The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[Eamonnca1]

I say again anyone of the internet warriors here would shit a brick if their son / daughter told them they were gay, irrespective of what shite they spout here.  To say you would not be disappointed is a complete lie.  In primary school party invites come home most weeks and it appears all girls invite all girls and all boys invite all boys, I drop my youngest who is 5 off at a house or soft ball area and collect a few hours later.  If my youngest came home with a party invite from a child who's parents were Barry and Paddy they certainly wouldn't be dropped off to that party and I bet it would not be alone with reservations.  Also if it is OK for two men to adopt I take it that extends to a man who has went under surgery and got a few breasts, so a transexual and a gay male partner could also adopt, seriously what sort of message is that sending to a young child, it is wrong and society should be ashamed and taken to task for allowing this to occur.

I think we heard you the first time.

[The Iceman]

Marriage is an institution supported by society in order to support men and women to get together and have their own children. Adoption is something that occurs when something has gone wrong. Marriage law should be designed to support the former and adoption law the latter and as you say, adoption law has been adjusted to allow the possibility of adoption to people who are not married, so there is no need to change marriage law to accommodate same sex couples who may have children.

Or, in other words, to bring the question of parenting into the same-sex marriage debate is at least irrelevant or, more probably, obfuscatory and diversionary and an argument against same-sex marriage on the basis that marriage is intended to foster parenting is clearly baseless. As you say yourself, the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples would have no effect at all on the parenting rights of same-sex parents or on the rights of the children of same-sex parents. And, of course, the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples has no effect at all on the marriage rights, or any other rights, of heterosexual couples.

What, then, are the remaining arguments against same-sex marriage?

There are none. That does not mean people don't have the right to choose NO.

Tony destroys a thread real quick. There have been some willing to engage in discussion. To present a different side. To answer questions and present beliefs. Often time these have been brushed aside because perhaps they present a challenge that many don't want to address (for eg. my post about homosexuality not being natural in animals - Eamonn pushed to get my response then didn't address anything I had to say). But instead people happily jump on the Fearon bandwagon and feed the troll.
Marriage was thrown away a long time ago. Christians have no right to the word/term. The vote will go through and there will be Marriage equality in Ireland. Mark my words it won't be enough. It will not stop until Churches are forced to "marry" gay couples.
Good luck to yous all

[ONeill]

Marriage is an institution supported by society in order to support men and women to get together and have their own children. Adoption is something that occurs when something has gone wrong. Marriage law should be designed to support the former and adoption law the latter and as you say, adoption law has been adjusted to allow the possibility of adoption to people who are not married, so there is no need to change marriage law to accommodate same sex couples who may have children.

Or, in other words, to bring the question of parenting into the same-sex marriage debate is at least irrelevant or, more probably, obfuscatory and diversionary and an argument against same-sex marriage on the basis that marriage is intended to foster parenting is clearly baseless. As you say yourself, the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples would have no effect at all on the parenting rights of same-sex parents or on the rights of the children of same-sex parents. And, of course, the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples has no effect at all on the marriage rights, or any other rights, of heterosexual couples.

What, then, are the remaining arguments against same-sex marriage?

2 wemen - who's reversing the motor
2 men - who's cleaning the bath.
2 Meath men - who's the greatest Royal gay icon - Prince Willie or Hardy.

[ballinaman]

Here's one for ye...

My friend's uncle who is gay has said to him that he's voting no because marriage is an 'institution of the church" which he wants nothing to do with it.
Don't ask me to decipher his thought process.

[armaghniac]

Or, in other words, to bring the question of parenting into the same-sex marriage debate is at least irrelevant or, more probably, obfuscatory and diversionary and an argument against same-sex marriage on the basis that marriage is intended to foster parenting is clearly baseless.

I think you had better read what I said again, but I am not sure as this was one of the least clear sentences you have ever posted on this board.

As you say yourself, the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples would have no effect at all on the parenting rights of same-sex parents or on the rights of the children of same-sex parents.

What I said, in response to some posters who said that they would vote yes to advance the cause of children under the care of same sex couples, was that this was not a reason to vote yes as this was dealt with under the adoption legislation.

And, of course, the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples has no effect at all on the marriage rights, or any other rights, of heterosexual couples.

There is nothing of course about this. Marriage has meant a one thing, and that meaning is being changed which affects every married couple for all time to come. The present process has seen the trivialisation of marriage in the refusal of leaders to give marriage any importance other than a big day out and a chance to boost the wedding fair industry. This is not the only thing doing this of course, everything from divorce to Big Fat Gypsy weddings is doing this, but two wrongs do not make a right. The strange thing is that this Thatcherism, there is no such thing as society, is most enthusiastically promoted by people who probably would claim not to support Thatcher.



I

[seafoid]

John Waters was quoted in the Irish Times on Saturday. Half a million kids in the 26 counties in one parent families.
Gay marriage is more symbolic than anything else. Giving some sort of equality to people who were denied it.
But the law can't do much about messy emotional situations.

[Eamonnca1]

"Australian children with same-sex attracted parents score higher than population samples on a number of parent-reported measures of child health. Perceived stigma is negatively associated with mental health. Through improved awareness of stigma these findings play an important role in health policy, improving child health outcomes."

Source: Parent-reported measures of child health and wellbeing in same-sex parent families: a cross-sectional survey
Simon R Crouch, Elizabeth Waters, Ruth McNair, Jennifer Power and Elise Davis
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/635/abstract

"Previous studies on adolescent psychological adjustment found few differences between American and British offspring in
same-sex female parent families and their counterparts with heterosexual parents (Gartrell & Bos, 2010; Golombok & Badger,
2010; Rivers et al., 2008; Wainright & Patterson, 2006, 2008; Wainright et al., 2004). The American and British results have
now been replicated and expanded upon in the Netherlands. In sum, our results suggest that even though Dutch adolescents
with lesbian and heterosexual parents had similar scores on self-reported and parent-reported problem behavior, for adolescents
in planned lesbian families, adolescent-reported homophobic stigmatization was associated with more problem
behavior. These findings suggest that same-sex parents could benefit from guidance in preparing their offspring for the
prospect of discrimination in order to teach them effective responses to hostile comments and behavior. Routine health
assessments should include questions about experiences of stigmatization so that clinicians can recommend support services
to those who have been targeted."

Source: Dutch adolescents from lesbian-parent families: How do they compare to peers with heterosexual parents and what is the impact of homophobic stigmatization?
Loes van Rijn-van Gelderen, Henny M.W. Bos, Nanette K. Gartrell
https://www.nllfs.org/images/uploads/pdf/2015-dutch-adolescents-lesbian-families.pdf

In other words, children of same-sex parents do just fine. Any harm that does come to them comes from the attitude of homophobes. The solution to that is for homophobes to stop being homophobes, because they are the ones abusing the children, not their parents.

[ballinaman]

Eamonnca1....
That Australian study isn't hectic, just read it..the parents were the ones who filled the questionnaire out, not the children. Results should be looked at with that caveat

Dutch article is much sounder.

[Farrandeelin]

I see marriage as between man and woman. However if my children assuming I havve any, are gay, then I would hate to see them denied the right to be married. Do I go with what I see now or do I go with what 'may be' for my children if I'm blessed to haave them and are gay? Genuine opinions needed. I hope this post isn't seen as homophobic.

[armaghniac]

What is it about not being allowed to be married that is a problem? The name, because people are perfectly free to conduct their relationships.

[Itchy]

Read this and tell me Tony Fearon doesn't belong in the DUP.

Ali Gordon
04 May 2015 05:14 PM

A gay parent has hit out at Northern Ireland First Minister Peter Robinson, saying his children went to school in tears last week because of comments made by the DUP leader on TV.

Devoted dad George Clarke, from Newtownards, Co Down, says his children Leo, 11, and Tobyn, 9, feared their married fathers would be sent to jail following Mr Robinson's controversial remarks about homosexuals and the law on the BBC's The View programme


"I don't really care for who Peter Robinson is, but when his party and others like them are the reason my children are going to school in tears then something has got to change," said the George, who wed his partner Kenny last summer.

On the TV show First Minister Mr Robinson defended Mid Ulster DUP councillor Paul McLean's right to express the view that homosexuality should be declared illegal, but stressed it was not part of his party's policy.



Questioned by host Mark Carruthers as to why he was entitled to suggest gay people should be jailed, Mr Robinson said: "I don't think he's wanting to throw anyone in prison. I would hope that if it was illegal, people would obey the law."

Mr Robinson's shock comments came just days after then-DUP Health Minister Jim Wells' outburst when he said that "a child is far more likely to be abused or neglected in a non-stable marriage situation, gay or straight."

He later apologised - but the remarks provoked a storm of controversy.

George Clarke said: "The point was our children were being asked do we abuse them in any shape or form and that is ridiculous.

"From the bottom of my — and my husband's — hearts, we would do nothing to hurt the kids. They mean the world to us."

George, who runs successful independent film company, Yellow Fever Productions, wed his partner in a civil ceremony at Knockninny House Hotel in Derrylin, Co Fermanagh.

He said: "It's as if you are gay you are not real, you are not worthy. I believe it's the fearmongering that the DUP do that keeps them in power.

"I'm annoyed at myself for letting what Peter Robinson has said get to me, but it has."

George's children Leo and Tobyn, from a previous relationship, spend alternate weeks at his house and their mum's.

"Our family life is just natural, like everyone else's. We can have the odd disagreement or whatever, but so do all families."


George was upset that the First Minister's remarks had made his young children so fearful.

"I just wish I could wake up tomorrow morning and know that my kids don't have to worry about their daddies going to jail because they love each other," he said.

"When you're a child, your imagination runs wild, especially my two, and they over-think things and then it upsets them and I'm their dad so of course I hate to see them sad.

"I'm nobody special. I'm just a small town filmmaker, but I'm a husband and I'm a father and I think it's my duty to stick up for my family and protect them."

George has received messages from complete strangers who wished he had stood as an electoral candidate after he posted a video online about the sorry state of Northern Ireland's equality legislation.

"I just felt like I had to get the message out there that we had to stand up for our basic human rights.  The most natural thing in the world is to love, and everyone has a right to do it.

"If we all have to put on our rainbow balaclavas and put up a fight then I'm sure everyone will be willing to do so because it's just got to the point where it's so ridiculous that the DUP and politicians are coming up with these comments," he said.

George's latest video, which is expected be posted online later today, reveals the heartache his family have faced in recent weeks.

"Making the video, I got very angry and emotional about what has happened lately and just seeing the kids faces when they saw the video made me shake with anger," he said.

Belfast Telegraph

[Hardy]

Or, in other words, to bring the question of parenting into the same-sex marriage debate is at least irrelevant or, more probably, obfuscatory and diversionary and an argument against same-sex marriage on the basis that marriage is intended to foster parenting is clearly baseless.

I think you had better read what I said again, but I am not sure as this was one of the least clear sentences you have ever posted on this board.

It's ugly all right. I'll try to clarify. You say "adoption law has been adjusted to allow the possibility of adoption to people who are not married, so there is no need to change marriage law to accommodate same sex couples who may have children." I say that makes the point that introducing same-sex marriage will make no difference at all to same-sex parenting. Therefore, to base your objection to same-sex marriage on the premise that the institution of marriage is all about parenting is illogical, since the status of parenting remains unaffected by the proposed change. (Sorry, it's still ugly English, but I hope it makes sense.)

As you say
And, of course, the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples has no effect at all on the marriage rights, or any other rights, of heterosexual couples.

There is nothing of course about this. Marriage has meant a one thing, and that meaning is being changed which affects every married couple for all time to come. The present process has seen the trivialisation of marriage in the refusal of leaders to give marriage any importance other than a big day out and a chance to boost the wedding fair industry. This is not the only thing doing this of course, everything from divorce to Big Fat Gypsy weddings is doing this, but two wrongs do not make a right. The strange thing is that this Thatcherism, there is no such thing as society, is most enthusiastically promoted by people who probably would claim not to support Thatcher.

Sorry, but if that's meant as a rebuttal of my statement that you quote, it doesn't even address it.  I say that the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples has no effect at all on the marriage rights, or any other rights, of heterosexual couples. This is self evident. There is no mechanism by which it can affect such rights. I will be no less married after the passing of the referendum than I am now.

You ignore this and give us a polemic on the meaning of marriage. It may be true or it may not, but it has nothing to say about how same-sex marriage affects the marriage rights of others.  If you want to complain about junk TV, I suggest this is not the thread for that.

The Thatcherism comment is a non-sequitur, except to say that it seems obvious to me that an initiative to include in official society a category of people hitherto excluded is an affirmation, not a denial of community and society.

We seem to be left with just one argument against same-sex marriage - that extending marriage rights to people to whom they were hitherto denied trivialises marriage. If so, how is that proposition different to arguing that freeing slaves trivialises freedom or that extending the franchise to women trivialises democracy or that extending Irish citizenship to qualifying immigrants trivialises citizenship?

[topcuppla]

So for all the parents who think homosexuality is a natural normal trait can I ask one question.  When teaching your child about the facts of life, do you also include homosexual teaching

Yes! Why the fook wouldn't I?

As I keep saying it is very easy to type a collection of words together on any forum, so your kids I would say are older what teenagers, at age 10 or 11 whenever you were teaching them the facts of life you told them about homosexual relations and how that is a normal natural human trait, I would say I smell bullshit, but fair play for trying to look progressive.

So your argument is "I don't like gays and I couldn't picture myself teaching my kids that its ok to be gay, therefore, no one else can or could think differently"?

J70, you're better off not engaging with this topcupler or fearon either. They are abhorrent human beings and they are the ones who should be castigated not homosexuals. To say that children raised with 2 mothers or 2 fathers are more likely to be abused is an absolutely disgusting thing to say and something that should not be said without some evidence. What future is there for teenagers or young adults who come to the realisation that they are gay when they come up against bigotry of this kind, it is truly evil to show such disdain for your fellow human being.

And it is truly evil to allow two adult men to raise a young child, I never mentioned anything about sexual abuse just to be clear, I am talking about the absence of a mother and a normal family home, you can say what you want but a child needs a mother more than a father, and yes there are bad mothers but to allow two men to adopt a child is fundamentally wrong in my opinion, but hey use the homophobic card why don't you. 

[topcuppla]

So for all the parents who think homosexuality is a natural normal trait can I ask one question.  When teaching your child about the facts of life, do you also include homosexual teaching

Yes! Why the fook wouldn't I?

As I keep saying it is very easy to type a collection of words together on any forum, so your kids I would say are older what teenagers, at age 10 or 11 whenever you were teaching them the facts of life you told them about homosexual relations and how that is a normal natural human trait, I would say I smell bullshit, but fair play for trying to look progressive.

WTF backwoods do you come from? Progressive? Maybe in the 1950s or early 60s.

You made a right few incorrect assumptions in that post but I'll deal with one. My children are 8. They're big fans of Modern Family which has 2 gay men as prominent characters. I think one of my children may have asked if they were gay when they started watching it. And that was that. The don't bat an eyelid to what sexuality someone is. Funny, earlier today the son heard something about this referendum on RTE and asked me why gay men cannot marry. He asked 'isn't that racist?'

2 gay men on Family Guy really, so in a few years when you are giving them the facts of life talk how babies are conceived, you will have a second part which says by the way this could be totally irrelevant as sexual gratification between same sex couples is also very normal in which no children are conceived and if you want a kid you could adopt one.

[T Fearon]

It is doubly wrong when the child has not yet reached the age of reason and therefore is not fit to consent to being placed in the midst of a gay relationship.