The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[armaghniac]

Pre-referendum: Straight couples can get married and have children. Gay couples can have children but not get married.

Post-referendum (assuming a yes vote): Straight couples can get married and have children. Gay couples can have children and get married.

Can someone please explain how a yes vote undermines or attacks marriage or families?

You've said it yourself. Straight people ger married and have children with that oerson, providing responsible parenting. Gay people have children, you don't say how, but I'll hazard a guess that they don't marry the parent of their children, but rather exclude one of the parents.

"Exclude" one of the parents?

Gay couples have children by various means. Adoption, anonymous sperm donation, IVF, surrogacy etc., all various methods that are also used by straight couples. Are they also "excluding" one of the parents, whatever that means? If that's your beef, then why not call for a ban those methods of having children? Or is it only a problem when gay parents wish to avail of the same methods? If so, why is it okay for straight people to use those methods of having children but not gay parents? What's the difference?

In any case, none of this has any bearing on the referendum, as you know.

But there is really no point in explaining this, you ignore everything that is posted.

Humour me.

There are questions over surrogacy whoever is involved and some of these techniques are banned and some should be. Nobody is arguing for surrogacy for heterosexual couples being a relavant factor in this debate, whereas you keep saying thay gay couples can have children.

And there is much talk of adoption. Adopting children may well be a selfless act, but the total number adopted in the 26 counties in a year would fit on the Roscommon bus and probably their adoptive parents as well. As there is a ready supply of heterosexual parents wishing to adopt then adoption by homosexuals needs never take place, it is certainly not appropriate to distort marriage where 10s of thousands of children are born every year for some benefit for 3 or 4 children whose welfare is best dealt with by adoption law, not changes to the constitution.

[Hardy]

They used to say that every time the Brits began to understand what was termed "the Irish question", the Irish changed the question.

It seems some Irish are still pretty adept at it, except they can't seem to decide on what they want the new question to be.

[armaghniac]

They used to say that every time the Brits began to understand what was termed "the Irish question", the Irish changed the question.

It seems some Irish are still pretty adept at it, except they can't seem to decide on what they want the new question to be.

Another cryptic contribution.

[easytiger95]

They used to say that every time the Brits began to understand what was termed "the Irish question", the Irish changed the question.

It seems some Irish are still pretty adept at it, except they can't seem to decide on what they want the new question to be.

Another cryptic contribution.

If you find that cryptic, steer clear of the Times' crossword.

[armaghniac]

They used to say that every time the Brits began to understand what was termed "the Irish question", the Irish changed the question.

It seems some Irish are still pretty adept at it, except they can't seem to decide on what they want the new question to be.

Another cryptic contribution.

If you find that cryptic, steer clear of the Times' crossword.

We Ulster folk prefer plain speaking to speaking in riddles. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

[PadraicHenryPearse]

Would this be the Hierarchy of Family that the no side believe in?

1. Bio Mother & Bio Father
2. Bio Mother & non Bio Father
3. Bio Mother
4. Non Bio mother & Bio Father
5. Non Bio Mother & Non Bio Father
6. Bio Father
7. Non Bio Mother
8. Non Bio father
9. Bio Mother & Non Bio Mother
10. Bio Father & Non Bio Father
11. Non Bio Mother & Non Bio Mother
12. Non Bio father & non Bio father

[easytiger95]

Hilarious. Yes, you truly are the plainest speaking, straight shootingest guy on this Board....(begins the long walk to my Gumdrop House on Lolliipop lane

[armaghniac]

Yes, you truly are the plainest speaking, straight shootingest guy on this Board....

Thank you, I stand for truth.

(begins the long walk to my Gumdrop House on Lolliipop lane

Have fun there.

[T Fearon]

Encouraging to read in the Sindo today that the Yes vote has dropped significantly and there are enough don't knows to be persuaded to join the No camp in order to preserve the natural order of things.

[Eamonnca1]

Encouraging to read in the Sindo today..

I stopped reading and started laughing at this point.

[Eamonnca1]

There are questions over surrogacy whoever is involved and some of these techniques are banned and some should be. Nobody is arguing for surrogacy for heterosexual couples being a relavant factor in this debate, whereas you keep saying thay gay couples can have children.

And there is much talk of adoption. Adopting children may well be a selfless act, but the total number adopted in the 26 counties in a year would fit on the Roscommon bus and probably their adoptive parents as well. As there is a ready supply of heterosexual parents wishing to adopt then adoption by homosexuals needs never take place, it is certainly not appropriate to distort marriage where 10s of thousands of children are born every year for some benefit for 3 or 4 children whose welfare is best dealt with by adoption law, not changes to the constitution.

Is your real name Donald Rumsfeld? I don't think even he could come up with such a carefully crafted piece of obfuscation. If, in the middle of all that, there is an answer to my question about how existing marriages or future heterosexual marriages are affected by same-sex marriages, you're going to have to help me find it.

[Gmac]

There are questions over surrogacy whoever is involved and some of these techniques are banned and some should be. Nobody is arguing for surrogacy for heterosexual couples being a relavant factor in this debate, whereas you keep saying thay gay couples can have children.

And there is much talk of adoption. Adopting children may well be a selfless act, but the total number adopted in the 26 counties in a year would fit on the Roscommon bus and probably their adoptive parents as well. As there is a ready supply of heterosexual parents wishing to adopt then adoption by homosexuals needs never take place, it is certainly not appropriate to distort marriage where 10s of thousands of children are born every year for some benefit for 3 or 4 children whose welfare is best dealt with by adoption law, not changes to the constitution.

Is your real name Donald Rumsfeld? I don't think even he could come up with such a carefully crafted piece of obfuscation. If, in the middle of all that, there is an answer to my question about how existing marriages or future heterosexual marriages are affected by same-sex marriages, you're going to have to help me find it.

this is a referendum in the Republic of Ireland not the usa so don't worry about it unless u have a vote here or want to come back and marry a man here.

[Oraisteach]

Gmac, your 6th post is to limit discussion on a discussion board!  Wow!

[foxcommander]

Gay couples have children by various means.

What's the difference?

Didn't think you'd need the "talk" at this stage of your life.
In these cases there's always a third party involvement in procreation unlike traditional marriages. Unless science has changed in the last couple of months.
Is the vote going to extend to polygamy since it's open season? Could have least put it on the ballot and given the option.

Equality for those who have a little more love to give.

[Eamonnca1]

Gay couples have children by various means.

What's the difference?

Didn't think you'd need the "talk" at this stage of your life.
In these cases there's always a third party involvement in procreation unlike traditional marriages. Unless science has changed in the last couple of months.

I know you think you're being really clever by quoting a fraction of my post out of context and completely changing its meaning by truncating most of what I said, but as you know my question was not about the difference between how gay people and straight people have children. It was about the difference in straight marriages before and after a yes vote.

Is the vote going to extend to polygamy since it's open season? Could have least put it on the ballot and given the option.

Don't seem to remember anyone saying it's "open season," but to answer your bizarre question which you answer in your next sentence, no. Polygamy is not on the ballot. We're not talking about polygamy. Nor are we talking about bestiality, BDSM, the recipe for Coca Cola, or any other red herrings that you'd like to throw in at random.