The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[armaghniac]

My apologies, Sandy Hill, what I meant to say that they'll probably label you as

[LCohen]

My apologies, Sandy Hill, what I meant to say that they'll probably label you as

Enough of the distractions. Have you yet come up with anything, anthing at all to support your view that that Yes campaign is constituted by people who are are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children? Anything at all?

[armaghniac]

My apologies, Sandy Hill, what I meant to say that they'll probably label you as

Enough of the distractions. Have you yet come up with anything, anthing at all to support your view that that Yes campaign is constituted by people who are are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children? Anything at all?

You are not paying attention, or more likely have decided to ignore anything that doesn't suit.

[LCohen]

My apologies, Sandy Hill, what I meant to say that they'll probably label you as

Enough of the distractions. Have you yet come up with anything, anthing at all to support your view that that Yes campaign is constituted by people who are are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children? Anything at all?

You are not paying attention, or more likely have decided to ignore anything that doesn't suit.

I'm quite, quite sure that I have been keeping up. I'm quite, quite sure that you have offered nothing that supports your wild accusation that the yes campaign is constituted of people who are are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children. Quite sure.

[armaghniac]

I'm quite, quite sure that I have been keeping up. I'm quite, quite sure that you have offered nothing that supports your wild accusation that the yes campaign is constituted of people who are are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children. Quite sure.

In post #81 I stated that the people promoting this campaign were to opposed to support for men and women marrying and raising children. This is self evident.

[LCohen]

I'm quite, quite sure that I have been keeping up. I'm quite, quite sure that you have offered nothing that supports your wild accusation that the yes campaign is constituted of people who are are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children. Quite sure.

In post #81 I stated that the people promoting this campaign were to opposed to support for men and women marrying and raising children. This is self evident.

Its just brilliant. Brilliant. That post has all the intellectual rigour of "my argument must be true because I said it earlier"

In what way is it self evident?

Awful stuff really and I shouldn't laugh. There remains the risk that this sort of unhinged thinking results in the continuation of inequality

[armaghniac]

Well then, since you are such an advocate of "equality", why are married people treated differently from single people, shouldn't everyone be equal?

[seafoid]

The next abortion referendum will be rira agus ruaille buaille if this discussion is anything to go by.

[gallsman]

What if the bible is not bullshit,but true,and there is a Day of Judgement and a Heaven and Hell.It cannot be discounted as none of us know whether it's true or not.

All Christian denominations oppose homosexuality (but not homosexuals),it's one of the few points of total agreement.They are perfectly entitled therefore to oppose gay marriage as a desecration of the sacrament of matrimony and to have real concern about where society is heading.

Regardless of your stance on gay marriage, if the bible is real, you in particular will fail the entrance exam on plenty of other criteria.

Tony Fearon presenting himself as a poster boy for good Catholics everywhere. They'll be mortified.

[muppet]

I'm quite, quite sure that I have been keeping up. I'm quite, quite sure that you have offered nothing that supports your wild accusation that the yes campaign is constituted of people who are are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children. Quite sure.

In post #81 I stated that the people promoting this campaign were to opposed to support for men and women marrying and raising children. This is self evident.

I can't follow this logic at all. This is the strangest syllogism I've seen, if it can be called a syllogism.

All yes supporters support Gay Marriage - no problem so far
Some people are opposed to 'support for man and women marrying and raising children' - fair enough I suppose
Therefore 'the yes campaign is constituted of people who are are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children' - WTF?

[armaghniac]

I'm quite, quite sure that I have been keeping up. I'm quite, quite sure that you have offered nothing that supports your wild accusation that the yes campaign is constituted of people who are are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children. Quite sure.

In post #81 I stated that the people promoting this campaign were to opposed to support for men and women marrying and raising children. This is self evident.

I can't follow this logic at all. This is the strangest syllogism I've seen, if it can be called a syllogism.

All yes supporters support Gay Marriage - no problem so far

Some of them probably don't, but are just trying to piss off the church/ the establishment/ The Tea Party/ their mother/ Tony Fearon or whatever.

Therefore 'the yes campaign is constituted of people who are are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children' - WTF?

see post #81.

[muppet]

I'm quite, quite sure that I have been keeping up. I'm quite, quite sure that you have offered nothing that supports your wild accusation that the yes campaign is constituted of people who are are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children. Quite sure.

In post #81 I stated that the people promoting this campaign were to opposed to support for men and women marrying and raising children. This is self evident.

I can't follow this logic at all. This is the strangest syllogism I've seen, if it can be called a syllogism.

All yes supporters support Gay Marriage - no problem so far

Some of them probably don't, but are just trying to piss off the church/ the establishment/ The Tea Party/ their mother/ Tony Fearon or whatever.

Therefore 'the yes campaign is constituted of people who are are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children' - WTF?

see post #81.

The only thing I can find is a post assuming that if a Gay couple raise a child, then it is a child of one Gay partner and a 3rd person. You then further assume that the child came from a 'normal' couple (a happily married man and a woman that is) that was split up in favour of the Gay couple. That is two quite big assumptions to base the following on: 'the yes campaign is constituted of people who are are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children'

For a start if a Gay man and a woman have a child, under the current law the child won't go to the father. Unless the mother dies or doesn't want the kid in which case the referendum will allow the gay couple to properly become parents. You don't consider the possibility of the gay couple adopting non-biologically related children which to me is the obvious route to a family for them.

I asked the question earlier, which no one answered, would you prefer to see a suitable gay couple adopt a child, or leave the child in an orphanage?

For me it is a no brainer and is a big reason why I will vote yes.

[armaghniac]

I asked the question earlier, which no one answered, would you prefer to see a suitable gay couple adopt a child, or leave the child in an orphanage?

I would prefer to see a suitable gay couple adopt a child, rather than  leave the child in an orphanage.
I would prefer to see a suitable normal couple adopt a child rather than a gay couple.

The point is that there are very few adoptions, and any child centric approach to adoption would scarcely exhaust the pool of suitable normal couples, so that others would not get to adopt. In the present atmosphere which emphasises the adults rather than the children this would be "discrimination".

For me it is a no brainer and is a big reason why I will vote yes.

This is not a good reason to vote yes, we are being told by the yes campaign that this has nothing to do with adoption, or children of any sort.

[muppet]

I asked the question earlier, which no one answered, would you prefer to see a suitable gay couple adopt a child, or leave the child in an orphanage?

I would prefer to see a suitable gay couple adopt a child, rather than  leave the child in an orphanage.
I would prefer to see a suitable normal couple adopt a child rather than a gay couple.

The point is that there are very few adoptions, and any child centric approach to adoption would scarcely exhaust the pool of suitable normal couples, so that others would not get to adopt. In the present atmosphere which emphasises the adults rather than the children this would be "discrimination".

Woah there. Gay couples can't adopt now, so that in itself lowers the figures. Also, are you basing your figures on the adoption of Irish children only? According to this only 1.5% of orphaned children worldwide are adopted each year: http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2007/07/08/child_adoptions_worldwide/

For me it is a no brainer and is a big reason why I will vote yes.

This is not a good reason to vote yes, we are being told by the yes campaign that this has nothing to do with adoption, or children of any sort.

[/quote]

Do I seem like the sort of fella that is persuaded by a yes or no campaign? 

[armaghniac]

Woah there. Gay couples can't adopt now, so that in itself lowers the figures.

It doesn't lower the figures. The number of children for adoption is very much less than the number wishing to adopt so an increase in the number eligible to adopt is neither here nor there.

Also, are you basing your figures on the adoption of Irish children only?

I am basing my figures on the number legally adopted in Ireland, whether Irish or foreign. There may be many more children in the world, but these may be in places where there is no legal path to adoption and many are in places not interested in gay adoption.

Do I seem like the sort of fella that is persuaded by a yes or no campaign? 

I'm sure you will reflect on the points raised by both.