Marriage equality referendum - "rights" to kids etc.

[Duke of Marmalade]

... 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.

Spot on. I really shudder at the concept of any surrogacy and God help us it appears to be on its way to a shop near you here in Ireland.

But if surrogacy we must have there are clear differences between the situations according to my old fashioned compass. From least worst I would cite:

1) A conventional marriage/partnership unable to have children of their own.
2) Two women in a partnership/marriage with one of them carrying the baby.
3) Two men in a partnership/marriage.
4) A conventional marriage/partnership able to have their own children but farming out the incubation to a surrogate mother.

The point is that, according to the chairman of the Refcom, if passed this ref will seriously impede the flexibility in regulating this surrogacy abomination.

 

[Leo]

The point is that, according to the chairman of the Refcom, if passed this ref will seriously impede the flexibility in regulating this surrogacy abomination.

There's been very little said of what will be forthcoming in the surrogacy legislation being spoken of, the only thing we can be sure of is that it won't happen in this Dail term, too risky a subject for them to take on. It has though been strongly hinted there will be no free for all, or commercial surrogacy. Anyone have the current stats on surrogacy?

I have yet to see any compelling, independent evidence to suggest same-sex couples do a better or worse job of raising children. To quote an oft used expression in this referendum run-in, all things being equal, the outcomes for the children seem to be no better, no worse. To assume anything else without the evidence to back it up is prejudice.

To deny same sex couples the right to marry based on the fear of a very edge case seems very unfair.

 

[Ceist Beag]

I think it is certainly a bit of a leap to suggest that free for all or commercial surrogacy is on its way to a shop near you Duke. I would completely share your concerns around surrogacy (in that I would be very much against it) but I see absolutely no reason to involve those in the decision making thoughts for tomorrows referendum.

 

[dereko1969]

Spot on. I really shudder at the concept of any surrogacy and God help us it appears to be on its way to a shop near you here in Ireland.

But if surrogacy we must have there are clear differences between the situations according to my old fashioned compass. From least worst I would cite:

1) A conventional marriage/partnership unable to have children of their own.
2) Two women in a partnership/marriage with one of them carrying the baby.
3) Two men in a partnership/marriage.
4) A conventional marriage/partnership able to have their own children but farming out the incubation to a surrogate mother.

The point is that, according to the chairman of the Refcom, if passed this ref will seriously impede the flexibility in regulating this surrogacy abomination.

So your point is basically, all surrogacy wrong, but some surrogacy worse than others? Why is two men worse than two women or a man a woman? Why is a same sex surrogacy situation worse than an opposite sex surrogacy? It really can come down to just one reason, disgust/abhorrence with homosexuality, you can dress it up and call it Shirley but that's what it is.

The FACTS are, and I know NO voters don't like these little impediments, there is currently no legislation on surrogacy (so it is de facto legal) in the country so currently all 4 of the options above are/can be used in this country. There are currently very very few of these situations going on and the vast majority are heterosexual couples, like a couple I know, who availed of the services of a foreign lady in another jurisdiction so that they would have a genetic link to their lovely child.

 

[Purple]

Spot on. I really shudder at the concept of any surrogacy and God help us it appears to be on its way to a shop near you here in Ireland.

But if surrogacy we must have there are clear differences between the situations according to my old fashioned compass. From least worst I would cite:

1) A conventional marriage/partnership unable to have children of their own.
2) Two women in a partnership/marriage with one of them carrying the baby.
3) Two men in a partnership/marriage.
4) A conventional marriage/partnership able to have their own children but farming out the incubation to a surrogate mother.

The point is that, according to the chairman of the Refcom, if passed this ref will seriously impede the flexibility in regulating this surrogacy abomination.

Option 5) a single man or woman using donated sperm or egg and a surrogate mother. This is also legal at the moment.

 

[michaelm]

Why is a same sex surrogacy situation worse than an opposite sex surrogacy? It really can come down to just one reason, disgust/abhorrence with homosexuality, you can dress it up and call it Shirley but that's what it is.

Or it's nothing to do with homosexuality and it's abhorrent that with same-sex surrogacy a child is denied either a mother or a father, by design.

After a Yes male-male married couples will need a surrogate to exercise their new right as a family, and thus a fundamental unit of society, to have children; the government's hands will be tied on the issue, which will suit them just fine.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

So your point is basically, all surrogacy wrong, but some surrogacy worse than others? Why is two men worse than two women or a man a woman? Why is a same sex surrogacy situation worse than an opposite sex surrogacy? It really can come down to just one reason, disgust/abhorrence with homosexuality, you can dress it up and call it Shirley but that's what it is.

I think any situation where the mother is the surrogate is the ultimate in exploitation. That one human being would deliberately carry a child for nine months, give birth to it and have it delivered to its "owner" for thirty pieces of silver can't be right. If the mother is not the surrogate I am much less queasy. So, yes, it is the idea that two males will possibly get surrogate rights as a result of this referendum that makes me vote No. I note that in your book that makes me a "homophobe" which shows just how much the pendulum of prejudice has swung.

 

[Purple]

Or it's nothing to do with homosexuality and it's abhorrent that with same-sex surrogacy a child is denied either a mother or a father, by design.

After a Yes male-male married couples will need a surrogate to exercise their new right as a family, and thus a fundamental unit of society, to have children; the government's hands will be tied on the issue, which will suit them just fine.

Where in our constitution does it say that anyone has the right to a family or the right to children?

 

[michaelm]

Where in our constitution does it say that anyone has the right to a family or the right to children?

Our Constitution recognises married couples as families under Article 41 'The Family'. The Supreme Court has previously stated that the fact that the Constitution so clearly protects the institution of marriage necessarily involves a constitutional protection of certain marital rights including the right to beget children.

 

[Purple]

Our Constitution recognises married couples as families under Article 41 'The Family'. The Supreme Court has previously stated that the fact that the Constitution so clearly protects the institution of marriage necessarily involves a constitutional protection of certain marital rights including the right to beget children.

The right to beget children is not the same as the right to have children so my question stands.

 

[Leo]

Or it's nothing to do with homosexuality and it's abhorrent that with same-sex surrogacy a child is denied either a mother or a father, by design.

Why is that so abhorrent? Any evidence to confirm the traditional mother / father arrangement results in better outcomes for the children involved?

After a Yes male-male married couples will need a surrogate to exercise their new right as a family, and thus a fundamental unit of society, to have children; the government's hands will be tied on the issue, which will suit them just fine.

There is no automatic right in existence or suggested in future legislation for heterosexual couples, why are some people so intent on suggesting there will be for same-sex couples if this referendum is passed?

 

[Latrade]

Spot on. I really shudder at the concept of any surrogacy and God help us it appears to be on its way to a shop near you here in Ireland.

But if surrogacy we must have there are clear differences between the situations according to my old fashioned compass. From least worst I would cite:

1) A conventional marriage/partnership unable to have children of their own.
2) Two women in a partnership/marriage with one of them carrying the baby.
3) Two men in a partnership/marriage.
4) A conventional marriage/partnership able to have their own children but farming out the incubation to a surrogate mother.

The point is that, according to the chairman of the Refcom, if passed this ref will seriously impede the flexibility in regulating this surrogacy abomination.

Surrogacy is already here but unregulated, but there are enough cases each year to warrant regulation.

The reason it's another red herring is because marriage and relationship is irrelevant. A single person can arrange for a surrogate child. The very early drafts of the regulation deal with how they will recognise parentage and strict rules on Surrogacy not being a commercial contract.

As it is there is nothing stopping a gay male couple having a surrogate child. The only difference is recognition of parentage for both fathers. That is what will be addressed, the state will have no involvement of regulation of the Surrogacy.

Incidentally, where Surrogacy is permitted, like the states and elsewhere and there is recognition of gay marriage, the is still a preference within the male gay community for adoption and not Surrogacy.

Of course the Surrogacy legislation will not allow the state to discriminate in that process because by what process a baby is born and to who is none of the states business so long as it is consensual. That is how it is now and how it will be. The state's intervention will be on it not becoming a commercial operation and to provide legitimacy to the people who will raise the child.

It will also give the child the rights to discover their biological mother when they are 18 if they don't already know.

Another example of a great fear that is not in the least impacted by the referendum.

 

[michaelm]

The right to beget children is not the same as the right to have children so my question stands.

I'm no wordsmith but you can't get a cigarette paper between beget and have, not to mention produce, create, generate . . of course proponents of the Yes side aren't arguing same-sex couples shouldn't have a right to beget children anyway, rather they fully expect that the right to have children will vindicated and enshrined in law, albeit it would seem, after the next election. Anything short of that would surely reek of discrimination.

Any evidence to confirm the traditional mother / father arrangement results in better outcomes for the children involved?

This question is bogus. There in no onus to provide any such evidence. A child deserves to be raised by a mother and father where practical.

Of course the Surrogacy legislation will not allow the state to discriminate in that process because by what process a baby is born and to who is none of the states business so long as it is consensual.

The state should put children first and, at a minimum, restrict surrogacy and assisted reproduction to gender balanced couples who can offer the child a mother and father. Although this is not their intention anyway, after a Yes this will not be possible at all.

 

[Purple]

I'm no wordsmith but you can't get a cigarette paper between beget and have, not to mention produce, create, generate . . of course proponents of the Yes side aren't arguing same-sex couples shouldn't have a right to beget children anyway, rather they fully expect that the right to have children will vindicated and enshrined in law, albeit it would seem, after the next election. Anything short of that would surely reek of discrimination.

Beget means to bring a child into the world through the means of reproduction. In other words the constitution safeguards the right to consensual shagging, without a condom, by married couples, for the purposes of putting a bun in the oven. It doesn't mean that a married couple, be they heterosexual or homosexual have a right to a child or children through any other means.

This question is bogus. There in no onus to provide any such evidence. A child deserves to be raised by a mother and father where practical.

There is if you are seeking to use it as a grounds to justify discrimination.

The state should put children first and, at a minimum, restrict surrogacy and assisted reproduction to gender balanced couples who can offer the child a mother and father.

You are entitled to that opinion, just as someone would be entitled to be of the opinion that people of different ethnic backgrounds shouldn't be allowed to marry or have access to surrogacy or assisted reproduction or be allowed to adopt children. Such children could face bias and bullying due to the fact that their parents are of mixed race but should societal bias be grounds for such discrimination?
The extrapolation of your point is that same sex couples are not, and cannot be, equal to different sex couples as parents. You need something more than an opinion to back that up.

 

[michaelm]

You are entitled to that opinion, just as someone would be entitled to be of the opinion that people of different ethnic backgrounds shouldn't be allowed to marry

Wow. That's how far we've come, equating the belief that a child should not, by design, be denied a mother and a father with racism.

 

[Purple]

Wow. That's how far we've come, equating the belief that a child should not, by design, be denied a mother and a father with racism.

Children are denied fathers every day by design. All it takes is the mother not putting the fathers name on the birth cert.
Suggesting that we should deny equal rights to one group of people in case it limits the rights of another is a dreadful and contemptible argument. If we want to ensure that children have an automatic right to know who their biological parents are then we can legislate for it or even put it in our constitution.
The No campaign latching onto this is base in the extreme. It cannot be beyond the wit or intellect of our esteemed law makers to come up with a framework that protects children but to legislate to deny same sex couples the right to adopt or have the same access to IVF or surrogacy as different sex couples is to treat them as second class.
If surrogacy is bad then it's bad for all. If it is good it is good for all.

People are either equal or they are not.

 

[elacsaplau]

Well said Purple. Ever get the feeling of......

.........wall like to talking the

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Purple it is clear that you are fully aware of the implications for future surrogacy regs and you will still be voting Yes. That's fair enough (see I'm as broad minded as the next guy). But if I only became aware of the implications after last night's interview and a read of the refcom website then I suggest that many, many more lack this awareness. Certainly the No campaign have tried to highlight it but IMHO the Yes campaign has been overwhelmingly successful in demonising this message as homophobe, irrelevant, scaremongering etc.

IMHO if the populace were fully aware that the No message on surrogacy etc. is in fact substantially correct as verified by the refcom chairman (pity he didn't say so in the brochure), then the majority would, unlike yourself, reluctantly vote No.

The inevitable Yes vote will have been gained by a dishonest campaign, exemplified by the evasive duplicity of our Teashop in last night's interview.

 

[Leo]

There in no onus to provide any such evidence. A child deserves to be raised by a mother and father where practical.

Accepting that premise without question or justification is bigotry, plain and simple.

If there's no discernible benefit to the child, then what you are supporting will likely lead to children being placed in a less suitable situations just so out dated gender based discrimination can be continued.

 

[Ger]

Why is that so abhorrent? Any evidence to confirm the traditional mother / father arrangement results in better outcomes for the children involved?

There is evidence that non biological fathers are much more likely (by over 20 times) to molest their children. e.g. "A 1992 survey studying father-daughter incest in Finland reported that of the 9,000 15-year old high school girls who filled out the questionnaires, of the girls living with their biological fathers, 0.2% reported father-daughter incest experiences; of the girls living with a stepfather, 3.7% reported sexual experiences with him." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse

Doctor Phil claims that "When children are in a home where there is a non-biological male in the home (i.e. mom’s boyfriend or step-father), those children are 31 times more likely to be molested." (I actually heard this myself).



[broken link removed]

Biology does matter (imo) and its best when children are with there biological parents (all things being equal)