SSM why are you voting no?

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 02:03PM

galljga1 wrote: »

This is absolutely not a homophobic post.

I want to know more about being a man on a monday, a woman on a tuesday, a man on a wednesday, maybe a superhero on a thursday......

Are there tax breaks for this?

Which of the days do we get to take a baby from a heterosexual couple and raise it?

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 02:04PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

Welcome to an adult conversation. Do you think it is appropriate to have a child who is trying to settle into the world and figure out it's place in the world, to be exposed to such obvious gender confusion? If your child came home from school one day and said the same teacher was a man on Monday but then the same teacher presented as a woman on a Tuesday, would you consider that to be acceptable?

Of course - why wouldnt I?

I think you are the one who is confused. Kids take that kind of thing in their stride.

galljga1 · 13-05-2015 02:05PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

I want to know more about being a man on a monday, a woman on a tuesday, a man on a wednesday, maybe a superhero on a thursday......

Are there tax breaks for this?

Which of the days do we get to take a baby from a heterosexual couple and raise it?

That would be Saturdays and every second Tuesday.

seamus · 13-05-2015 02:06PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Of course - why wouldnt I?

I think you are the one who is confused. Kids take that kind of thing in their stride.

But-but-but-but-but-but children might think it's okay to for a man to dress up as a woman! Or vice-versa!

Can't have that kind of thing, nosiree. What next? Children believing that a girl can do anything a boy can do or, HA, male stewardesses?! Don't make me laugh.

gk5000 · 13-05-2015 02:07PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Im referring to the academic evidence that overwhelmingly shows that same sex parenting is not inferior to opposite sex parenting. Refusing to accept this fact is the same as refusing to believe that the earth is round.

So now its grand even if the influence is bad, so long as the parents are straight?

I have not read these studies. That does not make me a bad person, nor a flat earther. But as I have said acedemics and experts can prove anything.

As you know yourself - parents will have influence whether it be good of bad - and will have a huge influence on your life.

There are same percent good and bad within the gay and stright community - some kids are luckier that others - so that asside - most people I think would prefer to be raised by a father and a mother - and that is the crux of the matter.

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 02:07PM

seamus wrote: »

But-but-but-but-but-but children might think it's okay to for a man to dress up as a woman! Or vice-versa!

Can't have that kind of thing, nosiree. What next? Children believing that a girl can do anything a boy can do or, HA, male stewardesses?! Don't make me laugh.

Female presidents! (under 35!)

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 02:11PM

gk5000 wrote: »

I have not read these studies. That does not make me a bad person, nor a flat earther. But as I have said acedemics and experts can prove anything.

As you know yourself - parents will have influence whether it be good of bad - and will have a huge influence on your life.

There are same percent good and bad within the gay and stright community - some kids are luckier that others - so that asside - most people I think would prefer to be raised by a father and a mother - and that is the crux of the matter.

You seem to be missing the point. The BODY of studies has been evaluated. So that means that ALL the peer reviewed studies that prove both sides of the argument have been analysed and the outcome is that there is no disadvantage. I really dont know how to explain this further to you. It is an objective FACT that there is no disadvantage.

I think most people would prefer to be raised in a loving stable environment and not suffer poverty.

gravehold · 13-05-2015 02:13PM

seamus wrote: »

But-but-but-but-but-but children might think it's okay to for a man to dress up as a woman! Or vice-versa!

Can't have that kind of thing, nosiree. What next? Children believing that a girl can do anything a boy can do or, HA, male stewardesses?! Don't make me laugh.

I am a transsexual and I would think it would be bad form to just present as your correct gender one day out of the blue if dealing with kids

I mean you would need to take it slow and talk to parents let the kids deal slowly ask questions.

Also transsexuals don't just transition over night anyway.

galljga1 · 13-05-2015 02:14PM

Might it be worthwhile to open a parenting thread and we can get on with discussing extending marriage to same sex couples and the reasons for not doing so.

seamus · 13-05-2015 02:14PM

gk5000 wrote: »

most people I think would prefer to be raised by a father and a mother - and that is the crux of the matter.

Not really, it's a bit of a logical fallacy. It's a bit like saying that most women would prefer to be a woman than a man. You are what you know, you inherently don't want what you don't know.

If you have a proper think about it, you wouldn't prefer to be raised by a mother and father, you would prefer to be raised by your mother and father.

You wouldn't want to be raised by any other random man/woman pair any more than any random same-sex pair.

Likewise the children of same-sex parents would prefer to be raised by those parents than some other random combination of parents, same-sex or otherwise.

To suggest that you know what kind of parent a fictional baby would prefer is misguided in the extreme. You're extrapolating what is best for everyone based on your own exceptionally narrow personal experience.

This is why it's so important to read the data and the facts and the studies around these things rather than relying on gut instinct. Your gut is usually wrong or at the very least horrendously underinformed.

gravehold · 13-05-2015 02:16PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point. The BODY of studies has been evaluated. So that means that ALL the peer reviewed studies that prove both sides of the argument have been analysed and the outcome is that there is no disadvantage. I really dont know how to explain this further to you. It is an objective FACT that there is no disadvantage.

I think most people would prefer to be raised in a loving stable environment and not suffer poverty.

When there is studies that have different results that are also peer reviewed you cannot say it's fact, it's a working theroey but has not been proven as fact yet.

As I said it closer to the big bang theory then the world is flat. We cannot prove for a fact tbbt is correct, studies have conderdicted each other on tbbt

LordNorbury · 13-05-2015 02:19PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Of course - why wouldnt I?

I think you are the one who is confused. Kids take that kind of thing in their stride.

And teaching a child from birth that it is not the gender as suggested by it's genitalia, that is has to choose which gender it wants to be, I guess you're absolutely fine with that as a standard and acceptable approach to parenting too, yeah?

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 02:21PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

And teaching a child from birth that it is not the gender as suggested by it's genitalia, that is has to choose which gender it wants to be, I guess you're absolutely fine with that as a standard and acceptable approach to parenting too, yeah?

Doesnt bother me in the slightest. Why wouldnt it be fine?

glued · 13-05-2015 02:22PM

I'm voting no simply because of the behaviour of some the 'Yes' side. I would have been a 'Yes' voter but the removal of posters by a number of 'Yes' campaigners really leaves a sour taste in your mouth.

The 'No' poster removers are hypocrites. They want 'equality' but don't want 'equality' in the election process.

CaveCanem · 13-05-2015 02:24PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Doesnt bother me in the slightest. Why wouldnt it be fine?

Denying basic biology is equal to denying basic physics or the theory of evolution. Not good for the future of an intelligent society.

eviltwin · 13-05-2015 02:24PM

glued wrote: »

I'm voting no simply because of the behaviour of some the 'Yes' side. I would have been a 'Yes' voter but the removal of posters by a number of 'Yes' campaigners really leaves a sour taste in your mouth.

The 'No' poster removers are hypocrites. They want 'equality' but don't want 'equality' in the election process.

Course you are :rolleyes: if you're vote was that fickle you can't have been a strong yes vote in the first place

Huntergonzo · 13-05-2015 02:27PM

glued wrote: »

I'm voting no simply because of the behaviour of some the 'Yes' side. I would have been a 'Yes' voter but the removal of posters by a number of 'Yes' campaigners really leaves a sour taste in your mouth.

The 'No' poster removers are hypocrites. They want 'equality' but don't want 'equality' in the election process.

You're taring all Yes voters and denying homosexual people in this country a chance of equality just because you saw a few clowns taking down No posters? (something which I'd imagine most Yes people are against myself included).

I'm not having a go at you but I don't quite understand that logic and if I'm honest I'm struggling to believe your claim that you were going to vote Yes if that was enough to turn you against an entire community of people.

FreudianSlippers · 13-05-2015 02:28PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

But look at it in the context of my previous post. Article 41.1.1 of our constitution states:

ARTICLE 41
1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

It is fairly obvious in my view, that the meaning of the word "society" has to be intergenerational. If you accept that, then you accept an implied meaning that society sustains itself through the generations, by procreation. That one generation of society creates the next generation of society, that is what allows us to have a continuation of the "society" that is mentioned in article 41.1.1. It is that meaning of family in my view, that is protected by the institution of marriage in our constitution, notwithstanding the fact that a man and a woman can marry and can decide not to have children or can find themselves unable to create children.

Article 41.1.1 must mean something and if my interpretation of what it means is fundamentally wrong, then maybe as a man who practices law, you might give me your view on the substantive meaning of article 41.1.1.

Let's say "Society" means intergenerational - I don't necessarily have a qualm with that. It doesn't necessarily follow that this means only biological children are "intergenerational"; so if heterosexual couples can have "children" that are a result of surrogacy or adoption, then shouldn't that be unlawful for breaching the purpose of "Society" as per 41.1.1?

However, I would follow this by stating that the Constitution is underpinned by the concept of Natural Law and, due to the capitalisation of "Society", I would interpret it in line with Natural Law in terms of protecting society by creating positive laws that contribute to "the safety of citizens, the preservation of states, and the tranquility and happiness of human life."

galljga1 · 13-05-2015 02:28PM

glued wrote: »

I'm voting no simply because of the behaviour of some the 'Yes' side. I would have been a 'Yes' voter but the removal of posters by a number of 'Yes' campaigners really leaves a sour taste in your mouth.

The 'No' poster removers are hypocrites. They want 'equality' but don't want 'equality' in the election process.

Do you think there is the remotest chance that the 'no' posters may be misleading the public?

SireOfSeth · 13-05-2015 02:30PM

glued wrote: »

I'm voting no simply because of the behaviour of some the 'Yes' side. I would have been a 'Yes' voter but the removal of posters by a number of 'Yes' campaigners really leaves a sour taste in your mouth.

The 'No' poster removers are hypocrites. They want 'equality' but don't want 'equality' in the election process.

I don't agree with the posters being taken down illegally. However, posters were taken down by both sides. It don't understand your point.

Huntergonzo · 13-05-2015 02:33PM

galljga1 wrote: »

Do you think there is the remotest chance that the 'no' posters may be misleading the public?

You mean the ones with the babies stuck in between a loving mammy and daddy pleading with us not to take them away from him/her, even though that's totally irrelevant to the referendum, NOOOOOOOOOOOO, never

I'm not old enough to remember but did I read somewhere that the anti-divorce brigade put up Goodbye Daddy posters or something like that when the divorce referendum came up in the 90s?

gravehold · 13-05-2015 02:35PM

galljga1 wrote: »

Do you think there is the remotest chance that the 'no' posters may be misleading the public?

Still does 't make it right to remove them, if they though they should be removed you ring the council

13-05-2015 02:38PM

I haven't managed to read the entire thread, but as it seems to mostly consist of people vehemently insisting that a yes vote doesn't change anything, shouldn't the question be "why are you voting yes?"

Actually I am genuinely confused, is there a difference between the rights of a married couple as opposed to one in civil partnership? Is the entire referendum and all this hot air about nothing other than the word 'marriage'?

johnnyskeleton · 13-05-2015 02:38PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

They just see it differently to you, having a different perspective from a different angle does not make one blind. :cool:

I suppose I phrased that badly but what I meant was more that there are some people who will follow the Church's view without thinking for themselves. Obviously such wouldn't apply to someone who has thought the whole thing through and is still voting no.

LordNorbury · 13-05-2015 02:38PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Doesnt bother me in the slightest. Why wouldnt it be fine?

I suspect you are only playing it down on here because you know well it isn't acceptable to be putting these ideas into a child's head but you lack the humility on thread to say it out straight & plain, that it is simply wrong and harmful for children to be immersed into those kind of harmful and disturbed idealogies that are clearly centred around the needs & desires of an adult, and not the needs of the child, which is typical of how SSM parents approach family, it isn't about the needs of the child, it is about them as people who want to be parents regardless of the wider consequences on the child.

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 02:39PM

CaveCanem wrote: »

Denying basic biology is equal to denying basic physics or the theory of evolution. Not good for the future of an intelligent society.

EH, Not everyone is the gender they were born with.

Didnt you ever wonder what the T in LGBT meant?

LordNorbury · 13-05-2015 02:40PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I suppose I phrased that badly but what I meant was more that there are some people who will follow the Church's view without thinking for themselves. Obviously such wouldn't apply to someone who has thought the whole thing through and is still voting no.

Well the religious thing can't be attached to me as I'm not religious, not blind either though!

jobbridge4life · 13-05-2015 02:40PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I haven't managed to read the entire thread, but as it seems to mostly consist of people vehemently insisting that a yes vote doesn't change anything, shouldn't the question be "why are you voting yes?"

Actually I am genuinely confused, is there a difference between the rights of a married couple as opposed to one in civil partnership? Is the entire referendum and all this hot air about nothing other than the word 'marriage'?

People are pointing out that the referendum does not change anything in relation to adoption law or surrogacy. Of course it affords greater protections to SS couples.

Please consult the referendum commission for unbiased information.

http://refcom2015.ie/

Godge · 13-05-2015 02:41PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point. The BODY of studies has been evaluated. So that means that ALL the peer reviewed studies that prove both sides of the argument have been analysed and the outcome is that there is no disadvantage. I really dont know how to explain this further to you. It is an objective FACT that there is no disadvantage.

I think most people would prefer to be raised in a loving stable environment and not suffer poverty.

There are no objective facts in sociological studies. Anyone who claims there is immediately creates doubts about their argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 02:41PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

I suspect you are only playing it down on here because you know well it isn't acceptable to be putting these ideas into a child's head but you lack the humility on thread to say it out straight & plain, that it is simply wrong and harmful for children to be immersed into those kind of harmful and disturbed idealogies that are clearly centred around the needs & desires of an adult, and not the needs of the child, which is typical of how SSM parents approach family, it isn't about the needs of the child, it is about them as people who want to be parents regardless of the wider consequences on the child.

lol - humility? Thats funny.

You dont like it so you refuse to believe it. Are you going to scream and scream and scream until you are sick?

I certainly think its healthy to educate a child about diversity. Nothing harmful about it.

SSM why are you voting no?

Comments