World Politics

[python]

there are 2 very simple answers if you are not going to 'blame anyone else for losing their cool'

1. expect those you lost your coll on to apply to YOU their lost cool...And don't moan then if it hurts.
2. If you consider your view on any particular human rights superior and important, you need to bring it to a voting box...the forum is for discussing. getting emotional, insulting, ridiculing will only cause, as i said, the same applied to YOU.

i can't say more than that.

 

[movingtarget]

Re: Re:

Lal. Yeah right.

Anyway, while I'm glad that Yes won by a wide margin, it's still troubling at some level that an issue of simple equality and human rights can be put to the vote instead of being approved as a matter of fact.

I don't see why it has anything to do with equality. Whether or not a country accepts same sex marriage, everybody has the same rights. There isn't a law that says gays don't have the right to marry, but traditionally the laws simply described marriage in terms of a man and a woman. Nobody is being discriminated against. Nobody is being denied any rights that other people do have. The law is the same for everybody.

Marriage has simply been understood to be something between a man and a woman. Even in cultures that have accepted same sex relationships (e.g. ancient Greece, ancient Japan), they still understood marriage to be between a man and a woman. If this is changed, it's not a matter of giving a certain group a right that they have previously been denied (because everybody had the same rights under the old system anyway), but the civil institution of marriage is changed to accommodate the desires of a certain group of people. Whether or not this is a good thing is a different discussion (I think it isn't), but the whole equality and human rights rhetoric is quite misplaced in my opinion. I don't see how the right to marry someone from the same sex is some sort of intrinsic human right in a world where marriage has been understood to be a kind of relationship between a man and a woman for thousands of years by virtually everyone. In a certain sense a same sex marriage is a contradictio in terminis, unless we take the liberty to legally change what a marriage is, which is what western European countries have been doing in the last decade or two.

Your post makes too much sense. Am I allowed to say that or is some forum policeman going to mock me ?

 

[movingtarget]

Re:

gay rights IS a controversial subject. keeping the tone and minding manners is particularly important when discussing it.

of course, unless one considers his/her point superior as opposed to being just different...harsh personal remarks dont lead to anything but flaming in the maters like these...

You have been around this forum for a while so you should be used to this sort of thing. I am thinking of an old song with the line "Ego is not a dirty word," maybe that is true but it sure gets a workout on here.

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

Equal rights for black people was also a controversial subject. I understand minding your manners may be important as a debate strategy to win over those on the other side of the fence, but I'm not going to blame Hitch or anyone else for losing their cool on such a clear-cut issue of basic human rights. And no, I don't think advocating legal discrimination against a whole group of people on the basis of their sexual orientation is "just a different point".

Don't mind him. Python is just pissy because posters who he doesn't like are posting in a thread that he considers his domain.

But I wouldn't say I lost my cool. All I said was - "WTF business is it of yours if people you don't know want to get married". Which is a perfectly rational response to a pro discrimination p.o.v.

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

I voted No. I'm not anti-gay but [...]

Lal. Yeah right.

Yeah, damn right I'm not. I knew someone was going to play that card.

You obviously haven't read my post one bit and the comprehension of it flew straight over your head by mentioning Article 41 and the family. I believe all children should have the right to a mother and father at birth. That's what Fidelma Healy Eames and a lot of the yes side fought on. She said the exact same thing I said above and politicians on the No side like Mary Lou McDonald and John Lyons who himself is gay had no problem in accepting her congratulations. They didn't baselessly call her a bigot as you did above. But hey you know more about me than my own family and friends.

Jerry Buttimer who's also gay and a member of parliament was one of the leading faces in the campaign. I met him before, nice guy who I voted for in the European elections and our General one. I will do so again next year. My sister has two gay friends coming into our house regularly and my next door neighbour is gay. I have never given them or anyone abuse in my lifetime over the feelings towards same sex.

I find it insulting you come out with a sweeping generalistic comment on over 700,000 people, many who fought it on well intentioned concerns of the family. To suggest John Waters is discriminating is laughable.

And "Lal" isn't an argument.

David Norris tried this carry on yesterday and gladly Vincent Browne wasn't having it.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

WTF is wrong with your manners, dude ?

Good point.

If there is anyone qualified to lecture people on manners, it is you.

viewtopic.php?p=1696010#p1696010
viewtopic.php?p=916937#p916937
viewtopic.php?p=506226#p506226

Thanks for the laugh

 

[python]

Re: Re:

Equal rights for black people was also a controversial subject. I understand minding your manners may be important as a debate strategy to win over those on the other side of the fence, but I'm not going to blame Hitch or anyone else for losing their cool on such a clear-cut issue of basic human rights. And no, I don't think advocating legal discrimination against a whole group of people on the basis of their sexual orientation is "just a different point".

Don't mind him. Python is just pissy because posters who he doesn't like are posting in a thread that he considers his domain.

But I wouldn't say I lost my cool. All I said was - "WTF business is it of yours if people you don't know want to get married". Which is a perfectly rational response to a pro discrimination p.o.v.

you are again posting nonesense...i pointed to a specific issue - you mocking and ridiculing a poster with a different view INSTEAD of discussing the reason for the difference.

the rest of your assumptions - me owning the tread - are just another figment of the sick imagination.

and all i said and pointed to - is simple: keep the tone when discussing the controversial subjects or expect people to respond likewise.

dude, you are not being lectures - you are being pointed being obnoxious when it is not necessary.

 

[Echoes]

Re: Re:

Too bad this one only works inside of Europe though. I'd be happy if my country sided with South Korea, Japan etc.

His post makes sense though (while I'm on your side on this). We should never forget that our standard of living is largely due to generations and generations of hard workers who believed in solidarity and traditional values and it's because of their heritage that our contemporary societies can show off with all kinds of liberal individualistic reforms, etc. I think Kropotkin already referred to this in several of his works (despite being an anarchist). So I'm laughing slowly when Jagartrott is grieving about the world's distribution of wealth, like several months ago. It's hypocrisy.

WTF business is it of yours if people you don't know want to get married

To my knowledge Maarten is still a citizen of his country, which means that everything that involves the State and the Vital Record is his business too because the state is the collectivity. It however begs the question what business is it of the collectivity if two persons love each other. It's their private life and I don't want our representatives to interfere into this on my behalf.

After all I don't often discuss that issue because the problem is much more global than this, actually. Gay marriage seems to fit in the "Twitter Generation" in which our little personal life becomes public. No more privacy. We are far from "Rear Window"! Besides the fact that "rights" have the primacy over "duties."

If someone said "I'm against equal rights for black people", you shouldn't be expected to mind your manners all that much.

Yes, say straight that Gooner is a racist. Personally, I've met a lot of people who advocate for gay marriage but who would be the first to assault gays if they met some. I've seen that with my own eyes, several times. On the other hands, I've seen gays who were strongly opposed to marriage for themselves. Self-hatred? The majority in the community have never demanded anything!! They just don't care and among those who do care, some are pro but many are against. So your accusation is outrageous.

 

[BigMac]

For a long time in a recent past, same sex marriage was a non-issue among gay people. They didn't think about it. I have a gay friend who is against it, by the way. I don't know about Ireland, but in Portugal there aren't many benefits gays are deprived of for not being married. Here I would vote No, too. The country isn't ready yet, moreover if we consider that it has impicated the right to adopt or constitute family with children. I for one won't put the welfare of a child after political correctness and what I consider to be selfish exigencies of a vocal group. A child without parents of both sexes is (in here, at least) very, very likely to be harassed and bullied at school, most will never feel accepted. Being in the scene, I can tell how homosexuals are looked at, and everyone knows how far the youth can be cruel in their undue words. Just a few years back, racism was a reality in Portuguese schools, and I remember being made fun of just because my mother was Angolan. All you need is a kid with low self esteem and disaster comes knocking on your door. I don't think Maaaaaaaarten hates or even dislikes gay people, but based on his beliefs it's only normal he feels how he feels. I hope I made my point understandably enough not to pass as a bigot, please point out any flaws.

By the way, does this now mean that refusing to sell a wedding cake to gay people, in Ireland, should be considered some sort of hate crime?

 

[python]

interesting posts gooner, movingtarget and echoes ! i am undecided on the gay marriage and appreciate the views and arguments as opposed to useless mocking and ridiculing.

one of the issues that i am not clear on is the effect the gay marriage will have on the children they decide to raise...need to read a bit on it. being a father to 2 kids i am wondering how would i raise them if it was a gay marriage ? what would their attitude be like when they become old enough to decide on sexual matters etc ? would they be affected in a wrong way that would undermine the general trend for any species to pro create ?

 

[hrotha]

Maaaaaaaarten,
You don't see what it has to do with equality? No, not everybody has the same rights. Your argument is akin to saying that, in a society which granted freedom of religion but which defined Christianity as the only religion, there would be freedom of worship. Gays have the right to marry someone they're not attracted to and who they wouldn't want to marry at all in the first place. Meanwhile, you have the right to marry exactly whoever you'd actually want to marry. And the fact that marriage is paired with tangible legal benefits only makes things worse: engage in a heterosexual relationship, or say goodbye to them. That in effect is a sort of discrimination, and as it is based on nothing but sexual orientation, it is a human rights issue.

gooner,
I did read your post. You think gay couples would hurt the children for some reason. *That* is what betrays your underlying homophobia, but congratulations on not beating gays up I guess?

Echoes,
I didn't say he's racist.

python,
Look, if your argument is that gay couples would raise children to be gay, which could bring about the extinction of the human race, don't be surprised that people mock it.

 

[BigMac]

What homophobia? What's your thing with instantly labeling people based on one or two posts, who indicate nothing of the sort. To you, everyone is either a bronze age bigot or a 20th century white power skinhead. I just don't get it.

 

[Amsterhammer]

Bravo Ireland! A victory for common sense and progress over the forces of faith based reaction. Those who stand against allowing people of whatever gender identification to freely engage in the same social contract previously reserved only for heterosexuals, are vainly attempting to turn the inevitable tide of history.

(I am a hetero father and grandfather.)

 

[del1962]

Re:

Ehh? I didn't follow this at all, but I always thought Ireland was a conservative Roman Catholic country when it came to this sort of stuff. Too bad for them I guess.....

I think the recent scandals within the Catholic Church has meant that there is less respect for them in Ireland.

 

[Merckx index]

Re:

if we consider that it has impicated the right to adopt or constitute family with children. I for one won't put the welfare of a child after political correctness and what I consider to be selfish exigencies of a vocal group. A child without parents of both sexes is (in here, at least) very, very likely to be harassed and bullied at school, most will never feel accepted.

Which is worse, having two loving parents (unlike some biological parents, people who go to the trouble of adopting children--and it is a lot of trouble, and generally very expensive--always want them badly) or being an orphan? To the extent that same-sex couples help reduce the number of children with no parents, I'd say they're providing a great benefit to the world.

There are also a large number of children living with only one parent; more than 25% of families in the U.S. are in this situation. Is having two parents of the same sex worse than having only one parent?

True, not all children of same-sex couples are adopted. More and more frequently, such couples are having biological children, with the help of a donor. But are such children worse off than children of heterosexual couples? Many studies suggest no:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06/05/gay-couples-children-happier_n_3388498.html
http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/
http://www.npr.org/2013/03/22/175014380/children-of-gay-parents-support-same-sex-marriage

I have to wonder if you're just using the welfare of the children as an excuse. I don't doubt some kids of same-sex couples are discriminated against, but so, once upon a time (and even today, in some places), were children of interracial marriages. The solution to that was/is not to outlaw interracial marriage, but to make it so acceptable that no one cares or even notices.

If kids of same-sex couples are bullied, it's precisely because of the opposition to same-sex marriage that these new laws are trying to overcome. By opposing gay marriage on the grounds of hardship to kids, you, it seems to me, are yourself being bullied into accepting the bigoted views of certain members of society, rather than advocating changing them. It's not unlike opposing gay athletes in sports on the grounds that some of their teammates might not like gays. The proper response to that is not to say, sorry, you can't join the team because you're a problem for some of the players. It's to say that if there is a problem, it's not with you, it's with the players who have these views.

The one legitimate argument I can see here is that children of same-sex couples may miss to some extent having a role model of both sexes. But nuclear families are hardly isolated from such models, which can be provided by relatives, close friends, etc. And families can't necessarily be expected to provide a perfect environment. I grew up with no sisters, and have always felt my understanding of women would have been a little better if this had not been the case. But conversely, my understanding of other men has probably been a little stronger. There can be advantages as well as disadvantages in growing up more exposed to one sex than the other.

 

[python]

.....

python,
Look, if your argument is that gay couples would raise children to be gay, which could bring about the extinction of the human race, don't be surprised that people mock it.

there is no need for IF. there is no need to attribute to me any conditions for mocking, since all i posted was my genuine questions ...very easy to verify by paging up.

when i plainly said I am undecided, it means I have not made my mind. simple. as my posting history clearly shows, when i have an opinion, and sometimes it is a strong one, i do not shy to express it. you failing to read question marks, is interesting.

as i said above (but you seem to have failed to read), mocking and ridiculing in stead of discussing points, is only going to have someone offer your the taste of your own medicine.

thus, your failure at reading comprehension is beyond mocking. it was lacking

 

[gooner]

Re:

What homophobia? What's your thing with instantly labeling people based on one or two posts, who indicate nothing of the sort. To you, everyone is either a bronze age bigot or a 20th century white power skinhead. I just don't get it.

It takes a real beauty to take a point about the right of a birth child to a loving mother and father and go off on a tangent and equate it as "gays hurting children." Confirmation bias is going on to paint and generalise the No side as bigots even when nothing of the sort is suggested. Thankfully Breda O'Brien who campaigned throughout this once again today in a feature piece for the Irish Times clarified the concerns of the No side. Hit the nail on the head.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/poli...ut-the-same-sex-marriage-referendum-1.2224422

Children are an essential issue of this topic. No matter what the Yes side or David Norris says, that cannot be gotten from. One clearly follows on from the other. Even if you bring in legislation about the birth right of children in relation to a loving mother and father, you then can't call it equal marriage at the same time. That then is a redefinition of marriage regarding the constitution and the family and something I'm fundamentally against.

 

[gooner]

To the point of single parents, that's a circumstance dictates, be it for tragic reasons or for whatever other reason. The child still had the right of a loving mother and father at birth. That wouldn't be absent in these instances.

Single parents do brilliant jobs in the upbringing of their children but of course the other parent's loving influence that would be wanted by all children would be missed. Children grow up into adults and look back in some cases with anger and others with sadness at the absence of such a relationship. Yet on the topic of discussion, should a child miss this right from birth. I don't think that's right. Hence why the relationship of a loving father and mother to a child at this particular moment of the child's life, should be paramount to this discussion.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

It takes a real beauty to take a point about the right of a birth child to a loving mother and father and go off on a tangent and equate it as "gays hurting children." Confirmation bias is going on to paint and generalise the No side as bigots even when nothing of the sort is suggested. Thankfully Breda O'Brien who campaigned throughout this once again today in a feature piece for the Irish Times clarified the concerns of the No side. Hit the nail on the head.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/poli...ut-the-same-sex-marriage-referendum-1.2224422

Children are an essential issue of this topic. No matter what the Yes side or David Norris says, that cannot be gotten from. One clearly follows on from the other. Even if you bring in legislation about the birth right of children in relation to a loving mother and father, you then can't call it equal marriage at the same time. That then is a redefinition of marriage regarding the constitution and the family and something I'm fundamentally against.

From the article:

We are giving the status of marriage, superior and antecedent to all positive law, to a family that can only bring new children into the world through surrogacy, egg donation or sperm donation.

Note the phrase “new children”. She completely ignores the fact that many, I would guess probably most, same-sex couples who have children at all do so through adoption, not through surrogacy (I use this word as a blanket term to refer to all instances when a child is born with a biological parent who is not one of his de facto parents). I don’t know the numbers, but if someone here does, I’d be very curious to see them.

I think a rough number can be estimated, though. About 12% of heterosexual couples in the U.S. fit the criterion of infertile, putting them in essentially the same situation as same-sex couples. No one knows how many children are born through sperm donors, but estimates suggest that perhaps they constitute about 1% of all births. This suggests that less than 10% of all infertile couples have children who are not adopted.

We have damaged irreparably the connection between marriage and a child’s right to know and be cared for by the two people who each give them half of their biological, social and familial identity.

Wasn’t that connection already severed by having children out of wedlock, and by divorce? As I noted earlier, 25% of the families in the U.S. have a single parent. Many of the children in these families never see or know the other parent.

The highest estimates I’ve seen suggest that maybe 10% of the population is homosexual, and as I suggested above, most children in these situations are adopted. Thus the number of children that same-sex couples have through surrogacy is almost certainly going to be far less than the number of children of heterosexual couples who don’t know one of their parents.

We also have to include all the heterosexual couples who can’t conceive, many of whom resort to sperm or egg donors. As I noted earlier, about 12% of heterosexual couples can’t conceive their own children, which means there are probably at least as many as, if not more of these couples in a position that potentially will result in children not knowing one of their parents than there are same-sex couples. Should we therefore outlaw all reproductive technologies? Wouldn’t that not only be fairer, but the only way to eliminate the problem entirely?

If someone is going to vote against gay marriage primarily because of the problem that some children will not know who one of their parents is, how logically can that person not oppose all reproductive technologies? The author in fact concedes that the cat is already out of the bag in that respect, but glosses over it. How can one take the position that it is all right for heterosexual couples to use these technologies, producing children who will never know one of their parents, but not same-sex couples?

In fact, one could argue there is a major advantage of having children through such technologies, the same one that results from adoption. Both heterosexual and same-sex couples who have children by either means have to be really committed, to both themselves and the child. While huge numbers of children are born through casual sex and unwanted pregnancies, virtually every child of a same-sex couple, whether adopted or born through surrogacy, is wanted and loved from the get-go.

So yes, they grow up in most cases not knowing who one of their biological parents is. But they also grow up with two parents in a very stable relationship. The ideal situation is to have both, but if it comes down to a choice, certainly the latter is more important than the former.

To the point of single parents, that's a circumstance dictates, be it for tragic reasons or for whatever other reason. The child still had the right of a loving mother and father at birth. That wouldn't be absent in these instances.

What instances? Do you understand that many kids, at least in the U.S., grow up without ever knowing who their father is? And many others may know their father, but don't have a "loving relationship" with him? Have you ever heard the expression, "dead-beat dad"?

Many women get pregnant by a man they never see again. In many other cases, the man abandons the child at an early age (on a biking forum, LA is an obvious example to make). In still other cases, there is marriage followed by an acrimonious divorce, with the child forced to choose sides.

To be consistent with a stance against same-sex marriage, shouldn't we outlaw all these situations? To the best of my knowledge, it's not illegal for a man to get a woman pregnant, then abandon her and the child. He may be legally responsible for child support, but he's not legally responsible to provide a "loving relationship". If he can't or won't, shouldn't there be legal penalties, rationalized by the same arguments being used to oppose gay marriage?

So to make my position clear: I don't entirely dismiss the argument that it's unfair to bring children into the world who don't know and/or are unable to interact with one of their biological parents. But anyone who thinks that this argument is strong enough to justify voting against same-sex marriage should, to be consistent, oppose all use of reproductive technologies involving sperm or egg donors. That is clearly the crux of the problem. Advocate laws that make these technologies illegal for both same-sex and heterosexual couples to use.

If you don't oppose these technologies, then clearly your problem is not really with children not knowing both their biological parents, but with children having same-sex parents. Then you have to make the argument against that. I've already pointed out that a lot of studies suggest this isn't a problem.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Maaaaaaaarten,
You don't see what it has to do with equality? No, not everybody has the same rights. Your argument is akin to saying that, in a society which granted freedom of religion but which defined Christianity as the only religion, there would be freedom of worship. Gays have the right to marry someone they're not attracted to and who they wouldn't want to marry at all in the first place. Meanwhile, you have the right to marry exactly whoever you'd actually want to marry. And the fact that marriage is paired with tangible legal benefits only makes things worse: engage in a heterosexual relationship, or say goodbye to them. That in effect is a sort of discrimination, and as it is based on nothing but sexual orientation, it is a human rights issue.

Clearly I don't have the right "to marry whoever I'd actually want to marry." There are all sorts of restrictions and complications on who I'm allowed to marry, the law doesn't care who I'm attracted to. But let's take another example; what about polyamorouse people? Don't traditional marriage laws discriminate against them by dealing with marriage as if it consists of two people?

By the way, I'm not just making some arbitrary comparison to construe some sort of slippery slope fallacy; I've actually read an interview with a Dutch politician (from D66 IIRC) who was involved in bringing about same sex marriage in the Netherlands back in the day, who argued that now that we have same sex marriage the next step should be in due time when the Netherlands is ready for it to allow for polygamy. You know; we got rid of this silly old fashioned idea which had a marriage consisting of a man and a woman, now let's get rid of the idea that it consists of two people at all. Those poor polyamorouse people being denied the right the marry whoever they want.......

 

[Merckx index]

what about polyamorouse people? Don't traditional marriage laws discriminate against them by dealing with marriage as if it consists of two people?

In the first place, there is no such thing as “polygamous (polyamorous) people” in the same sense as there are “homosexual people”. Polygamy is much more of a choice, and one with a lot of shades. Most people are either heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual, and the preference becomes clear fairly early in life. In contrast, there is an enormous range with regards to fidelity, from someone married who has an occasional one-night stand to someone who wants multiple partners in long-term relationships at all times.

Some people no doubt are born more disposed to want multiple sexual partners when they mature, but even if one feels their rights need to be protected, this can be done (is done, de facto) adequately without institutionalizing multiple marriages. The advantages that a same-sex couple gain by having their relationship officially recognized by the state far outweigh the advantages someone with multiple partners gains by having all these relationships made official. In most places where it is or has been practiced, polygamy is rarely if ever about giving multiple spouses and multiple children benefits recognized by the state. It’s about sexual greed. I’m not in favor of outlawing greed, but neither do I think that it needs to be supported by the state.

In addition, polygamy usually involves men with multiple wives, and can be rejected simply on the grounds that it discriminates against women (or, depending on your point of view, I suppose, against men; the point is, it’s an asymmetric relationship). If that objection is avoided by allowing women to have multiple husbands, then you have a situation that is so legally complex that I imagine it would be opposed just on those grounds. At that point, it would be simpler to have a purely socialist society, with everyone’s benefits guaranteed regardless of marital status.

As for the argument that allowing same-sex marriage will open the doors to polygamy: No doubt it will encourage people in favor of polygamy to advance their cause, but in the end, whether or not society accepts this will depend on how comfortable most people are with it. When gays began campaigning for their rights decades ago, people warned that gay marriage was coming, and they were right. But by the time it has come, a majority of people have no problem with it. If society ever comes to accept polygamy—assuming it can somehow get around its discriminatory aspects—I assume it will be widely accepted, too.

Most contemporary civil rights have in fact arrived through a slippery slope process. Giving African-Americans and women the voting franchise and other rights opened the doors to other minorities as well. I don't have any problem with this. The term slippery slope implies a process taking society somewhere that it doesn't want to go, and strictly speaking, that's true. There are all kinds of changes in modern society that most people easily accept that would be abhorrent to their ancestors a couple of centuries ago. The question is not where society wants to go; it's how it feels when it gets there.

 

[The Hitch]

Maaaaaaaarten,
You don't see what it has to do with equality? No, not everybody has the same rights. Your argument is akin to saying that, in a society which granted freedom of religion but which defined Christianity as the only religion, there would be freedom of worship. Gays have the right to marry someone they're not attracted to and who they wouldn't want to marry at all in the first place. Meanwhile, you have the right to marry exactly whoever you'd actually want to marry. And the fact that marriage is paired with tangible legal benefits only makes things worse: engage in a heterosexual relationship, or say goodbye to them. That in effect is a sort of discrimination, and as it is based on nothing but sexual orientation, it is a human rights issue.

Clearly I don't have the right "to marry whoever I'd actually want to marry." There are all sorts of restrictions and complications on who I'm allowed to marry,

What, you mean like children and animals? What relevance does that have to the subject of gay marriage.

PS, considering your opposition to gay people is entirely based in your belief that god made the world for you and no one else, and considering you have said in the religious thread that you believe people who don't agree with you on religious matters deserve to be tortured for eternity in hell, I'm wondering if you also think gays go to hell?

 

[Jagartrott]

To the point of single parents, that's a circumstance dictates, be it for tragic reasons or for whatever other reason. The child still had the right of a loving mother and father at birth. That wouldn't be absent in these instances.

Single parents do brilliant jobs in the upbringing of their children but of course the other parent's loving influence that would be wanted by all children would be missed. Children grow up into adults and look back in some cases with anger and others with sadness at the absence of such a relationship. Yet on the topic of discussion, should a child miss this right from birth. I don't think that's right. Hence why the relationship of a loving father and mother to a child at this particular moment of the child's life, should be paramount to this discussion.

So why are you not addressing those studies linked to by MI that show that same-sex couples seem to be raising children that are as happy as other children? Shouldn't that be the cornerstone in the argument you wish to make? As it is now, you completely by-pass this and make a short-cut from same-sex parents to unhappy (or however you want to quantify it) children. That's very dogmatic and not very fair.

 

[TheGreenMonkey]

Maaaaaaaarten,
You don't see what it has to do with equality? No, not everybody has the same rights. Your argument is akin to saying that, in a society which granted freedom of religion but which defined Christianity as the only religion, there would be freedom of worship. Gays have the right to marry someone they're not attracted to and who they wouldn't want to marry at all in the first place. Meanwhile, you have the right to marry exactly whoever you'd actually want to marry. And the fact that marriage is paired with tangible legal benefits only makes things worse: engage in a heterosexual relationship, or say goodbye to them. That in effect is a sort of discrimination, and as it is based on nothing but sexual orientation, it is a human rights issue.

Clearly I don't have the right "to marry whoever I'd actually want to marry." There are all sorts of restrictions and complications on who I'm allowed to marry,

What, you mean like children and animals? What relevance does that have to the subject of gay marriage.

PS, considering your opposition to gay people is entirely based in your belief that god made the world for you and no one else, and considering you have said in the religious thread that you believe people who don't agree with you on religious matters deserve to be tortured for eternity in hell, I'm wondering if you also think gays go to hell?

You cannot marry someone who does not want to marry you or marry someone who is already married.

 

[gooner]

To the point of single parents, that's a circumstance dictates, be it for tragic reasons or for whatever other reason. The child still had the right of a loving mother and father at birth. That wouldn't be absent in these instances.

Single parents do brilliant jobs in the upbringing of their children but of course the other parent's loving influence that would be wanted by all children would be missed. Children grow up into adults and look back in some cases with anger and others with sadness at the absence of such a relationship. Yet on the topic of discussion, should a child miss this right from birth. I don't think that's right. Hence why the relationship of a loving father casemother to a child at this particular moment of the child's life, should be paramount to this discussion.

So why are you not addressing those studies linked to by MI that show that same-sex couples seem to be raising children that are as happy as other children? Shouldn't that be the cornerstone in the argument you wish to make? As it is now, you completely by-pass this and make a short-cut from same-sex parents to unhappy (or however you want to quantify it) children. That's very dogmatic and not very fair.

Some other studies suggest otherwise. Having said that, I never suggested gay couples are harmful to a child's upbringing. I certainly never suggested "gays are hurtful to children" as was directed towards me earlier.

Nevertheless, as gay couples avail of surrogacy, as soon as a child is born that is the last bit of motherhood that a child will have got. That's what is unjust and unfair. As a genetic parent is lost, everything should be done in ensuring a child's right to a mother and father. Children at the stage of birth can't speak up for this right and so it's left to this generation of adults who feel similarly to me to highlight this point. I make no apologies for it. While a same sex couple's love is equal, should it be fair that their wish in such a scenario be at the expense of the child's right? I don't think it should. I want my State and government to protect that right in every way possible. That won't be the case.

On absentee fathers from a child's birth, unplanned pregnancies, etc and single parents in the upbringing, circumstances of life mean it's not always the case that a child will be brought into the world and raised by his/her own mother and father. That's an accepted point. But never before has the State taken that right away. A yes vote follows on that issue and therefore the reason why I voted No.