Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

1…178179181183184…218

Comments

  • #5402
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,048 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Because marriage is between a man and a woman. Always has been since the formation of the state and a lonnnnng time before that.

    I can't marry a married woman, I can't marry another man.

    I can marry a single woman of a different race.

    I am supporting the status quo.

    but you're not explaining why. You're just saying, "this is how it is. don't change it."

    Plus you can marry a divorced woman or get a divorce, which wasn't the case at the formation of the state. So you support the current incarnation of marriage.

    Why shouldn't same-sex couples be able to avail of civil marriage?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #5403
    Michael OBrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 533 ✭✭✭Michael OBrien


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Say that to adoptees who long to know who their biological parents are.
    That is utterly irrelevant to this debate as adoptees face that issue REGARDLESS of what type of couple adopts them. You are avoiding the key issue here. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE in the roles played in raising children between adults. Mothers work while fathers stay at home cooking and cleaning, why would it matter if it was a mother working while her female partner stays at home cooking and cleaning? What if BOTH are out working.
    There is NO DIFFERENCE. This is not 1950.


  • #5404
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    People argued that traditional marriage wasn't mixed race, that children born to mixed race marriages are against God, that there was nothing unequal about only allowing races to marry within themselves.

    But you still fail to make a credible link to my stance.


  • #5405
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Yes, too. Recent changes in legislation (that I don't think have come into effect yet, but will regardless of the outcome of the referendum) will allow couples to adopt regardless of their gender/sexuality.

    Honestly it's quite depressing that you're so strongly advocating a no vote while knowing so little about the referendum.

    So, I am right. Currently, only straight couple can adopt.

    Why the need to falsely suggest I know so little?


  • #5406
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    SW wrote: »
    but you're not explaining why. You're just saying, "this is how it is. don't change it."

    Plus you can marry a divorced woman or get a divorce, which wasn't the case at the formation of the state. So you support the current incarnation of marriage.

    Why shouldn't same-sex couples be able to avail of civil marriage?

    Because of the Pandora's box it could open leaving children ignorant of their biological origins. An adult right to marriage should never trump a child's right to know er origins, in my view.


  • Advertisement
  • #5407
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,868 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Because of the Pandora's box it could open leaving children ignorant of their biological origins. An adult right to marriage should never trump a child's right to know er origins, in my view.

    So should all adopting parents be forced to inform the child that he/she is adopted?


  • #5408
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Arguing traditional marriages are between one race is equivalent to arguing traditional marriages are between two genders.

    Arguing mixed race babies are against God is equivalent to arguing homosexuality is against God.

    Arguing that allowing anyone to marry anyone as long as they're the same race is equivalent to arguing anyone can marry anyone as long as they're different genders.

    Why are you now bringing God into it?

    the fact remains, that despite your wish to pin a racial code on me from the past, marriage is equal to all citizens who qualify.

    The potential pandora's box this referendum could open is not worth changing the status quo in my view.


  • #5409
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,048 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Because of the Pandora's box it could open leaving children ignorant of their biological origins. An adult right to marriage should never trump a child's right to know er origins, in my view.

    So you only oppose same-sex couples marrying but are fine with the same issue arising with regard to the childs origins if the married couple is a man and woman?

    Why do hetero couples get a free pass?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #5410
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    So should all adopting parents be forced to inform the child that he/she is adopted?

    In my view, yes.

    Would you deny a child the right to know their origins?


  • #5411
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    SW wrote: »
    So you only oppose same-sex couples marrying but are fine with the same issue arising with regard to the childs origins if the married couple is a man and woman?

    Why do hetero couples get a free pass?

    I don't think they should.


  • Advertisement
  • #5412
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,868 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    In my view, yes.

    Would you deny a child the right to know their origins?

    No but i wouldn't force parents to tell the child either, you have a very skewed moral outlook imo.


  • #5413
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,158 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Say that to adoptees who long to know who their biological parents are.

    Like Michael Hess?


  • #5414
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,048 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    I don't think they should.

    But yet you're only barring same-sex couples from marrying. Which does nothing to prevent surrogacy from happening because there are no laws prohibiting it.

    It's almost as if they're two different things.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #5415
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,868 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    In my view, yes.

    Would you deny a child the right to know their origins?

    Also

    The catholic church has been withholding this information for decades.


  • #5416
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Too? AFAIK the only couple who adopt are straight. Though I am open to correction on that.

    Good, because you're wrong. Gay, straight, couples or single; anyone can adopt if they are considered suitable.


  • #5417
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    The State will no longer be able to give preference to a family model based on father, mother and children.

    It doesn't now. It gives preference to what is best for the child.


  • #5418
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,979 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    You're the first person to ask me why I'm voting no, instead of trying to pin me down as a homophobe.

    In a nutshell, I see this addition to the Constitution as opening up a Pandora's box whereby denying future children knowledge of their genetic identity.

    Within weeks a married Gay couple could apply through the High Court for their rights to pro-create, normalising surrogacy and the nation powerless to prevent it.

    I know that this has nothing to do with the 34th referendum, but is merely a series of what-if's. As there are no laws prohibiting or banning procreation through surrogacy here, why should any of the newly married couples feel they would/should have to go to the High Court seeking it's permission to do so?

    Is this lack of law the thing that you fear the most?

    Is it why you opposed the referendum vote, that you would rather it have been deferred til the "promised" new bill, then act, on surrogacy existed in law?

    .............................................................................................

    Know well that LGBT people like me, as citizens of our country, will no longer stand idly by while groups like Iona abuse their position and stymie our advancement in law on marriage (and any rights allied to it) here. We have waited too long for filibustering or legal tactics to derail it. Remember that not all LGBT newly married couples of either gender would want to have children in the family by procreation or other means.


  • #5419
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Within weeks a married Gay couple could apply through the High Court for their rights to pro-create, normalising surrogacy and the nation powerless to prevent it.

    They can now. The decision made today, whatever it is, won't change that.

    In any case, what is wrong with a gay couple wanting to procreate?


  • #5420
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    No but i wouldn't force parents to tell the child either, you have a very skewed moral outlook imo.

    You question my morals because I think children should know their origins?

    Why?


  • #5421
    Perla Little Slipknot
    Posts: 24,816 ✭ Perla Little Slipknot


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Why are you now bringing God into it?

    the fact remains, that despite your wish to pin a racial code on me from the past, marriage is equal to all citizens who qualify.

    The potential pandora's box this referendum could open is not worth changing the status quo in my view.

    These statements were 100% true, applicable and valid when considering the question at the time "should inter-racial marriage be allowed".

    Yet, it would be viewed as an indefensible now.

    Why?


  • Advertisement
  • #5422
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,868 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    You question my morals because I think children should know their origins?

    Why?


    Have you been lobbying the Catholic church that you so revere to release the information about adopted childrens biological parents that they have refused to release for decades? If not then your hypocrisy is showing through.


  • #5423
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    SW wrote: »
    But yet you're only barring same-sex couples from marrying. Which does nothing to prevent surrogacy from happening because there are no laws prohibiting it.

    It's almost as if they're two different things.

    Yes, the risk is too great. Unfortunately the Govt has left us in this limbo.

    If surrogacy had been sorted in legislation, I may well be voting Yes today.


  • #5424
    barretsimpson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 122 ✭✭barretsimpson


    I think a single mother with kids should be called a family as well. I think people that want to marry more than one partner should be facilitated as well. That would be proper equality.


  • #5425
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Also

    The catholic church has been withholding this information for decades.

    Disgracefully so too.


  • #5426
    katydid
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,351 ✭✭✭katydid


    barretsimpson wrote: »
    I think a single mother with kids should be called a family as well. I think people that want to marry more than one partner should be facilitated as well. That would be proper equality.

    Not for the partners they would want to marry..


  • #5427
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    aloyisious wrote: »
    I know that this has nothing to do with the 34th referendum, but is merely a series of what-if's. As there are no laws prohibiting or banning procreation through surrogacy here, why should any of the newly married couples feel they would/should have to go to the High Court seeking it's permission to do so?

    Is this lack of law the thing that you fear the most?

    Is it why you opposed the referendum vote, that you would rather it have been deferred til the "promised" new bill, then act, on surrogacy existed in law?

    .............................................................................................

    Know well that LGBT people like me, as citizens of our country, will no longer stand idly by while groups like Iona abuse their position and stymie our advancement in law on marriage (and any rights allied to it) here. We have waited too long for filibustering or legal tactics to derail it. Remember that not all LGBT newly married couples of either gender would want to have children in the family by procreation or other means.

    So if there is a No result tomorrow, you will continue to advocate, within the law, for Gay Marriage?

    Good for you. I'd expect nothing less.


  • #5428
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    Deleted User wrote: »
    These statements were 100% true, applicable and valid when considering the question at the time "should inter-racial marriage be allowed".

    Yet, it would be viewed as an indefensible now.

    Why?

    Concerns around children being denied knowledge of their biological origins?

    Do tell me more.


  • #5429
    Perla Little Slipknot
    Posts: 24,816 ✭ Perla Little Slipknot


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Concerns around children being denied knowledge of their biological origins?

    Do tell me more.

    Are you on a phone and so did not see my bolding of your comments? I'll repost the quote with only the bolded included.
    Black Menorca wrote: »
    ... marriage is equal to all citizens who qualify.

    The potential pandora's box this referendum could open is not worth changing the status quo in my view.
    Deleted User wrote:
    These statements were 100% true, applicable and valid when considering the question at the time "should inter-racial marriage be allowed".
    Yet, it would be viewed as an indefensible now.
    Why?


  • #5430
    barretsimpson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 122 ✭✭barretsimpson


    katydid wrote: »
    Not for the partners they would want to marry..

    How so, if three consenting adults love one another, and want to get married, what business is it of yours ?, and why should a single mother with kids not be considered a family under the constitution, but a married couple, gay or straight, with no kids are ? Where's the equality there ?


  • Advertisement
  • #5431
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Have you been lobbying the Catholic church that you so revere to release the information about adopted childrens biological parents that they have refused to release for decades? If not then your hypocrisy is showing through.
    I revere Our Lord Jesus Christ, Mary the Mother of God, the Community of Saints and Pope Francis as our Shepherd on Earth.

    But the Church are carried out grave wrongs that should be completely uncovered and amends made, as I have continuously stated on other, Christian based, forums.


Advertisement