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

drunkmonkey wrote: »

In a natural exclusive relationship they can't, that's why surrogacy and adoption are being dragged into. If everyone was gay and science didn't get involved that would be the end of our species.
That's why people are of the opinion that a marriage should have supremacy over non reproducing relationships.

If straight people can have sex for non-reproductive reasons, what makes you think gay people can't have it for reproductive reasons?

Never mind the existence of bisexuals...

tayto lover wrote: »

I'm voting Yes.

However I can see what posters mean by a loving mother

The posters defeat their purpose and are insulting to fathers. I would think most people will see through this kind of hysterical crap.

Same with the "don't be bullied " posters, base hysterical nonsense.

tayto lover wrote: »

I'm voting Yes.

However I can see what posters mean by a loving mother.
When i was young i had two very caring parents HOWEVER I would pass my father and go to my mother if I cut myself, was sick or needed a cuddle.
It's hard to explain but there is something about a mother's love.

And it's great that you had a great upbringing but no two childhoods are the same. At 5 I essentially lost my dad who would have been my idol and got me interested in electronics, mechanics and fixing things, but luckily I had plenty of uncles and teachers, granddad and the odd aunt (and my mother of course who made an amazing effort to take up the slack) who shared these interests and I'm fairly sure I worked out fine. Everybody has different experiences. No family fits into the 'ideal' Pleasantville model.

TheChizler wrote: »

That always freaked me out. And the tissues always appeared from her sleeve magician-like.

I was a bad mother - never managed the trick of making a tissue materialise from up me sleeve

sup_dude wrote: »

If they want I suppose?

But what I'm saying is there are people complaining that girls won't get a female role model in their lives... but some gay men I know can be more feminine than straight women. Same way butch women can be more masculine then men. It's purely gender roles, same way the argument that children need a mother and father is.

I hate to call Yes voters on (hopefully toungue in cheek) stupid statements but....

floggg wrote: »

I hate to call Yes voters on (hopefully toungue in cheek) stupid statements but....

The point was to show how silly the use of needing a mother and father excuse is...

tayto lover wrote: »

I'm voting Yes.

However I can see what posters mean by a loving mother.
When i was young i had two very caring parents HOWEVER I would pass my father and go to my mother if I cut myself, was sick or needed a cuddle.
It's hard to explain but there is something about a mother's love.

And there are posters who would do just the opposite.

I'm each family, different parents will adopt different roles. Its irrelevant which parent does which - only that there are parents (or a parent) there when the kids needs them.

tayto lover wrote: »

We should do a poll on who went to mammy or daddy when young

I went to me Nan.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

In a natural exclusive relationship they can't, that's why surrogacy and adoption are being dragged into.

The point is that, yes or no, these things are available to gay couples.

And that being the case, we have to ask why children born into and raised in these circumstances should have families that have less protection or status in the law, and how it benefits those children.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If everyone was gay and science didn't get involved that would be the end of our species.
That's why people are of the opinion that a marriage should have supremacy over non reproducing relationships.

But marriage, by our constitution's definition, creates a family at the beginning of the marriage. No reproduction required. Infertile couples are welcome. Marriage and family in our constitution are already far from exclusively defined by child-yielding relationships. The definition of an eligible couple that gay couples would fall under, from a reproduction point of view, is already accommodated.

(side note: the idea that we need to incentivise straight people to be straight via discrimination isn't giving a lot of credit to straight people.)

LookingFor wrote: »

In gay parental units, these kinds of mechanics emerge too. There's the one the child goes to in this circumstance, the one the child goes to in another.

We can't imprint our own experience on others.

That being said, this isn't what's at stake in this referendum. There are and always will be kids being raised in two-parent families without a mother (or a father). The question is how we want to treat their families, and to what benefit each outcome in this referendum would be to those children.

No, it's not. The question is do we think that same-sex couples deserve to have the same rights and constitutional protection as heterosexual couples. The answer to that is nothing but yes. Children will be adopted by same-sex couples REGARDLESS of what happens in the referendum!

tayto lover wrote: »

There was one in Co. Louth saying "You can't start a herd with two bulls".

Considering cows displace homosexual behaviour every single spring, I find it funny they use bulls as an example.