that a child born with male genitalia is not assumed to be a boy, and the same holds true for a girl! This is before we get into the sexual persuasion of someone, this is automatically refusing to accept as a starting assumption, that a child born with a penis is a boy, and a child born with a vagina is a girl.

If this is what you want to expand our constitution to protect then fair play to but I'm not running with any more of this politically correct insanity.

Here's a straight couple that actually did the same when it came to raising their child: http://m.thestar.com/#/article/life/parent/2013/11/15/remember_storm_we_check_in_on_the_baby_being_raised_genderneutral.html?referrer=

Because of this, are we going to ban all straight marriages in case those couples become parents and raise their children like this?

Come on, that's a weak argument and has absolutely nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

seamus · 12-05-2015 06:01PM

gravehold wrote: »

This the pc side saying gender is a social construct really rubs me the wrong way, if a boy want's to play rough house he should be allowed

But that's not what it's about. Gender neutrality is simply about not specifically enforcing any gender stereotypes on a child. You'll still call them a boy or a girl, but it means that you don't inherently buy dolls for girls and Spiderman for boys unless that's what they want. If the boys want to fight and roll in the mud, you let them. If the girls want you join in, you let them.

Children do make their mind, from a very early age, gender neutrality is not about forcing girls to play football or encouraging boys to wear makeup. It's simply about teaching them that they can do these things if they wish - there are no pursuits that are "boys only" or "girls only".

Some people go to greater extremes than others in gender neutrality, but either way it's irrelevant to same-sex marriage. As we've seen from this referendum (and as the "No" side are only delighted to discuss), there are plenty of gay couples with traditional views who will raise children with heavily gender-stereotypical attitudes.

gravehold · 12-05-2015 06:08PM

seamus wrote: »

But that's not what it's about. Gender neutrality is simply about not specifically enforcing any gender stereotypes on a child. You'll still call them a boy or a girl, but it means that you don't inherently buy dolls for girls and Spiderman for boys unless that's what they want. If the boys want to fight and roll in the mud, you let them. If the girls want you join in, you let them.

Children do make their mind, from a very early age, gender neutrality is not about forcing girls to play football or encouraging boys to wear makeup. It's simply about teaching them that they can do these things if they wish - there are no pursuits that are "boys only" or "girls only".

Some people go to greater extremes than others in gender neutrality, but either way it's irrelevant to same-sex marriage. As we've seen from this referendum (and as the "No" side are only delighted to discuss), there are plenty of gay couples with traditional views who will raise children with heavily gender-stereotypical attitudes.

It the saying it's a gender is a social construct it's not, of it was it would be possible to raise a boy as a girl and them not to have a problem with it and not hav gid from being raise as the wrong gender.

Gender is something set from birth.

Huntergonzo · 12-05-2015 06:08PM

All I'm really getting here is vote No if you're not homophobic but you just don't want homosexual people to be as equal as hetrosexual people when it comes to marriage, ie not equal, now I'm struggling not to see a contradiction there if I'm honest.

oscarBravo · 12-05-2015 06:13PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

But now that you mention it, here is exactly why I disagree with gay adults being allowed to raise children & this is exactly why I disagree that we should change our constitution to meet their crazy demands... A woman named Dil Wickremasinghe, a lesbian who is strongly campaigning for the yes side and is currently moderating an account called @ireland on Twitter, she is also a broadcaster, has tweeted these views within the hour:

Basically her view of having a child is that a child born with male genitalia is not assumed to be a boy, and the same holds true for a girl! This is before we get into the sexual persuasion of someone, this is automatically refusing to accept as a starting assumption, that a child born with a penis is a boy, and a child born with a vagina is a girl.

If this is what you want to expand our constitution to protect then fair play to but I'm not running with any more of this politically correct insanity.

Leaving aside for a second the question of Dil's parenting, let's study your logic.

You've found a lesbian parent whose views on parenting you disagree with. Therefore you insist that gay people shouldn't be allowed to raise children.

If I find a straight parent whose views on parenting I disagree with, will you accept that straight people shouldn't be allowed to raise children?

I suspect not. What's deeply disturbing is that you can't see what an utterly ridiculous argument you just made: I reckon you genuinely think you just posted a profound insight.

Anyway: you may disagree with raising a child to be gender-neutral, but on balance I suspect it's a lot better than raising a child who's afraid to identify as anything other than whatever is signified by his or her genitals, for fear of incurring a parent's wrath.

LordNorbury · 12-05-2015 06:14PM

languagenerd wrote: »

Here's a straight couple that actually did the same when it came to raising their child: http://m.thestar.com/#/article/life/parent/2013/11/15/remember_storm_we_check_in_on_the_baby_being_raised_genderneutral.html?referrer=

Because of this, are we going to ban all straight marriages in case those couples become parents and raise their children like this?

Come on, that's a weak argument and has absolutely nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

That's equally wrong, that is plain & simple gender denial and is making a sick social experiment out of your kids early childhood years. They may be a straight couple but their outlook with respect to their child and it's gender, is not typical of how the vast majority of straight couples go at raising their children. Most normal parents can accept the fact that a child born with a penis is a boy & a child born with a vagina is a girl, and feel no need to disregard that simple fact from birth, to fit in with a whole series of downright insane ideologies that are in the main, now being driven totally by the equality/gay lobby & their now obsession with equality, to the point where you are gender stereotyping a child and discriminating against that same child if you dare refer to the genitalia it was born with, when you try to attach a gender to that child.

Timberrrrrrrr · 12-05-2015 06:17PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

That's equally wrong, that is plain & simple gender denial and is making a sick social experiment out of your kids early childhood years. They may be a straight couple but their outlook with respect to their child and it's gender, is not typical of how the vast majority of straight couples go at raising their children. Most normal parents can accept the fact that a child born with a penis is a boy & a child born with a vagina is a girl, and feel no need to disregard that simple fact from birth, to fit in with a whole series of downright insane ideologies that are in the main, now being driven totally by the equality/gay lobby & their now obsession with equality, to the point where you are gender stereotyping a child and discriminating against that same child if you dare refer to the genitalia it was born with, when you try to attach a gender to that child.

And the woman you linked to is not how the vast majority of gay people go about raising their children. You cannot stereotype all people because of the actions of one the same as you cannot stereotype all straight people because because of the actions of one couple.

gravehold · 12-05-2015 06:20PM

languagenerd wrote: »

Here's a straight couple that actually did the same when it came to raising their child: thestar.com/#/article/life/parent/2013/11/15/remember_storm_we_check_in_on_the_baby_being_raised_genderneutral.html?referrer=[/url]

Because of this, are we going to ban all straight marriages in case those couples become parents and raise their children like this?

Come on, that's a weak argument and has absolutely nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

That's the extreme PC left gone wrong

irishtimes.com/news/science/gender-is-not-a-social-construct-1.1347741

This is also one where they have a double think if gender is a social construct then transsexuals are not real and are really just crazy but the left won't say that either. They try to push both narratives when they both contradict each other.

As a transsexual I find the social construct thing kinda transphobic but that could very well be my bias, but even if you thing transsexuals are just delusional people how many posters here think they are the gender they are just cause you parents raised you as that gender?

oscarBravo · 12-05-2015 06:26PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

That's equally wrong...

...so we should deny straight couples the right to raise a child? That was the thrust of your earlier argument. Do you still feel that one example is enough to dictate policy for everyone?

gravehold · 12-05-2015 06:27PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

...so we should deny straight couples the right to raise a child? That was the thrust of your earlier argument. Do you still feel that one example is enough to dictate policy for everyone?

If they do something like that, in england they take kids from parents if they are unfit to raise them.

LordNorbury · 12-05-2015 06:28PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Leaving aside for a second the question of Dil's parenting, let's study your logic.

You've found a lesbian parent whose views on parenting you disagree with. Therefore you insist that gay people shouldn't be allowed to raise children.

If I find a straight parent whose views on parenting I disagree with, will you accept that straight people shouldn't be allowed to raise children?

I suspect not. What's deeply disturbing is that you can't see what an utterly ridiculous argument you just made: I reckon you genuinely think you just posted a profound insight.

Anyway: you may disagree with raising a child to be gender-neutral, but on balance I suspect it's a lot better than raising a child who's afraid to identify as anything other than whatever is signified by his or her genitals, for fear of incurring a parent's wrath.

I'm done debating this with you, I came on here to explain why I'm voting no, as the tread title asked, and no amount of me discussing this with you will convert me into a yes voter. In my view, the groupthink you are clearly now deeply tapped into, is the stuff of Frankenstien, it's a world I refuse to endorse, where we are throwing biological relationships straight out the window so that the selfish needs of adults who can't conceive children but are now demanding the right to "have" children, it's a world where those needs are placed above the needs of children to have the right to the company & love of their biological parents. The world you are advocating is a world where childbirth is commodified so that two people, a so called "family" who can never conceive a child by biological design, are now comparable and equal in every single respect, to a family that can procreate.

You have completely ignored every single point I have made today as to why these things are fundamentally different, the views I've read today as posted by you leave me with the impression that you are completely and absolutely brainwashed and on that basis, there is really no point in engaging any further with you.

Good luck to all on thread, I've said all I wanted to say on this subject!

fiachr_a · 12-05-2015 06:30PM

Two lesbians get married, a man volunteers to get one pregnant, and the baby's born. The lesbian couple raise the kid as their own. After a few years they get divorced. The father of the child voted yes in the referendum but now has to pay child maintenance.

languagenerd · 12-05-2015 06:32PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

That's equally wrong, that is plain & simple gender denial and is making a sick social experiment out of your kids early childhood years. They may be a straight couple but their outlook with respect to their child and it's gender, is not typical of how the vast majority of straight couples go at raising their children. Most normal parents can accept the fact that a child born with a penis is a boy & a child born with a vagina is a girl, and feel no need to disregard that simple fact from birth, to fit in with a whole series of downright insane ideologies that are in the main, now being driven totally by the equality/gay lobby & their now obsession with equality, to the point where you are gender stereotyping a child and discriminating against that same child if you dare refer to the genitalia it was born with, when you try to attach a gender to that child.

I know it's not the norm (and I'm not saying I agree with it) but what evidence do you have that the one gay woman is the norm for gay parents? That's what I was pointing out - there will always be parents of all sexualities, genders, races, nationalities whose style of parenting you won't agree with. That woman's views have nothing to do with her sexuality and, more importantly, nothing to do with this referendum.

Gay people can already adopt or even have biological children of their own if they have a heterosexual partner at some point in their life. The referendum won't change that, regardless of the outcome. Adoption procedures won't change if gay people can get married and there certainly won't be a sudden need for 300,000 babies to be adopted as you seemed to suggest in earlier posts. Children won't suddenly be taken away from their biological parents and given to gay couples as soon as the referendum is passed.

I know you have your mind made up, you have your opinion and nothing will change that, but the argument you've put forward here is nonsensical. Please just judge the referendum for what it is: should loving couples (who may have been together for years) be allowed to get married and be considered a married couple in the eyes of the law? Nothing more, nothing less.

gravehold · 12-05-2015 06:33PM

fiachr_a wrote: »

Two lesbians get married, a man volunteers to get one pregnant, and the baby's born. The lesbian couple raise the kid as their own. After a few years they get divorced. The father of the child voted yes in the referendum but now has to pay child maintenance.

I thought once the mother marries another person the first person no longer has to pay maintance, in this situation would the ex wife not have to pay rather then the donor.

But I also think you would have to be a fool to do it in the first place, let them buy their sperm from a sperm bank

Huntergonzo · 12-05-2015 06:35PM

fiachr_a wrote: »

Two lesbians get married, a man volunteers to get one pregnant, and the baby's born. The lesbian couple raise the kid as their own. After a few years they get divorced. The father of the child voted yes in the referendum but now has to pay child maintenance.

Does he? I mean I would have thought in a case like this the biological father would have to sign certain rights to the child away by volunteering sperm and the divorced parent who didn't receive guardianship would infact have to play child maintenance not the father.

That's only my view on it, I don't know the legal end of things, perhaps someone could clear this up.

LordNorbury · 12-05-2015 06:39PM

languagenerd wrote: »

I know it's not the norm (and I'm not saying I agree with it) but what evidence do you have that the one gay woman is the norm for gay parents? That's what I was pointing out - there will always be parents of all sexualities, genders, races, nationalities whose style of parenting you won't agree with. That woman's views have nothing to do with her sexuality and, more importantly, nothing to do with this referendum.

Gay people can already adopt or even have biological children of their own if they have a heterosexual partner at some point in their life. The referendum won't change that, regardless of the outcome. Adoption procedures won't change if gay people can get married and there certainly won't be a sudden need for 300,000 babies to be adopted as you seemed to suggest in earlier posts. Children won't suddenly be taken away from their biological parents and given to gay couples as soon as the referendum is passed.

I know you have your mind made up, you have your opinion and nothing will change that, but the argument you've put forward here is nonsensical. Please just judge the referendum for what it is: should loving couples (who may have been together for years) be allowed to get married and be considered a married couple in the eyes of the law? Nothing more, nothing less.

It's only nosensical in your view, which I find to be defective. If you can't see that there is more to this than a couple who love each other, then you are entitled to that view but it is a seriously disturbed view in my opinion.

johnnyskeleton · 12-05-2015 06:41PM

fergus1001 wrote: »

The militias in the yes camp are pissing me off I'm not voting

Tearing down posters and lambasting people who try to debate the point is not winning the yes side alot of support

That's not democracy.

As someone who will vote yes, I'm also disturbed by the tearing down of posters. It is anti democractic and it is also criminal damage. They should be prosecuted.

On the unruly debate, there are some civilised debates and some unruly ones.

So, i guess, the worst of both sides is not a good reflection of the rest of the debate.

oscarBravo · 12-05-2015 06:42PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

I'm done debating this with you, I came on here to explain why I'm voting no, as the tread title asked, and no amount of me discussing this with you will convert me into a yes voter.

In fairness, it never crossed my mind that I would change your views. I don't argue with you because I think you're open to change; I argue with you because there may be people who have yet to fully make up their mind which way to vote, and I wanted to make it clear that your arguments have no basis in logic, reason, or anything other than a desire to discriminate against same-sex couples.

In my view, the groupthink you are clearly now deeply tapped into, is the stuff of Frankenstien, it's a world I refuse to endorse, where we are throwing biological relationships straight out the window so that the selfish needs of adults who can't conceive children but are now demanding the right to "have" children, it's a world where those needs are placed above the needs of children to have the right to the company & love of their biological parents.

I've repeatedly pointed out that this is a total straw man. You don't magically get to have your arguments become true by repeating them and ignoring the rebuttals.

Nobody is demanding the right to have children. Children have nothing to do with the referendum. The question of whether or not same-sex couples can be parents has been dealt with separately by the Oireachtas. You know this, because it has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

The world you are advocating is a world where childbirth is commodified so that two people, a so called "family" who can never conceive a child by biological design, are now comparable and equal in every single respect, to a family that can procreate.

I've also rebutted the procreation argument. There is no requirement that a family consist of a couple who can procreate. None. You can arm-wave that away to your heart's content as a "minority", but I'll repeat again: there is no requirement for a married couple to be able to procreate. None.

You have completely ignored every single point I have made today as to why these things are fundamentally different...

I haven't ignored them, I've rebutted them. You, in turn, have ignored most of the questions you've been asked, or refused to accept that your reasoning is flawed.

languagenerd · 12-05-2015 06:51PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

it's a world I refuse to endorse, where we are throwing biological relationships straight out the window so that the selfish needs of adults who can't conceive children but are now demanding the right to "have" children, it's a world where those needs are placed above the needs of children to have the right to the company & love of their biological parents.

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand what this referendum is asking. No-one is advocating children be taken from their biological parents. If the referendum is passed, children won't be taken from their parents and given to gay couples. Gay couples won't be given any more rights to adoption than they already have.

The referendum only asks if gay couples should be allowed marry. That's all. No "rights to children", nothing on those lines.

You're perfectly entitled to vote no to that, of course, but at least vote on what you're being asked to vote on.

Steve012 · 12-05-2015 06:57PM

neemish wrote: »

I'm voting No because I don't agree with the wording. Simple as. I think that the constitution should be as wide as possible and then legislate for marriage within the Oireachtas.

Same ear, That's one of the reasons I'd vote no.
Does the referendum mean that same sex marriages can adopt children?.
If it does until people settle with it, like in some parts of the states, The kid's involved would get a hard time in school, until the country got used to it.

2 cents.

jobbridge4life · 12-05-2015 07:02PM

Steve012 wrote: »

Same ear, That's one of the reasons I'd vote no.
Does the referendum mean that same sex marriages can adopt children?.
If it does until people settle with it, like in some parts of the states, The kid's involved would get a hard time in school, until the country got used to it.

2 cents.

No. The referendum has no impact on the capacity of gay people to adopt. Gay people have for years been entitled to adopt as single individuals. The Children and Family Relationships Act 2015, all ready passed by the Oireachtas and signed by the President provides that gay people may now adopt as couples.

This is entirely serperate from the referendum but please don't just take my word for it...

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/adoption-process-to-remain-same-regardless-of-vote-authority-chief-1.2208714

Timberrrrrrrr · 12-05-2015 07:05PM

Steve012 wrote: »

Same ear, That's one of the reasons I'd vote no.
Does the referendum mean that same sex marriages can adopt children?.
If it does until people settle with it, like in some parts of the states, The kid's involved would get a hard time in school, until the country got used to it.

2 cents.

Same sex couples can already adopt children so nothing changes there no matter the outcome of the referendum.

fergus1001 · 12-05-2015 07:07PM

BoJack Horseman wrote:

I'm confident my lad will always know that he's male..... See the "penis" thing above.

You never know ! Just made the point that I'm not going to threat any of my children as "gender" neutral

I'll raise my kids as best I can, and when their old enough they can make up their own mind doesn't bother me

SSM why are you voting no?

Comments