Fidelma Healy Eames at it again. Claims SSM might mean that Mother's Day is banned!

brooke 2

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Personally I thought the SSM referendum would sail through but I've spoken to a lot of people lately who I would have thought would vote Yes who are actually voting no. And it's not because of homophobia or bigotry, it's because of thing like what Eames has brought up. They are simply sick of hearing about LGBT being raised in relation to everything. I'm actually quite concerned now that the referendum won't pass because of stupid things like this and the Paddys Day parade stuff.

Vincent Browne's programmes from around the country clearly illustrated
that there are a lot of people 'out there'
who think very differently from what the
Dublin based media would have you believe. The result of the referendum is
far from being a foregone conclusion.

Riverireland

floggg wrote: »

There's no problem at all with her voicing her concerns - other than the embarrassment she should (but likely doesn't) feel at having repeatedly uttered such stupidity.

The fact you genuinely believe in your own brand of stupidity doesn't excuse the stupidity - in fact it makes it worse.

At least when Gerry Adams says weird **** on Twitter, it's possible to believe he's in on the joke. Unfortunately for Fidelma, she is the joke (not because of her views on marriage equality or same sex adoption, just because she seems lacking in any common sense or political intelligence whatsoever).

I'm no too familiar with fidelma other than seeing her mentioned here. From what I'm reading though she at least appears to be giving her honest opinion openly. Does anyone actually believe that all the politicians in the country who's parties are supporting this referendum are going to vote yes! I personally don't and the older media set will be in the same boat. You can hear it in what they don't say in interviews.

Shrap

conorh91 wrote: »

Nobody gets out of bed in the morning thinking "how will I seek to destroy marriage today?" No doubt you agree with that.

Similarly, I don't believe anybody gets out of bed in the morning thinking "How can I undermine the civil rights of people with differences today?"

I do agree with that, but I also think that there are many for whom SSM represents a change too far removed from their "traditional" thinking who have to search around for some way to support their own reasoning. I too doubt that she gets out of bed thinking how will I stand in the way of SSM? I think she probably does ask herself "what reason do I have to support my inclination that gay people shouldn't marry....oh yes, the children", and has dedicated herself to supporting her own traditionalism quite disingenuously considering she wasn't all over the airwaves in relation to hetero couples using DC or adopting.

I get that there are issues around the donor in DC or the wishes of the natural parent/s in adoption, and it's a conversation worth having, but it is disingenuous to bring them all to the fore solely because of the SSM debate. If you take my point.

deeks

Maybe there's something obvious I'm missing here but why should birth parents have a say as to who the adoptive parents are. If there's people accepted by the adoption board and are at the top of the list then why should a birth parent be able to say "No"? I'm sorry but in my mind if you put a child up for adoption, for whatever reason, you should have no say in who the child is placed with.

(BTW - I am in no way trying to vilify people who put children up for adoption)

arayess

deeks wrote: »

Maybe there's something obvious I'm missing here but why should birth parents have a say as to who the adoptive parents are. If there's people accepted by the adoption board and are at the top of the list then why should a birth parent be able to say "No"? I'm sorry but in my mind if you put a child up for adoption, for whatever reason, you should have no say in who the child is placed with.

(BTW - I am in no way trying to vilify people who put children up for adoption)

I disagree
There are many reasons for adoption and not all of them warrant saying you've no say imo.

ColeTrain

The Seanad gives failed no-marks like Healy Eames a voice. You'd laugh if it wasn't so pathetic.

deeks

But why? Whatever the reason for adoption the outcome is the same - i.e. the child is placed with adoptive parents. Why should the reasoning for the adoption have an impact on the rights of the birth parents to decide who the child is placed with?

El_Dangeroso

BMJD wrote: »

it sounds to me like this Fiddly Hands Eames chick just needs a good ride

You wouldn't say that about a man.

She's clearly an eejit of the highest order but there's no reason to be sexist.

MRnotlob606

Wow some people should undergo an IQ test before the start a twitter account.

LordNorbury

It's gotten to the stage in this country now where if you state the plain, simple and indisputable fact that a gay or lesbian couple cannot conceive a child naturally or by using fertility treatment, whereby they both will have a biological relationship with that child in terms of parentage, then you are accused of being against equality or worse again homophobic.

Like other things in this country, no conversation is allowed, no discussion is tolerated, you are just expected to fit in now with what is now a pretty much universally accepted national opinion, because Pantibliss or whatever says so, which is that gay parents that do not have any biological connection with a child they adopt, is every bit as normal in terms of becoming a parent, as a straight couple who conceive a child who is genetically a descendant of each parent.

In my view, these are not the same things and I don't believe we should follow a status quo on this and just do as we are told, because as we have seen in this country, it hasn't panned out too well in the past when we just accepted popular opinions on things and run with the prevailing logic at the time.

I'm not saying gay marriage is wrong, I'm not saying gay couple should be allowed to adopt, or that they shouldn't, what I take serious issue with is being told that any view that is contrary to "we are all equal so give us our rights", gets shouted down and ridiculed by the gay lobby in this country.

It cannot be argued that a gay couple can naturally conceive a child where both parents have a genetic relationship with that child, so on some level, a gay couple and a straight couple, in relation to the ability to conceive a child, are not equal. Stating this as an opinion and as a simple undeniable fact, does not, or at least should not, make me against equality or homophobic.

DeadHand

This appalling woman is key proof of the total futility and stupidity of the fundamentally undemocratic policy of gender quotas in politics.

She proves comprehensively that female politicians can be just as inane and useless as their male counterparts.

This country doesn't need more female politicians, it needs fewer and better politicians of either gender.

People should be encouraged to positions of power firstly for their capability and sense of integrity, not for happening to have the currently preferable set of genitals.

Caliden

She doesn't even pay road tax Joe!!


Reference

Shrap

LordNorbury wrote: »

It cannot be argued that a gay couple can naturally conceive a child where both parents have a genetic relationship with that child, so on some level, a gay couple and a straight couple, in relation to the ability to conceive a child, are not equal. Stating this as an opinion and as a simple undeniable fact, does not, or at least should not, make me against equality or homophobic.

A gay couple and a straight couple who cannot naturally conceive a child are equal though, clearly. You're again missing the point that the IVF/DC/AHR angle has nothing to do with SSM.

Links234

LordNorbury wrote: »

It's gotten to the stage in this country now where if you state the plain, simple and indisputable fact that a gay or lesbian couple cannot conceive a child naturally or by using fertility treatment, whereby they both will have a biological relationship with that child in terms of parentage, then you are accused of being against equality or worse again homophobic.

It's not that you can't talk about it, it's more the fact that people who do bring up this line of reasoning usually do so as a stick to beat LGBT people with, and claim that because we are different on X criteria, then it's perfectly acceptable for us to be treated as lesser.

LDN_Irish

LordNorbury wrote: »

It's gotten to the stage in this country now where if you state the plain, simple and indisputable fact that a gay or lesbian couple cannot conceive a child naturally or by using fertility treatment, whereby they both will have a biological relationship with that child in terms of parentage, then you are accused of being against equality or worse again homophobic.

No it hasn't. Why don't you deal with things that really happen rather than absurdities you've created in your head?

If anyone had ever been called homophobic for pointing out that same sex couples can't conceive children, you'd be absolutely correct though. The latter in that hypothetical would at the very least be a runner up for "best case of stating the obvious 2015."

reprise

Shrap wrote: »

A gay couple and a straight couple who cannot naturally conceive a child are equal though, clearly. You're again missing the point that the IVF/DC/AHR angle has nothing to do with SSM.

But that misses the point that marriage constructs the environment for the biological child by design, as opposed to mandating having a child. Not the same thing at all.

LordNorbury

Shrap wrote: »

A gay couple and a straight couple who cannot naturally conceive a child are equal though, clearly. You're again missing the point that the IVF/DC/AHR angle has nothing to do with SSM.

So we just ignore the vast vast majority of children, the generations and generations of people who have been born into the world by their natural parents, we disregard all of that, and zone in on the small minority of children who are raised by parents who are not biologically connected to them in any way, due to some circumstance or another such as their parents dying young or a single mother deciding to put her child up for adoption, and we do all of this because two gay people decide that they want to "have" a child?

Again, a simple understanding of basic biology says they are still not equal. If a straight couple have not been able to conceive a child of their own, either naturally or using fertility treatment, due to an issue with the reproductive health of one or both partners in the relationship, this is still not the same as a gay/lesbian couple who between them, don't possess the ability between them to ever conceive a child that they both have a genetic relationship with, regardless of what medical treatment is made available to them. Nature may often cause something to happen to one or both people in a straight relationship, that would cause a child being conceived, to be highly unlikely, this can often be something as simple as the age of the woman, she made have left it too late to start a family, it doesn't mean that ten years previously, she couldn't have had a family then with her partner.

A comparable gay/lesbian couple can never conceive a child that they both have a genetic relationship with, regardless of their age, health, or the ability to afford fertility treatment, so they are still not the same thing and yes, these kind of things are very relevant to same sex marriage, because same sex marriage invariably involves, as we have seen, the wish to make gay families and their children equal with straight families and the children born into straight families, and I happen to believe these things are not at all equal and are completely different by virtue of the simple fact that their gay or lesbian parents, being of the same gender, simply cannot conceive a child and no child they rare will have a biological connection with both parents, they are simply not parents in the strictly biological sense and well understood meaning of the word "parents".

That doesn't make me against equality or homophobic as the gay lobby in Ireland would label me as and others who feel the same way.

mickstupp

LordNorbury wrote: »

... Like other things in this country, no conversation is allowed, no discussion is tolerated, you are just expected to fit in now with what is now a pretty much universally accepted national opinion ...

Well that's a load of bull. You can have whatever opinion you want, and you can express it. The problem for me is that those opinions can't be backed up with rational arguments. In which case...

LordNorbury wrote: »

... what I take serious issue with is being told that any view that is contrary to "we are all equal so give us our rights", gets shouted down and ridiculed by the gay lobby in this country.

I think if your opinion is: we're not all equal and so we don't all deserve the same rights - then you deserve to be shouted down and ridiculed, not by the 'gay lobby', but by everyone.

Shrap

reprise wrote: »

But that misses the point that marriage constructs the environment for the biological child by design, as opposed to mandating having a child. Not the same thing at all.

Why? Do unmarried straight people not plan children? Many, many couples find out they're infertile independent of marriage. Marriage is a contract between two people to confirm their love and commitment to each other and to confer automatic inheritance rights. People have children outside of marriage all the time. Marriage is not an environmental requirement for children, as I'm sure you know.

reprise

mickstupp wrote: »

Well that's a load of bull. You can have whatever opinion you want, and you can express it. The problem for me is that those opinions can't be backed up with rational arguments. In which case...

I think if your opinion is: we're not all equal and so we don't all deserve the same rights - then you deserve to be shouted down and ridiculed, not by the 'gay lobby', but by everyone.

So you get to decide what's "rational" and you get to decide who "deserves" to be "shouted down" and no doubt, you are sufficiently neutral to do so.

That's exactly the hysteria LordNorbury mentioned.

mickstupp

reprise wrote: »

So you get to decide what's "rational" and you get to decide who "deserves" to be "shouted down" and no doubt, you are sufficiently neutral to do so.

No, no, not me. Basic logic gets to decide. It's clear that most people have a wikipedia understanding of logic, which is not the same thing. Unfortunately that does tend to mean that people often think they're being rational and reasonable human beings when they're really not.

Shrap

LordNorbury wrote: »

So we just ignore the vast vast majority of children, the generations and generations of people who have been born into the world by their natural parents, we disregard all of that, and zone in on the small minority of children who are raised by parents who are not biologically connected to them in any way, due to some circumstance or another such as their parents dying young or a single mother deciding to put her child up for adoption, and we do all of this because two gay people decide that they want to "have" a child?

You're zoning in on this. I don't know what the rest of your paragraph means!

If a straight couple have not been able to conceive a child of their own, either naturally or using fertility treatment, due to an issue with the reproductive health of one or both partners in the relationship, this is still not the same as a gay/lesbian couple who between them, don't possess the ability between them to ever conceive a child that they both have a genetic relationship with, regardless of what medical treatment is made available to them.

This is patently untrue. Most couples who head for AHR do so because one part of the couple are naturally infertile. They are allowed to marry if straight, but not if they are gay. The basis for the straight couple being allowed to marry is not to do with their fertility, it is to do with their genders. We are about to vote for right to marriage regardless of gender. Nothing to do with fertility.

reprise

Shrap wrote: »

Why? Do unmarried straight people not plan children? Many, many couples find out they're infertile independent of marriage. Marriage is a contract between two people to confirm their love and commitment to each other and to confer automatic inheritance rights. People have children outside of marriage all the time. Marriage is not an environmental requirement for children, as I'm sure you know.

I'm not sure what your point is as but if it is to try entirely separate the raison d'être of marriage from the possible biological children of that union, it's seriously flawed.

LordNorbury

LDN_Irish wrote: »

No it hasn't. Why don't you deal with things that really happen rather than absurdities you've created in your head?

If anyone had ever been called homophobic for pointing out that same sex couples can't conceive children, you'd be absolutely correct though. The latter in that hypothetical would at the very least be a runner up for "best case of stating the obvious 2015."

This is the kind of aggression I've alluded to in my first post on this thread, that is now directed at anyone who disagrees with the "we are all equal" position of the gay lobby in Ireland. Because you adopt a position that is at variance with the gay community and their increasingly aggressive lobby in this country, you get told that your views are "absurdities", etc, just like those of us who called out the property crash before it happened, were ridiculed in the exact same way, then a crash happens and low and behold, you were right all along.

As I've already said, I haven't decided how I'm going to vote, most probably against if I'm being honest, but what I take serious exception to at this stage, is being told that my views are absurd. What is absurd is being told that you have to vote one particular way and any discussion to the contrary is not allowed. I don't think the gay lobby in Ireland actually realise how much they are starting to píss off people like me who are intelligent reasoned people, who are starting to get a bit sick of being shouted down by them and being told to vote a certain way.

This is much bigger than 2 people who want to get married, this is also about the welfare and rights of children. This is the first time I can recall in this country where the most basic and fundamental human rights of young children are getting completely shoved aside, in the furtherance of the rights of some other party.

LordNorbury

mickstupp wrote: »

Well that's a load of bull. You can have whatever opinion you want, and you can express it. The problem for me is that those opinions can't be backed up with rational arguments. In which case...

I think if your opinion is: we're not all equal and so we don't all deserve the same rights - then you deserve to be shouted down and ridiculed, not by the 'gay lobby', but by everyone.

So which part of "two gay parents cannot conceive a child that they both have a biological relationship with", do you disagree with? What is it about that simple statement that you find to be "irrational"?

LDN_Irish

LordNorbury, you've completely misunderstood my post. I'm not saying that what you believe is absurd, I'm saying that calling people homophobic for pointing out that SSM couples can't conceive would be absurd. But like I said, it's something you've artificially constructed so not worth worrying about. I doubt you'd be able to link me to a thread on here where someone has called someone else homophobic for pointing out that it takes a fertile man and a fertile woman to conceive.

And I wasn't at all aggressive.

reprise

mickstupp wrote: »

No, no, not me. Basic logic gets to decide. It's clear that most people have a wikipedia understanding of logic, which is not the same thing. Unfortunately that does tend to mean that people often think they're being rational and reasonable human beings when they're really not.

Basic logic has been thrown out the window if you cannot suggest a union based on the biological partnership of a child's parents cannot be considered unique and non-discriminatory.

shruikan2553

LordNorbury wrote: »

Again, a simple understanding of basic biology says they are still not equal. If a straight couple have not been able to conceive a child of their own, either naturally or using fertility treatment, due to an issue with the reproductive health of one or both partners in the relationship, this is still not the same as a gay/lesbian couple who between them, don't possess the ability between them to ever conceive a child that they both have a genetic relationship with, regardless of what medical treatment is made available to them. Nature may often cause something to happen to one or both people in a straight relationship, that would cause a child being conceived, to be highly unlikely, this can often be something as simple as the age of the woman, she made have left it too late to start a family, it doesn't mean that ten years previously, she couldn't have had a family then with her partner.

A comparable gay/lesbian couple can never conceive a child that they both have a genetic relationship with, regardless of their age, health, or the ability to afford fertility treatment, so they are still not the same thing and yes, these kind of things are very relevant to same sex marriage, because same sex marriage invariably involves, as we have seen, the wish to make gay families and their children equal with straight families and the children born into straight families, and I happen to believe these things are not at all equal and are completely different by virtue of the simple fact that their gay or lesbian parents, being of the same gender, simply cannot conceive a child and no child they rare will have a biological connection with both parents, they are simply not parents in the strictly biological sense and well understood meaning of the word "parents".

And if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle. Some couples cant have children without help from another source regardless of sexual orientation. You can try and twist the situation as much as you like about how "well if she had children younger it would be fine" just as much as "if they werent both the same gender they could have children"

Many people arent biologically parents but their children still view them as their parents as they are the ones who raised them.

LordNorbury wrote: »

This is much bigger than 2 people who want to get married, this is also about the welfare and rights of children. This is the first time I can recall in this country where the most basic and fundamental human rights of young children are getting completely shoved aside, in the furtherance of the rights of some other party.

Gay people will not be stealing shelter, food or water from children.

mickstupp

LordNorbury wrote: »

This is much bigger than 2 people who want to get married, this is also about the welfare and rights of children.

No it's not. It's actually literally not about the welfare and rights of children. Not one single child's rights are getting completely shoved aside. Slightly hysterical view there.

Shrap

reprise wrote: »

I'm not sure what your point is as but if it is to try entirely separate the raison d'être of marriage from the possible biological children of that union, it's seriously flawed.

Actually it's very much not flawed. The Christian tradition has it that marriage is inseparable from the children. The state has it that it's about family. Pre-christian and early christian history in Ireland shows 3 different types of inheritance circumstances in marriage, depending on financial status of the couple. Children not mentioned. There is NO stipulation, and never was, that a married couple must attempt to have children. It was always about an amalgamation of property rights.

No link whatsoever to suggest that marriage is for having children, therefore it has nothing to do with the debate on whether gay people should be allowed to marry.

LDN_Irish

LordNorbury wrote: »

So which part of "two gay parents cannot conceive a child that they both have a biological relationship with", do you disagree with? What is it about that simple statement that you find to be "irrational"?

What has that got to do with SSM? What seperates that from a straight couple adopting a child that isn't biologically either of theirs?

Joe prim

If an SSM couple also practising BDSM conceive a child by IVF, will they be covered by VHI, as an LGBT entity? Or is that just OTT? FHE should be asked.

Nodin

LordNorbury wrote: »

..............
This is much bigger than 2 people who want to get married, this is also about the welfare and rights of children. This is the first time I can recall in this country where the most basic and fundamental human rights of young children are getting completely shoved aside, in the furtherance of the rights of some other party.

Gay singles can already adopt children. The legislation allowing gay couples to adopt will be adopted before the marriage referendum. Thus the referendum refers to marriage and marriage alone.

mickstupp

I'd just like to say thank you to LordNorbury and reprise. I've been showing my grandad this thread and you've convinced him to vote yes.

reprise

Shrap wrote: »

Actually it's very much not flawed. The Christian tradition has it that marriage is inseparable from the children. The state has it that it's about family. Pre-christian and early christian history in Ireland shows 3 different types of inheritance circumstances in marriage, depending on financial status of the couple. Children not mentioned. There is NO stipulation, and never was, that a married couple must attempt to have children. It was always about an amalgamation of property rights.

No link whatsoever to suggest that marriage is for having children, therefore it has nothing to do with the debate on whether gay people should be allowed to marry.

For the love of God. Who the hell do you think is going to inherit anything, if not the children.

LordNorbury

shruikan2553 wrote: »

And if my aunt had balls she would be my uncle. Some couples cant have children without help from another source regardless of sexual orientation. You can try and twist the situation as much as you like about how "well if she had children younger it would be fine" just as much as "if they werent both the same gender they could have children"

Many people arent biologically parents but their children still view them as their parents as they are the ones who raised them.


Gay people will not be stealing shelter, food or water from children.

I'm not twisting anything! It is a simple fact that two people of the same gender cannot conceive a child where they both have a genetic relationship with that child, and no amount of "if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle", or anything else changes that simple fundamental reality.

I never said that gay people will be stealing the shelter, water or food from children, but they will be depriving a child of the company, upbringing and support of their biological parents, which is what I believe we should be aspiring to in terms of what is the most suitable model that we have for rearing children, notwithstanding the fact that it can happen from time to time that a child cannot be raised by its biological parents through premature death or some other circumstance, I still genuinely believe that we should aspire first and foremost to the best proven model for procreation and raising a family, which is one that provides for children that are reared by their biological parents.

LordNorbury

mickstupp wrote: »

I'd just like to say thank you to LordNorbury and reprise. I've been showing my grandad this thread and you've convinced him to vote yes.

Fair play to him, I take it that you are biologically related to the same grandfather, yeah?

Nodin

LordNorbury wrote: »

I'm not twisting anything! It is a simple fact that two people of the same gender cannot conceive a child where they both have a genetic relationship with that child, and no amount of "if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle", or anything else changes that simple fundamental reality.

I never said that gay people will be stealing the shelter, water or food from children, but they will be depriving a child of the company, upbringing and support of their biological parents, which is what I believe we should be aspiring to in terms of what is the most suitable model that we have for rearing children, notwithstanding the fact that it can happen from time to time that a child cannot be raised by its biological parents through premature death or some other circumstance, I still genuinely believe that we should aspire first and foremost to the best proven model for procreation and raising a family, which is one that provides for children that are reared by their biological parents.

Children that are up for adoption are obviously not going to be raised by their biological parents. Are you against adoption entirely?

liquoriceall

LordNorbury wrote: »

I'm not twisting anything! It is a simple fact that two people of the same gender cannot conceive a child where they both have a genetic relationship with that child, and no amount of "if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle", or anything else changes that simple fundamental reality.

I never said that gay people will be stealing the shelter, water or food from children, but they will be depriving a child of the company, upbringing and support of their biological parents, which is what I believe we should be aspiring to in terms of what is the most suitable model that we have for rearing children, notwithstanding the fact that it can happen from time to time that a child cannot be raised by its biological parents through premature death or some other circumstance, I still genuinely believe that we should aspire first and foremost to the best proven model for procreation and raising a family, which is one that provides for children that are reared by their biological parents.

Im sorry but what does any of this have to do with the marriage equality referendum??

Shrap

reprise wrote: »

For the love of God. Who the hell do you think is going to inherit anything, if not the children.

"For the love of God" aside, marriage confers inheritance rights to the surviving spouse. Children come later down the list, and it matters not one bit if they are biological children, adopted children or children conceived by AHR. The point of marriage equality for same sex couples is that the same inheritance rights will be automatic in their families, and of course that their commitment to each other is viewed as equal to hetero couple's commitments under the law.

hoodwinked

LordNorbury wrote: »

Fair play to him, I take it that you are biologically related to the same grandfather, yeah?

biologically related means jack all in truth,

i am not biologically related to one of my parents.


does it matter to me? or him? or his granddaughter? not one bit.

he still walked me down the aisle, helped me cram for my leaving cert, hugged me when my grandfather died, hugged my daughter when he became a grandfather when she was born.

where was my biological parent? nowhere to be found.

being the biological parent does not make someone a good parent.

LDN_Irish

Nodin wrote: »

Children that are up for adoption are obviously not going to be raised by their biological parents. Are you against adoption entirely?

It's hard to tell because of that humongous sentence at the end, but I think he's saying that all children should be raised by their biological parents, but if they're dead (or something) then some other couple who can biologically have children would be preferable to infertile people. Then the infertile people can have a crack, and last and indeed least an SSM couple.

Like I said though, it's hard to tell.

reprise

Shrap wrote: »

"For the love of God" aside, marriage confers inheritance rights to the surviving spouse. Children come later down the list, and it matters not one bit if they are biological children, adopted children or children conceived by AHR. The point of marriage equality for same sex couples is that the same inheritance rights will be automatic in their families, and of course that their commitment to each other is viewed as equal to hetero couple's commitments under the law.

Children come "down the list" because is makes little sense to dispossess the remaining spouse in favour of the children, not because they are an irrelevance and in the overwhelming majority of cases, are the children of the biological parents.

reprise

LordNorbury wrote: »

Fair play to him, I take it that you are biologically related to the same grandfather, yeah?

If his granny had balls...

floggg

LordNorbury wrote: »

So we just ignore the vast vast majority of children, the generations and generations of people who have been born into the world by their natural parents, we disregard all of that, and zone in on the small minority of children who are raised by parents who are not biologically connected to them in any way, due to some circumstance or another such as their parents dying young or a single mother deciding to put her child up for adoption, and we do all of this because two gay people decide that they want to "have" a child?

Again, a simple understanding of basic biology says they are still not equal. If a straight couple have not been able to conceive a child of their own, either naturally or using fertility treatment, due to an issue with the reproductive health of one or both partners in the relationship, this is still not the same as a gay/lesbian couple who between them, don't possess the ability between them to ever conceive a child that they both have a genetic relationship with, regardless of what medical treatment is made available to them. Nature may often cause something to happen to one or both people in a straight relationship, that would cause a child being conceived, to be highly unlikely, this can often be something as simple as the age of the woman, she made have left it too late to start a family, it doesn't mean that ten years previously, she couldn't have had a family then with her partner.

A comparable gay/lesbian couple can never conceive a child that they both have a genetic relationship with, regardless of their age, health, or the ability to afford fertility treatment, so they are still not the same thing and yes, these kind of things are very relevant to same sex marriage, because same sex marriage invariably involves, as we have seen, the wish to make gay families and their children equal with straight families and the children born into straight families, and I happen to believe these things are not at all equal and are completely different by virtue of the simple fact that their gay or lesbian parents, being of the same gender, simply cannot conceive a child and no child they rare will have a biological connection with both parents, they are simply not parents in the strictly biological sense and well understood meaning of the word "parents".

That doesn't make me against equality or homophobic as the gay lobby in Ireland would label me as and others who feel the same way.

If you are simply pointing out a difference in circumstances that's fine.

However, if yiu are going to try and argue that such difference is in any way material or relevant to ability to raise children or enter into a marriage then you will be rightly challenged.

Not saying you are (I don't really know what you're point is) but that's usually what people are challenged on - and they invariably fail to support their position with any facts or evidence.

Shrap

reprise wrote: »

Children come "down the list" because is makes little sense to dispossess the remaining spouse in favour of the children, not because they are an irrelevance and in the overwhelming majority of cases, are the children of the biological parents.

Stating the obvious is not an argument against SSM. None of this will change if SSM allowed, it will just increase the number of families who will enjoy automatic inheritance rights. As before stated, SSM has nothing to do with fertility.

Guy:Incognito

Riverireland wrote: »

I'm no too familiar with fidelma other than seeing her mentioned here. From what I'm reading though she at least appears to be giving her honest opinion openly. Does anyone actually believe that all the politicians in the country who's parties are supporting this referendum are going to vote yes! I personally don't and the older media set will be in the same boat. You can hear it in what they don't say in interviews.

Misrepresenting stuff and then lieing to try get out of it is not giving your honest opinion.

Guy:Incognito

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

You wouldn't say that about a man.

She's clearly an eejit of the highest order but there's no reason to be sexist.

There's a whole cohort of men in the church that could badly do with getting their hole (Legally this time)

reprise

Shrap wrote: »

Stating the obvious is not an argument against SSM. None of this will change if SSM allowed, it will just increase the number of families who will enjoy automatic inheritance rights. As before stated, SSM has nothing to do with fertility.

Nothing that can't be achieved in Civil Partnership.

hoodwinked

reprise wrote: »

Nothing that can't be achieved in Civil Partnership.

civil partnership for life is offensive imo, it was a step in the right direction, but lets go further, make things equal and have a Marriage,

keep it simple, you meet a person you love and want to spend the rest of your life with, lets make it a marriage,

so there can be a wife and wife, husband and husband or husband and wife.

everyone is therefore equal.