Marriage equality referendum - "rights" to kids etc.

[Duke of Marmalade]

Brian Dobson really put Henda thru the wringer on RTE 6.0c news. He kept asking will a Yes vote not inevitably entitle same sex marriages to the same surrogacy rights as other marriages once the surrogacy laws come into force. Henda kept refusing to answer by saying that Friday's vote had nothing to do with surrogacy. Why didn't he say "well, if we believe in equality I would hope that the surrogacy laws would not discriminate between different married set ups". Wow, that would kill the Yes vote

This is the most dishonest campaign I have ever witnessed. I will, for the first time, follow the advices of Sinn Fein where I grew up "vote early and often" and it will be "No, No, No....."

 

[elacsaplau]

Another very helpful contribution Duke.

A prominent supporter of the YES campaign says this evening that this referendum has nothing to do with the law in relation to surrogacy. And this absolute breaking news has resulted in changing your mind from a tentative wish for a YES outcome this afternoon to now a definite no.

I have one specific question - did you not realise this was the general position of the YES campaign before this evening?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Another very helpful contribution Duke.

A prominent supporter of the YES campaign says this evening that this referendum has nothing to do with the law in relation to surrogacy. And this absolute breaking news has resulted in changing your mind from a tentative wish for a YES outcome this afternoon to now a definite no.

I have one specific question - did you not realise this was the general position of the YES campaign before this evening?

Yes, the Bryan Dobson interview made it clear to me that the upcoming legislation on surrogacy is very relevant. Personally I would have a constitutional ban on all surrogacy. But the idea that two males can pay some misfortunate female to incubate their child object makes me physically sick. I really must go to my local SF office to see how I can make multiple votes.

 

[Betsy Og]

This is the most dishonest campaign I have ever witnessed.

As Dell Boy would say "Leave it out", its as galling to hear the No side talk about dishonesty as Sinn Fein talk about..well...pretty much anything...but particularly anything questioning the integrity of other politicians. The No side has been about anything other than the real issue. Their entire position is an imagined (or concocted) bogeyman story about surrogacy - its straight from the Fr. Ted sketch re the missing flashlight and the demise of the neighbourhood "Next thing the pimps will be giving the whores crack to keep them down", we're faced with the spectre of all those kids who deserve a mother and a father (lets not forget) being forsaken and left to languish in the clutches of a same sex couple. And the funniest thing is that the line is being led by the Catholic Church, who you'd have thought you be staying a mile away from anything to do with the care of children. I despair as to when the Catholic Church will finally understand that their real role is to be some sort of link to Christ - not a self-appointed moral police service, or an educational body, or a health care provider. As for surrogacy or adoption or whatever (not that its relevant to Fridays vote), if with all the expertise and legislation and what not the relevant authority feels a child's best interest is served by care in a same sex couple then who are we to second guess or moralise or display our prejudice.

Anyway, back to the real issue - do gay people deserve the same rights as straight people? - that's pretty much all you need to consider. Very much looking forward to moving on from this debate....

 

[elacsaplau]

This is the most dishonest campaign I have ever witnessed.

Yes, the Bryan Dobson interview made it clear to me that the upcoming legislation on surrogacy is very relevant.

Your hypocrisy is really becoming a little annoying - you go on about our Taoiseach not answering a straight question and then happily obfuscate yourself. And it's obvious why who didn't answer my specific question directly and properly - and chose to give a classic politician's answer - as either (a) you knew the stated position regarding surrogacy all along so the apparent conversion this evening is complete b/s or (b) you did not know this all along in which case you really haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Either way, seems to me to be very dishonest positioning from someone so preachy about honesty. Reminds me of a certain organisation - yes, the one that made surrogates out of thousands of Irish women by coercing unmarried mothers to give up their newborns for adoption.

Maybe you'll accept this like your conspiracy theory clime-down earlier; maybe you'll attempt to find some way to explain a position that satisfies (a) and (b) - if so, you will truly have entered the world of Sinn Fein.

But the idea that two males can pay some misfortunate female to incubate their child object makes me physically sick

What does this mean exactly? Seems to me to imply that if the renters are a heterosexual couple you'd be less physically sick. Why else would you have worded it this way? Please explain!

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I have one specific question - did you not realise this was the general position of the YES campaign before this evening?

I had bought the line that it was a distraction thrown in by the No side until now.

And it's obvious why who didn't answer my specific question directly and properly - and chose to give a classic politician's answer - as either (a) you knew the stated position regarding surrogacy all along so the apparent conversion this evening is complete b/s or (b) you did not know this all along in which case you really haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Definitely (b)

Bryan Dobson opened my eyes. I decided to look again at the Refcom website. There is a very telling Q and A with the chairman. The A is long and carefully constructed by a legal mind but the Noddy version is as follows:

Q. Will it be more difficult to differentiate between same sex marriages and conventional marriages when it comes to the forthcoming surrogacy regulations if this amendment is passed?

A. Yes

Now congratulations again to the Refcom website for its clear exposition of the issues. Pity again that the shortened version of the Q and A as presented above was not in the brochure.

So back to topic. It should be abundantly clear that the forthcoming surrogacy regs are not irrelevant to this debate. Why else did Refcom include the issue on its website?

You may argue that the issue has been blown out of proportion by the No side (that's what I thought until now). But it is totally dishonest to do what our Teashop did and say that it has absolutely no relevance for Friday's vote.

So let's examine the above Q and A. Most people (including this very duke) are 100% in favour of equality. But many would share an old fashioned duke's queasiness when it comes to the idea of (especially) two males commercially acquiring new human life. I suggest that the consensus in the Dail and with the populace when it comes to formulate the surrogacy regs would be to differentiate very much between the variety of couple types. The Refcom chairman has clarified that with the passing of this amendment to the constitution that type of differentiation will be very much more difficult if not impossible. The No posters were right after all!

BTW I think the RC church's position is also totally dishonest. They are against same sex marriages simply coz they think same sex relationships are immoral, end of.

 

[Sol28]

Most people (including this very duke) are 100% in favour of equality. But many would share an old fashioned duke's queasiness when it comes to the idea of (especially) two males commercially acquiring new human life.

I have been very reticent to use terms that are deemed offensive - but this smacks of total B.S.
Either you find the thought of two men together revolting - or you are totally sexist about the ability of a man to care for a child. Either way your statement of favouring equality is totally in question.

Why is it that all the 'reasons' to vote No seem to always be focussing on the concept of two men forming a loving family? There has been little discussion about the ability of two women to do so.

 

[terrysgirl33]

I guess the question then is, is it right to differentiate between homosexual and heterosexual couples when it comes to surrogacy?

I can't see any reason why not. There is a long tradition of men being regarded with suspicion around children, but most children are abused in families. If a gay man wants access to children for nefarious purposes the easiest way is to marry a woman and have children. Much cheaper and easier, and no-one will suspect him.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I have been very reticent to use terms that are deemed offensive - but this smacks of total B.S.
Either you find the thought of two men together revolting - or you are totally sexist about the ability of a man to care for a child. Either way your statement of favouring equality is totally in question.

Why is it that all the 'reasons' to vote No seem to always be focussing on the concept of two men forming a loving family? There has been little discussion about the ability of two women to do so.

To me there is a difference between a woman carrying a baby (albeit not her partner's) for nine months and then giving birth compared to a man calling back in 9 months time and picking up his goods for delivery. I appreciate that there is no difference for the enlightened amongst you. But this is a democracy and the enlightened are I suggest in a minority. If people like our Teashop honestly admitted the implications for future surrogacy regs this wouldn't pass.

 

[Sol28]

I can't see any reason why not. There is a long tradition of men being regarded with suspicion around children, but most children are abused in families. If a gay man wants access to children for nefarious purposes the easiest way is to marry a woman and have children. Much cheaper and easier, and no-one will suspect him.

Terrysgirl33 - I totally understand the point of your message - but you need to change one word in this. I have fixed it for you below.

If a PAEDOPHILE wants access to children for nefarious purposes the easiest way is to marry a woman and have children.

 

[michaelm]

Another very helpful contribution Duke.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but at least you're consistent in that regard.

The passage of this referendum, changing as it will the article on 'The Family', will render the state gender blind when it comes to marriage and family (we might even be able to agree on that). The next step for many same-sex married couples, underscoring the normality, naturalness and sameness of their marriage compared to a gender balanced marriage, will be to beget children; and they will effectively have a constitutional right to do so.

These rights will be exercised and this will require various combinations of donated sperm, ova and surrogate mothers. The state will be facilitating engineered situations whereby children are created, by design, to be raised without either a mother or a father. The No posters reflect this; it is a genuine concern for many No voters however most of those with a locked-in Yes Equality mindset are blind to this. It is entire understandable that those Yes people who do recognise this have refused to countenance it, as this would sap support for a Yes.

To be fair, a No vote won't necessarily in itself stop this, however a Yes vote will guarantee it does happen. Given the forces and resources lined up on the Yes side and the simple but effective (cult-like) campaign, it will be a miracle if it is defeated. Stranger things have happened.

 

[terrysgirl33]

What are the plans for future surrogacy regulations? I haven't heard anything about this yet.

What is to stop a hetrosexual couple ordering a baby and collecting it in 9 months? While female-female and hetrosexual couples theoreticaly (sp) have the ability to have a baby themselves, are they banned from surrogacy? Where surrogacy happens, how many couples involved are gay or straight? How many are couples, how many single?

ETA: I am assuming in surrogacy there is provision for looking after the interests of any children of surrogacy, rather like in adoption.

 

[elacsaplau]

Dear Duke

The reason I have gone to the bother of challenging you is because you are, without much argument, one of the most capable contributors to this site - a genuine thought leader. I am genuinely really saddened by your contributions to this debate. I have just looked at RTE player - there was absolutely nothing new in what the Taoiseach said that was not well and truly in the public domain before now. Accordingly, whilst I find your moment of enlightenment yesterday very hard to fathom, I have made known my points in respect of your contributions - it's time for us to respectfully agree to differ. East is east and west is west.

 

[terrysgirl33]

Terrysgirl33 - I totally understand the point of your message - but you need to change one word in this. I have fixed it for you below.

If a PAEDOPHILE wants access to children for nefarious purposes the easiest way is to marry a woman and have children.

Ah, that is true. I think what I was trying to say is that for a gay paedophile it's easier to go into a marriage with a woman and have children to get at children, rather than to marry a man and then go through surrogacy. In both cases they end up with children, but the surrogacy route is longer, slower and more complicated. In both cases I'm assuming they are mainly attracted to children.

 

[Sol28]

This is the most dishonest campaign I have ever witnessed. I will, for the first time, follow the advices of Sinn Fein where I grew up "vote early and often" and it will be "No, No, No....."

Oh and just to point out one more fact - Sinn Fein have been the strongest proponents of equality for all. What ever else you think about their politics - they have been one of the original parties with a mandate to ensure equality for LGBT citizens of this country.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Dear Duke

The reason I have gone to the bother of challenging you is because you are, without much argument, one of the most capable contributors to this site - a genuine thought leader. I am genuinely really saddened by your contributions to this debate. I have just looked at RTE player - there was absolutely nothing new in what the Taoiseach said that was not well and truly in the public domain before now. Accordingly, whilst I find your moment of enlightenment yesterday very hard to fathom, I have made known my points in respect of your contributions - it's time for us to respectfully agree to differ. East is east and west is west.

elac I listened to RTE player again. The Teashop was deffo on the ropes on the surrogacy issue, rabitting on about the welfare of the child. He asserted not once but twice that "surrogacy has nothing to do with the question on Friday". This may indeed not be a new positioning but it is clearly at best disingenuous as references to surrogacy on the Refcom website testify.

I am instinctively a Yes voter and flowed along with the line that all this surrogacy stuff and posters of mothers kissing babies was wild and irrelevant exaggeration by the No side (I must stop reading Gene Kerrigan). But the Dobson interview really got me rethinking and then when I referenced the Refcom website and read the comments of the chairman I had a genuine change of mind. What a shame this silly ref was ever put forward.

 

[Ceist Beag]

To me there is a difference between a woman carrying a baby (albeit not her partner's) for nine months and then giving birth compared to a man calling back in 9 months time and picking up his goods for delivery.

... but if the man in question was married to a woman then that's alright then?
I think your real issue here is with surrogacy Duke, not with two men being allowed to marry each other.

 

[elacsaplau]

This may indeed not be a new positioning

My dear D

Interesting acknowledgement. Thank you. My honest appraisal of your Damascian conversion is "conversion bias". I am definitely guilty of the same myself. No matter what poor Enda said, bless him, would have been seized upon by you. I'm ok with you voting no - you are fully entitled to your opinion. Most of your opinions are superb and your facility to express them almost unparalleled. In my opinion, you just have a blind spot here. It happens. In this debate, I find your contributions vulgar but nonetheless fully accept your right to express them. I hope you accept my right to challenge them? We disagree very strongly - that's all and that's healthy. Can we just leave it at this please? Or do you need to have the last word? East is still east, no?

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

East is still east, no?

Here's an interesting trivia question. What are the most southern, northern, western and eastern states of the USA?


Answer:

Southern: Hawaii
Northern: Alaska
Western: Alaska
Eastern: Alaska

East is defined in terms of degrees longtitude, zero running through London and running from 0 to 180 either side. Alaska straddles the East/West dividing 180 degree longtitude.

 

[michaelm]

My dear D

Interesting acknowledgement. Thank you. My honest appraisal of your Damascian conversion is "conversion bias". I am definitely guilty of the same myself. No matter what poor Enda said, bless him, would have been seized upon by you. I'm ok with you voting no - you are fully entitled to your opinion. Most of your opinions are superb and your facility to express them almost unparalleled. In my opinion, you just have a blind spot here. It happens. In this debate, I find your contributions vulgar but nonetheless fully accept your right to express them. I hope you accept my right to challenge them? We disagree very strongly - that's all and that's healthy. Can we just leave it at this please? Or do you need to have the last word? East is still east, no?

It's unclear whether your post is intentionally smarmy or if you hoped it would prove ameliorative; perhaps both.