The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[Over the Bar]

I know a couple who went to the USA for surrogacy as it's illegal to pay for in the UK.  The birth mother is referred to in the process merely as 'the carrier' which appears somewhat cold. 

[armaghniac]

Ok, so you have a problem with surrogacy for same sex parents in certain situations.

I also think there are issues with surrogacy for heterosexual parents in certain situations, there are going to be some tricky moral situations in the future. And there will be huge international issues, as are appearing already, like those Australians who left the kid in Thailand.

[Over the Bar]

I also think there are issues with surrogacy for heterosexual parents in certain situations, there are going to be some tricky moral situations in the future. And there will be huge international issues, as are appearing already, like those Australians who left the kid in Thailand.

In the tens of thousands of surrogacies that take place each year, one that makes the headlines hardly represents "huge international issues".  In fact it's no more of an issue than a domestic situation where the father walks away in similar circumstances unable to handle the birth of a severely disabled child, which happens quite regularly, it just isn't newsworthy. 

[armaghniac]

In the tens of thousands of surrogacies that take place each year, one that makes the headlines hardly represents "huge international issues".  In fact it's no more of an issue than a domestic situation where the father walks away unable to handle it, which happens every week somewhere, it just isn't newsworthy.

I think it is more complex than a domestic situation locally. If people are going from wealthy countries where certain procedures are not permitted to poorer countries where there is less regulation then there could be an element of exploitation about it.

[J70]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see what same-sex or heterosexual has to do with it. Two men - they need a surrogate, same as a straight couple where the woman can't bear children. Two women - they need a sperm donor, same as a straight couple where the man is shooting blanks. The rest is details that also apply regardless of whether it's same sex or straight.

In my example, I distinguished between a surrogate to carry the child and one to conceive the  child.
It is all a bit subtle, but then the whole referendum is a bit strange in that it appears to conflate black=white, so it is reasonable to wonder about strange outcomes resulting from it.

Again, unless I am still missing something,  I don't see the relevance.  Conceive or carry, same issue whether same sex or straight. Egg meets sperm and zygote needs a uterus in all cases!

[Over the Bar]

In the tens of thousands of surrogacies that take place each year, one that makes the headlines hardly represents "huge international issues".  In fact it's no more of an issue than a domestic situation where the father walks away unable to handle it, which happens every week somewhere, it just isn't newsworthy.

I think it is more complex than a domestic situation locally. If people are going from wealthy countries where certain procedures are not permitted to poorer countries where there is less regulation then there could be an element of exploitation about it.

Of course all such risks need to be considered.  I don't think there was any suggestion of exploitation in the case you mentioned as I recall?

[armaghniac]

Again, unless I am still missing something,  I don't see the relevance.  Conceive or carry, same issue whether same sex or straight. Egg meets sperm and zygote needs a uterus in all cases!

The difference is that the egg and sperm meeting in one case are those of the people raising the child and in the other case this is only partially true.

Watching the news now, there also seems to be a concern that a case for surrogacy can be made for same sex couples to vindicate their "right" to have children.  I'm not sure that I buy this one.

[omaghjoe]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see what same-sex or heterosexual has to do with it. Two men - they need a surrogate, same as a straight couple where the woman can't bear children. Two women - they need a sperm donor, same as a straight couple where the man is shooting blanks. The rest is details that also apply regardless of whether it's same sex or straight.

In my example, I distinguished between a surrogate to carry the child and one to conceive the  child.
It is all a bit subtle, but then the whole referendum is a bit strange in that it appears to conflate black=white, so it is reasonable to wonder about strange outcomes resulting from it.

Again, unless I am still missing something,  I don't see the relevance.  Conceive or carry, same issue whether same sex or straight. Egg meets sperm and zygote needs a uterus in all cases!

Is any of this relevant?
Its all just growing cells, multiplying and dividing. And if you still find that relevant then how about break it down another level, just floating atoms attracting and exchanging.

More to the point is any of this discussion relevant fullstop? Considering that yous have covered this subject in great detail that I am sure non of you were even aware of or thought of when you yous made up your mind, yet still refuse to give an inch to the other side? (AZOffally excluded)

[foxcommander]

Again, unless I am still missing something,  I don't see the relevance.  Conceive or carry, same issue whether same sex or straight. Egg meets sperm and zygote needs a uterus in all cases!

The difference is that the egg and sperm meeting in one case are those of the people raising the child and in the other case this is only partially true.

Watching the news now, there also seems to be a concern that a case for surrogacy can be made for same sex couples to vindicate their "right" to have children.  I'm not sure that I buy this one.

Can you not just buy a baby off the shelf in Tescos? It's like some sort of commodity, not a gift from god.
My local Tesco stocks pretty much everything.

[J70]

Again, unless I am still missing something,  I don't see the relevance.  Conceive or carry, same issue whether same sex or straight. Egg meets sperm and zygote needs a uterus in all cases!

The difference is that the egg and sperm meeting in one case are those of the people raising the child and in the other case this is only partially true.

Watching the news now, there also seems to be a concern that a case for surrogacy can be made for same sex couples to vindicate their "right" to have children.  I'm not sure that I buy this one.

I was under the impression surrogate parenthood didn't necessarily involve germ cell donations from the two parents to be.

[armaghniac]

I saw this elsewhere, an interesting perspective
------------------------------------
I know this is pointless. It is richly ironic that this debate drives the "No" argument underground - a vote that dare not speak its name. I post to get it off my chest, to releive my frustration at witnessing the obvious ignored or corrupted in the name of "equality" or religion.

I'm an ordinary 5/8th, straight middle-aged married with kids, card-carrying atheist who strives for understanding and enlightenment. I guess "Humanist". Not a member of or spokesperson for anything.

I'm voting no because

1. It makes sense to me that our constitution reflects the centrality and value of natural reproduction, and the associated long-term commitment of biological parents to the nuture of the resultant children as a basic building block of our society and culture.
2. I recognize that this has little or nothing to do with marriage candidates, married people, single parents, widows, widowers, LGBT or children that are already living. Their circumstances are what they are, other parts of the constitution deal with the living. Its how our constitution and culture properly addresses and provides for the next generation of Irish people yet to be born (LGBT or straight).
3. The debate is hopelessly confused with the GIANT emotional freight of words like "Love", "Marriage" and "Equality".

I'm voting no even though

4. I don't like the look of the spokespersons of the No campaign, who seem to be either gentle bloody Christians or serial contrarians. This is the 1st referendum I find myself on the opposite side to the "liberal media agenda".
5. I am conscious of the pressing need for our society to truly embrace and value our LGBT citizens and guests - and most of all LGBT children. I want to support the LGBT agenda in a concrete way and they are saying clearly that they think a "Yes" vote is such a way.
6. There are a vast array of people and organizations, many of whom I respect, clamouring for a "Yes" vote.

Regarding point 1,2 and 3, I look for an evolutionists view.

Romantic love is the psycological and artistic wrap we put on the extraordinarily strong bonding instint that humans exhibit. Why has have we evolved to have it? It is not necessary for procreation. No shortage of proof points for that. It is so strong, because ALL human children require a (uniquely) large and sustained nuturing from their parents. It is the genetic equity of the biological parents that nature has tested and proven over millenia to be the best basis for a family. You may disagree, but you put your opinion up against the weight of sexual reproduction across the majority of successful species on earth as tested and tuned over millions of years.

Marriage has served as a neccesary social milestone where a couple formalise their bonding before their community and (depressingly) before their god(s). Naturally, our constitution carries on the laws and customs of our ancestors in recognizing the importance of that contract for the future of our country. It excludes LGBTs, because it only exists to provide the naturally selected context for reproduction. If we were immortals, marriage would be inclusive.

Homosexuality, full or partial, remains a scientific enigma. It beggars beleif that such an enormous and influential factor in our society does not have an established consensus view from the scientific community. It is perhaps just more evidence of the dark power of human culture to suppress "awkward truth".

Homosexuality is not an accident or genetic error. A very substantial (10%-20%) of humans are LGBT. There are simply no such thing as errors in a zillion roles of the dice. Scientists have demonstrated models of extraordinary sophistication to illustrate how homosexuality CAN be positively selected via the maternal gene. Why would nature do that?

Has any other minority contributed more to the advancement of our civilisation than LGBT? Maybe I'm over-compensating for my vote? :-) Think about it though. The fields in which gay people excel, and are beleived to have excelled in the past, are the true engines of enlightenment. Could evolution be clever enough to provide LGBTs, largely free from the burden of nurture, free to realise their potential as individuals in order to advance the genetic success of the race/meme? I think so.

If I boil it back to me - if some or all of my childred are gay I will know how precious they are. I will know that from experience and history. But our job is to leave the world better than we found it. If my son has a gay child, that child should never have cause to doubt their value to the world or that they are loved.

A yes vote will be bad for the LGBT agenda in the long run, because it will be eventually reversed and the mistake will set their vital agenda back decades. Like it or not, marriage is for reproduction. The challenge is not to tear down the hetero world, it's to help our world TRULY understand the value of diversity, to be ready to love and value all equally.

[J70]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see what same-sex or heterosexual has to do with it. Two men - they need a surrogate, same as a straight couple where the woman can't bear children. Two women - they need a sperm donor, same as a straight couple where the man is shooting blanks. The rest is details that also apply regardless of whether it's same sex or straight.

In my example, I distinguished between a surrogate to carry the child and one to conceive the  child.
It is all a bit subtle, but then the whole referendum is a bit strange in that it appears to conflate black=white, so it is reasonable to wonder about strange outcomes resulting from it.

Again, unless I am still missing something,  I don't see the relevance.  Conceive or carry, same issue whether same sex or straight. Egg meets sperm and zygote needs a uterus in all cases!

Is any of this relevant?
Its all just growing cells, multiplying and dividing. And if you still find that relevant then how about break it down another level, just floating atoms attracting and exchanging.

More to the point is any of this discussion relevant fullstop? Considering that yous have covered this subject in great detail that I am sure non of you were even aware of or thought of when you yous made up your mind, yet still refuse to give an inch to the other side? (AZOffally excluded)

What's it to you what people want or do not want to discuss?

[eddie d]

Could someone on here clear something up for me,

If a man and a woman had no intention of having children, would they still be allowed to get married in a church?

This came up when we got married actually, (not that we were intending not to have children).

You cannot get married in the church if you are not intending to have children.

By that standard they must really interrogate anyone over 50 presenting for marriage.

Just looking for holes to poke Maguire.... pardon the pun

I am indeed, because if an argument is full of holes, it doesn't hold water.

What argument? It was an honest question. 

[The Iceman]

I saw this elsewhere, an interesting perspective
------------------------------------
I know this is pointless. It is richly ironic that this debate drives the "No" argument underground - a vote that dare not speak its name. I post to get it off my chest, to releive my frustration at witnessing the obvious ignored or corrupted in the name of "equality" or religion.

I'm an ordinary 5/8th, straight middle-aged married with kids, card-carrying atheist who strives for understanding and enlightenment. I guess "Humanist". Not a member of or spokesperson for anything.

I'm voting no because

1. It makes sense to me that our constitution reflects the centrality and value of natural reproduction, and the associated long-term commitment of biological parents to the nuture of the resultant children as a basic building block of our society and culture.
2. I recognize that this has little or nothing to do with marriage candidates, married people, single parents, widows, widowers, LGBT or children that are already living. Their circumstances are what they are, other parts of the constitution deal with the living. Its how our constitution and culture properly addresses and provides for the next generation of Irish people yet to be born (LGBT or straight).
3. The debate is hopelessly confused with the GIANT emotional freight of words like "Love", "Marriage" and "Equality".

I'm voting no even though

4. I don't like the look of the spokespersons of the No campaign, who seem to be either gentle bloody Christians or serial contrarians. This is the 1st referendum I find myself on the opposite side to the "liberal media agenda".
5. I am conscious of the pressing need for our society to truly embrace and value our LGBT citizens and guests - and most of all LGBT children. I want to support the LGBT agenda in a concrete way and they are saying clearly that they think a "Yes" vote is such a way.
6. There are a vast array of people and organizations, many of whom I respect, clamouring for a "Yes" vote.

Regarding point 1,2 and 3, I look for an evolutionists view.

Romantic love is the psycological and artistic wrap we put on the extraordinarily strong bonding instint that humans exhibit. Why has have we evolved to have it? It is not necessary for procreation. No shortage of proof points for that. It is so strong, because ALL human children require a (uniquely) large and sustained nuturing from their parents. It is the genetic equity of the biological parents that nature has tested and proven over millenia to be the best basis for a family. You may disagree, but you put your opinion up against the weight of sexual reproduction across the majority of successful species on earth as tested and tuned over millions of years.

Marriage has served as a neccesary social milestone where a couple formalise their bonding before their community and (depressingly) before their god(s). Naturally, our constitution carries on the laws and customs of our ancestors in recognizing the importance of that contract for the future of our country. It excludes LGBTs, because it only exists to provide the naturally selected context for reproduction. If we were immortals, marriage would be inclusive.

Homosexuality, full or partial, remains a scientific enigma. It beggars beleif that such an enormous and influential factor in our society does not have an established consensus view from the scientific community. It is perhaps just more evidence of the dark power of human culture to suppress "awkward truth".

Homosexuality is not an accident or genetic error. A very substantial (10%-20%) of humans are LGBT. There are simply no such thing as errors in a zillion roles of the dice. Scientists have demonstrated models of extraordinary sophistication to illustrate how homosexuality CAN be positively selected via the maternal gene. Why would nature do that?

Has any other minority contributed more to the advancement of our civilisation than LGBT? Maybe I'm over-compensating for my vote? :-) Think about it though. The fields in which gay people excel, and are beleived to have excelled in the past, are the true engines of enlightenment. Could evolution be clever enough to provide LGBTs, largely free from the burden of nurture, free to realise their potential as individuals in order to advance the genetic success of the race/meme? I think so.

If I boil it back to me - if some or all of my childred are gay I will know how precious they are. I will know that from experience and history. But our job is to leave the world better than we found it. If my son has a gay child, that child should never have cause to doubt their value to the world or that they are loved.

A yes vote will be bad for the LGBT agenda in the long run, because it will be eventually reversed and the mistake will set their vital agenda back decades. Like it or not, marriage is for reproduction. The challenge is not to tear down the hetero world, it's to help our world TRULY understand the value of diversity, to be ready to love and value all equally.

Interesting reading there. None of this really matters really when we boil down to it - we are all just atoms, expanding further and further away since the big bang....meaningless....

[omaghjoe]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see what same-sex or heterosexual has to do with it. Two men - they need a surrogate, same as a straight couple where the woman can't bear children. Two women - they need a sperm donor, same as a straight couple where the man is shooting blanks. The rest is details that also apply regardless of whether it's same sex or straight.

In my example, I distinguished between a surrogate to carry the child and one to conceive the  child.
It is all a bit subtle, but then the whole referendum is a bit strange in that it appears to conflate black=white, so it is reasonable to wonder about strange outcomes resulting from it.

Again, unless I am still missing something,  I don't see the relevance.  Conceive or carry, same issue whether same sex or straight. Egg meets sperm and zygote needs a uterus in all cases!

Is any of this relevant?
Its all just growing cells, multiplying and dividing. And if you still find that relevant then how about break it down another level, just floating atoms attracting and exchanging.

More to the point is any of this discussion relevant fullstop? Considering that yous have covered this subject in great detail that I am sure non of you were even aware of or thought of when you yous made up your mind, yet still refuse to give an inch to the other side? (AZOffally excluded)

What's it to you what people want or do not want to discuss?

Oh I have nothing against people discussing it.

I have been observing this thread for a while and don't have alot of opinion on it but find it very interesting none the less. I was kind of the opinion for a while that you lot seem to coming around now too, that the vote is actually about nothing tangible, rather its all about semantics.

But the most striking thing to me about it is that most of the participants discussing (if you call constantly trying to deliver one knockout blow discussing), when you already have made your mind up
with other people who have also so clearly made their mind up seems a bit pointless, at least for you as individuals and has left me wondering what you are hoping to get out it?

Although in saying that you have all raised some interesting points and concepts.

Its seems like marriage means different things to different people and people are going to vote as to what it means for them

AZOffally seems to be the only person who is getting something out of it which is information to make a decision.