Ireland set to legalise same-sex marriage

[MKR&*42]

Not all constituencies confirmed yet, but it seems incredibly likely the yes vote has won:


Figures suggest the Republic of Ireland has voted to legalise same-sex marriage in a historic referendum.

More than 3.2m people were asked whether they wanted to amend the country's constitution to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.

Government ministers have said they believe it will pass, while prominent "no" campaigners have conceded defeat.

Counting started at 09:00 BST on Saturday morning. An "unusually high" turnout has been reported.

A final result is expected late afternoon on Saturday.

If the change is approved, the Republic of Ireland would become the first country to legalise same-sex marriage through a popular vote.

The final result is expected later on Saturday afternoon

Minister for Health Leo Varadkar, who earlier this year came out as the Republic of Ireland's first openly gay minister, said the campaign had been "almost like a social revolution".


With 34 constituencies now declared [out of 43], the Yes vote is 61.7% and No at 38.3%. The number of Yes votes is 964,616, with 599,505 for No.

Only one constituency so far has had a 'no' majority I believe.
--
Congratulations Ireland :)

[Paracme]

#goinghometovote trending. Proud.

[-:Undertaker:-]

From an outsider view, it really seems like the Vatican is afraid or unwilling to make strong arguments for moral issues. The Papacy should realise that it won't win victories if it follows the route of protestant churches like the Church of England which is as much use as a chocolate teapot to Christian beliefs.

[lemons]

go ireland

[Phil]

I am so happy words can't even express! I have been a little bit worried about it, would be very embarrassing if it didn't get passed. I have never been so proud to be Irish and furthermore I have never been so proud of my town! My town had the highest Yes Vote in the country NOT including the capital.

The whole world was watching today and Ireland pulled through, I'm delighted!

- - - Updated - - -


From an outsider view, it really seems like the Vatican is afraid or unwilling to make strong arguments for moral issues. The Papacy should realise that it won't win victories if it follows the route of protestant churches like the Church of England which is as much use as a chocolate teapot to Christian beliefs.

Literally no idea what this means, dumb it down for me pleasseee

[-:Undertaker:-]

Literally no idea what this means, dumb it down for me pleasseee

That it didn't seem like the Pope or the Catholic Church made much of a strong or passionate argument against. It often seems the case when it comes to moral issues like this that those for traditional marriage are too afraid to go out there and make a strong, unapologetic argument - unlike their opponents.

[xxMATTGxx]

Well done Ireland!

[Phil]

That it didn't seem like the Pope or the Catholic Church made much of a strong or passionate argument against. It often seems the case when it comes to moral issues like this that those for traditional marriage are too afraid to go out there and make a strong, unapologetic argument - unlike their opponents.

Why should they do anything? :P

A lot of people tried the religious approach from the No campaign at the beginning but it wasn't working so they changed to scaremongering by spouting pure nonsense on bad researched facts and made it about children which is not what the election was about. There were a good few signs and stuff taking the religious approach such as "God says no, Nature says no, VOTE NO" and then some with like quotes from the bible and stuff which were also nonsense.
Someone approached me the other day and said "If you don't have God in your life you aren't satisfied" which is both incorrect and has nothing to do with it :P

If you were here you'd see that they put up a very strong and very unapologetic campaign. They did a much better job than the Yes side but it was all based on things like children, not marriage.

- - - Updated - - -

It has just been announced. Ireland are the first country in the world to vote in Marriage Equality by popular vote!

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why should they do anything? :P

A lot of people tried the religious approach from the No campaign at the beginning but it wasn't working so they changed to scaremongering by spouting pure nonsense on bad researched facts and made it about children which is not what the election was about. There were a good few signs and stuff taking the religious approach such as "God says no, Nature says no, VOTE NO" and then some with like quotes from the bible and stuff which were also nonsense.
Someone approached me the other day and said "If you don't have God in your life you aren't satisfied" which is both incorrect and has nothing to do with it :P

If you were here you'd see that they put up a very strong and very unapologetic campaign. They did a much better job than the Yes side but it was all based on things like children, not marriage.

It depends on your opinion of the matter although again from an outsider point of view, I did not see any big intervention by the Vatican or the Pope (who have influence in your country as it is a Catholic country) and if it's anything like over here, then you wouldn't have had any proper religious arguments made either. There's a weakness by religious people now to make forceful arguments based on faith, and if they don't put forth a forceful argument against opponents who are doing the same then they'll lose as they just have in southern Ireland.

Personally if the circumstances mirror anything like over here, I would have voted No. But hey ho.

[Phil]

It depends on your opinion of the matter although again from an outsider point of view, I did not see any big intervention by the Vatican or the Pope (who have influence in your country as it is a Catholic country) and if it's anything like over here, then you wouldn't have had any proper religious arguments made either.

Personally if the circumstances mirror anything like over here, I would have voted No. But hey ho.

Why would you have voted no?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why would you have voted no?

My concerns are mainly rooted in what legally this can do to people of religious faith. I can see circumstances, if Equality/Discrimination Laws were repealed, where I could vote for gay marriage (even if I disagree with the notion itself) but as that's unlikely to happen anytime soon I would vote against it.

[Aiden]

My concerns are mainly rooted in what legally this can do to people of religious faith. I can see circumstances, if Equality/Discrimination Laws were repealed, where I could vote for gay marriage (even if I disagree with the notion itself) but as that's unlikely to happen anytime soon I would vote against it.

Does it not upset you that your opinions will fairly quickly become very uncommon? Like you're basically fighting a cause which has already won in our country at least. I'm not an expert but I don't see opinions turning backwards.

[MKR&*42]

It's now absolutely official:


All the results are in, and the returning officer, Ríona Ní Fhlanghaile, has declared that Ireland has passed the same-sex marriage referendum by 1,201,607 votes to 734,300. That’s 62.1% yes to 37.9% no. The total turnout was 60.5%.

[Absently]

ahhh! super-duper happy :) would have loved to go home and vote! i was in tears reading all the home to vote stuff and then seeing how it's turned out, pretty chuffed. although, i was certain it was going to pass :) so great to see so many young people voting for the first time and hopefully, they'll keep it up and continue to vote :D

[Kyle]

Well done to Ireland for this huge middle finger to the catholic church. :)

[sex]

Well done to Ireland for this huge middle finger to the catholic church. :)

can we get married now?

well done ireland xx

[-:Undertaker:-]

Does it not upset you that your opinions will fairly quickly become very uncommon? Like you're basically fighting a cause which has already won in our country at least. I'm not an expert but I don't see opinions turning backwards.

In regards to gay marriage I know I am already in the minority. Just as I am with nationalisation, banking levies, the NHS. On the other hand, the areas where I am in the majority - the European Union, immigration, foreign affairs and state spending... these are much more important than gay marriage to me. :P

I don't bother arguing about gay marriage because the battle is over. And to be honest, it's a minor un-important issue anyway in the grand scheme of things.

[Aiden]

In regards to gay marriage I know I am already in the minority. Just as I am with nationalisation, banking levies, the NHS. On the other hand, the areas where I am in the majority - the European Union, immigration, foreign affairs and state spending... these are much more important than gay marriage to me. :P

I don't bother arguing about gay marriage because the battle is over. And to be honest, it's a minor un-important issue anyway in the grand scheme of things.

So why post/talk about it so much?

[Kyle]

So why post/talk about it so much?
As much as hating on undertaker's posts is very popular, you're wrong. He posts his (often unpopular) views in threads that warrant them and refrains elsewhere in favour of discussing foreign folk. I don't think it's fair to continue to confront and attempt to ridicule somebody whose views on gay marriage are clearly informed by a christian upbringing, something equivalent to an atheist going round calling religious people idiots and fanatics without any solicitation to do so. You're trying to get a raise out of somebody who has already said that it is an unimportant issue and a lost battle - let it go and celebrate the triumph for equality :)

[-:Undertaker:-]

So why post/talk about it so much?

I post on a lot of varying things on this forum...

Again though, my concern isn't the gay 'marriage' itself... it's more the threat to the liberties of others that have come with all of this.

[Aiden]

As much as hating on undertaker's posts is very popular, you're wrong. He posts his (often unpopular) views in threads that warrant them and refrains elsewhere in favour of discussing foreign folk. I don't think it's fair to continue to confront and attempt to ridicule somebody whose views on gay marriage are clearly informed by a christian upbringing, something equivalent to an atheist going round calling religious people idiots and fanatics without any solicitation to do so. You're trying to get a raise out of somebody who has already said that it is an unimportant issue and a lost battle - let it go and celebrate the triumph for equality :)

actually i was just wondering why he bothers if he feels it's useless

[FlyingJesus]

Yeah why say anything ever if it isn't going to result in immediate legal reform :S:S:S:S:S

[ItsMeerken]

As I posted on Facebook to the comment David Cameron put.

"Shouldnt Gay marriage be accepted anyway... it should be the same in every country, it's a bit of a ridicule to say they arent equal, they're still human afterall."

There is nothing different about anyone who is Gay or Straight, I have gay members in my family, theres nothing different about them. Why should it be like this in other countries, I don't why some countries dont allow it.

England only passed this in 2013, then followed by Scotland in 2014 and now Ireland in 2015...

Make it a law in every country that it is Legal to have same sex marriage.

[TCGEmily]

When i saw the news on DailyMailUK about legalizing same-sex marriage in Ireland, i was pretty happy! Another country to add to the list that allows that. And a very happy occasion for the gay couples. Really happy for them! Afterall, i support LGBT and i think they deserve it (:

[AgnesIO]

Make it a law in every country that it is Legal to have same sex marriage.

You might want to get rid of being gay being punishable by death, before trying to legalise gay marriage in every country.

----

Personally, I am against gay marriage. I believe that marriage is between man and woman, who in (the vast majority) of cases have children.

No doubt an unpopular view on this forum (and publicly in recent years, too).

[e5]

If 2 blokes want to get married then they should have every right to do so. It's their country just as much as ours. Why should we stop them? Doesn't affect anyone in the slightest...

[Matt]

A great step forward for marriage equality, good to see.

[Phil]

You might want to get rid of being gay being punishable by death, before trying to legalise gay marriage in every country.

----

Personally, I am against gay marriage. I believe that marriage is between man and woman, who in (the vast majority) of cases have children.

No doubt an unpopular view on this forum (and publicly in recent years, too).

Why do you think it should be for man and woman? Don't want to start an argument, just to understand the view :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AgnesIO]

Why do you think it should be for man and woman? Don't want to start an argument, just to understand the view :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To me, marriage is the first stage to a family. Whilst gay people can adopt or use a surrogate mother (or sperm from a father), that child is still not biologically the couples. Sure, they can love the child - but there are children whom I love and support, I am still not their mother or father.

Also, marriage by definition could be viewed as a combination of two different things.

I have nothing against gay people being in relationships; just I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

[sex]

To me, marriage is the first stage to a family. Whilst gay people can adopt or use a surrogate mother (or sperm from a father), that child is still not biologically the couples. Sure, they can love the child - but there are children whom I love and support, I am still not their mother or father.

Also, marriage by definition could be viewed as a combination of two different things.

I have nothing against gay people being in relationships; just I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.

What is your stance on couples who are married and for whatever reason cannot conceive a child and use surrogate or adoption services? Do you think they shouldn't marry?

[AgnesIO]

What is your stance on couples who are married and for whatever reason cannot conceive a child and use surrogate or adoption services? Do you think they shouldn't marry?

Ah, I've been posed this question before! This is obviously a rare exception to the rule. Females are supposed to be able to give birth; obviously in some very unfortunate circumstances this is not possible.

It's a bit like me making the statement "humans can walk", and then somebody saying "well what if the person has no legs" - obviously there are exceptions.

[ItsMeerken]

You might want to get rid of being gay being punishable by death, before trying to legalise gay marriage in every country.

----

Personally, I am against gay marriage. I believe that marriage is between man and woman, who in (the vast majority) of cases have children.

No doubt an unpopular view on this forum (and publicly in recent years, too).

Just think though, Everybody is the same no matter what anyone says, you're no different if you are black, white, asian, gay, bi or straight or even anything else for this matter. Who cares if they can't have children, they're still happy together at the end of the day, what's to say if you turned out to be gay and you wanted to love someone of the same sex, and wanted to take it further. How would you feel about that, knowing that people would be saying such things saying they were against it. Personally, I am straight myself but I have a step sister who is a lesbian and she is getting married at the end of this month, I can't actually wait for it. I have nothing against Gays, Bi's or Lesbians at all and neither should some people too.

My opinion right there for ya :)

[AgnesIO]

Just think though, Everybody is the same no matter what anyone says, you're no different if you are black, white, asian, gay, bi or straight or even anything else for this matter. Who cares if they can't have children, they're still happy together at the end of the day, what's to say if you turned out to be gay and you wanted to love someone of the same sex, and wanted to take it further. How would you feel about that, knowing that people would be saying such things saying they were against it. Personally, I am straight myself but I have a step sister who is a lesbian and she is getting married at the end of this month, I can't actually wait for it. I have nothing against Gays, Bi's or Lesbians at all and neither should some people too.

My opinion right there for ya :)

Everybody is not the same, unfortunately. That isn't to say that we should treat people badly, but they are not the same.

I don't think I'll "turn out to be gay" - I think I'm old enough and have had enough experience to know my sexuality ;) And even then, there are gay people who are against gay marriage...

I don't have anything against ​ gay people, I just have views on what marriage is and whom it involves.

[sex]

Ah, I've been posed this question before! This is obviously a rare exception to the rule. Females are supposed to be able to give birth; obviously in some very unfortunate circumstances this is not possible.

It's a bit like me making the statement "humans can walk", and then somebody saying "well what if the person has no legs" - obviously there are exceptions.

Oh ok, so since females are suppose to be able to give birth it would be ok for two lesbians to adopt / conceive via surrogacy?

and that comparison to walking is the stupidest thing i've ever heard.

Marriage is a step a couple take to show, in the eyes of the law that they love each other and intend to commit to each other forever. Being married doesn't give you the right to have a child .

Marriage has nothing to do with children! Its a seperate issue, lots of people marry with no intent to have children

[AgnesIO]

Oh ok, so since females are suppose to be able to give birth it would be ok for two lesbians to adopt / conceive via surrogacy?

and that comparison to walking is the stupidest thing i've ever heard.

Marriage is a step a couple take to show, in the eyes of the law that they love each other and intend to commit to each other forever. Being married doesn't give you the right to have a child .

Marriage has nothing to do with children! Its a seperate issue, lots of people marry with no intent to have children

It would not be the two females biological child. Unless you go for having a mix of three people's genetics, which would be wrong. Adoption is great, but then you bring on the question of whether it should be a man and a woman bringing up the child etc.

It isn't a stupid comparison at all. You bring up a rare scenario for something occurring and therefore claim it is wrong to say it - well it is the exact same thing as someone who has no legs being unable to walk, or for someone to be blind. It's ridiculous to bring out rare cases as a fair argument.

Even if we exclude children from the equation, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Evidently we are not going to agree on the matter, but to me two men or two women marrying is not right.

- - - Updated - - -


If 2 blokes want to get married then they should have every right to do so. It's their country just as much as ours. Why should we stop them? Doesn't affect anyone in the slightest...

Polygamy doesn't affect me personally.. is that cool, too?

[The Don]

It would not be the two females biological child. Unless you go for having a mix of three people's genetics, which would be wrong. Adoption is great, but then you bring on the question of whether it should be a man and a woman bringing up the child etc.

It isn't a stupid comparison at all. You bring up a rare scenario for something occurring and therefore claim it is wrong to say it - well it is the exact same thing as someone who has no legs being unable to walk, or for someone to be blind. It's ridiculous to bring out rare cases as a fair argument.

Even if we exclude children from the equation, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. Evidently we are not going to agree on the matter, but to me two men or two women marrying is not right.

- - - Updated - - -



Polygamy doesn't affect me personally.. is that cool, too?

So I presume you also think single/widowed parents should have their children taken off them?

[GommeInc]

It's about time. Marriage is and has been a glorified contract for many centuries now, so it makes sense to allow same-sex couples "marrying" together to receive the same rights as all others. Reserving it for opposite sex couples holds no value these days. Children are protected under separate laws and benefits so they're almost completely irrelevant in the field of marriage. Marriage as it is now is and should be about protecting both parties, either when one dies or if one becomes ill and both or one requires help from the state.

Why should everyone receive the same rights when married? If a man who consented to a bona fide marriage has to look after his male partner if he were to become sick, he should receive assistance especially if both have been paying into the system. If a woman marries her girlfriend who she truly loves and they live a fruitful, happy life together and in old age one dies the remaining wife should be able to receive the same rights as an opposite sex married couple to protect their estates or interests from those who would otherwise receive beneficial interests in it.

Hopefully it becomes actual marriage rather than the mess the UK has where it still appears far from equal and fair marriage. Marriage IS marriage, it shouldn't need any qualifiers based on gender.

[AgnesIO]

So I presume you also think single/widowed parents should have their children taken off them?

Andddd we've once again come to rare occasions, like the man without legs, the woman who can't see and the boy without hands.

However, more the the point, in an ideal world there would not be a child who doesn't know their mother or father - is it therefore right that we create a life where they have no chance of ever having one of those two figures?

[The Don]

Andddd we've once again come to rare occasions, like the man without legs, the woman who can't see and the boy without hands.

However, more the the point, in an ideal world there would not be a child who doesn't know their mother or father - is it therefore right that we create a life where they have no chance of ever having one of those two figures?

Single parents are rare? Don't be so ridiculous, there are nearly two million of them in the UK http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540974/Britain-fourth-highest-number-single-parents-EU.html
If a mother and father are so necessary for raising a child that you would deny a gay couple the ability to adopt and raise one, then surely you also agree that single/widowed parents shouldn't be able to raise children. Well done for dodging the question though.

Good news anyway, I was pretty shocked at the result. I thought it would have been a less decisive victory.

[GommeInc]

I think children who were abandoned by their biological parents would rather feel the loving, caring and warm hug from a couple acting as a parent irrespective of their sexuality than be and feel alone.

[AgnesIO]

Single parents are rare? Don't be so ridiculous, there are nearly two million of them in the UK http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540974/Britain-fourth-highest-number-single-parents-EU.html
If a mother and father are so necessary for raising a child that you would deny a gay couple the ability to adopt and raise one, then surely you also agree that single/widowed parents shouldn't be able to raise children. Well done for dodging the question though.

Good news anyway, I was pretty shocked at the result. I thought it would have been a less decisive victory.

I knew perfectly well you would bring up that statistic. Of those 2m, how many of them NEVER see their mother or father? I have many friends with single parents, all but one still love both of their parents very much.

Additionally, I highly doubt that those single parents had their children intending to be single.

----

As I've already said, even if we ignore children for a moment, to me marriage is still between a man and a woman.

So, what are your views on polygamy?

[The Don]

I knew perfectly well you would bring up that statistic. Of those 2m, how many of them NEVER see their mother or father? I have many friends with single parents, all but one still love both of their parents very much.

Additionally, I highly doubt that those single parents had their children intending to be single.

----

As I've already said, even if we ignore children for a moment, to me marriage is still between a man and a woman.

So, what are your views on polygamy?

Intention is completely irrelevant. Surely the development of the child is all that's important in these situations, not whether or not their father/mother intended to drop dead or run off with the milkman to spain. Either having both a mother and father are incredibly important aspects of childhood development in which case single parents should have their children put up for adoption so the child isn't harmed by the absence of one of their parents, or clearly having both a mother and father are not as important as you are suggesting and simply having a loving parent/parents (irrespective of sexuality, as GommeInc; put it) who can provide for the child is all that matters.

[AgnesIO]

Intention is completely irrelevant. Surely the development of the child is all that's important in these situations, not whether or not their father/mother intended to drop dead or run off with the milkman to spain. Either having both a mother and father are incredibly important aspects of childhood development in which case single parents should have their children put up for adoption so the child isn't harmed by the absence of one of their parents, or clearly having both a mother and father are not as important as you are suggesting and simply having a loving parent/parents (irrespective of sexuality, as @GommeInc (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=2339); put it) who can provide for the child is all that matters.

I think they are important, yes. I would not say they are incredibly important, or the absolute necessity. The Daily Mail article you posted backed up my point that having two parents is better than one. Tell an orphan that having parents doesn't really matter, as people still love them - they still wish they knew their biological parents. Tell a kid who's never met his dad - very often they will want to know them (unless the other parent has bad mouthed them for 15 years).

Biological parents are important to children, I have seen this first hand. I've read diaries of children who are not that fortunate; suggesting that it isn't important is laughable.

---

Once again, I bring my point back to it isn't just about children. Although you (being a total hypocrite) seem to be exceptionally good at ignoring my questions, despite claiming I was doing that.

What are your views on polygamy? I hope you support it.

[GommeInc]

I think they are important, yes. I would not say they are incredibly important, or the absolute necessity. The Daily Mail article you posted backed up my point that having two parents is better than one. Tell an orphan that having parents doesn't really matter, as people still love them - they still wish they knew their biological parents. Tell a kid who's never met his dad - very often they will want to know them (unless the other parent has bad mouthed them for 15 years).

Biological parents are important to children, I have seen this first hand. I've read diaries of children who are not that fortunate; suggesting that it isn't important is laughable.

---

Once again, I bring my point back to it isn't just about children. Although you (being a total hypocrite) seem to be exceptionally good at ignoring my questions, despite claiming I was doing that.

What are your views on polygamy? I hope you support it.
You seem to think the option that all children will have a biological parent available exists. What if their parents are both dead? What if their mother did not want and does not want them, or their father?

Also, adopted parents are parents. It's in the title. You just twisted his words a bit too much to make a point. One parent or two is good, and many children just want to be loved. Children are difficult to interpret - where they say they want one thing can be easily substituted by another. So ideally they would want their biological parent(s), but many are happy adopted by other couple irrespective of sex.

So why must it strictly be between a man and a woman?

Polygamy is impractical in the confines of westernised marriage. A contract between two people is manageable. Adding an extra person in the equation makes it difficult.

[FlyingJesus]

It would not be the two females biological child

Do you then oppose step-parenting too? Someone who is willing and able to love and care for a child should be allowed to, and your views seem to be very inconsistent - you're making the claim that biological matching is important, but also have said that you support adoption. Either you think biology alone makes one a parent or you support all types of adoptive parenting, you can't just pick and choose based on "dem r gay tho"


Polygamy doesn't affect me personally.. is that cool, too?

Yeah if everyone involved is fully in consent of the situation


As I've already said, even if we ignore children for a moment, to me marriage is still between a man and a woman.

But you can't ignore children in the equation when your entire reason for opposing gay marriage is because of some spiel about the "family unit"

[AgnesIO]

You seem to think the option that all children will have a biological parent available exists. What if their parents are both dead? What if their mother did not want and does not want them, or their father?

Also, adopted parents are parents. It's in the title. You just twisted his words a bit too much to make a point. One parent or two is good, and many children just want to be loved. Children are difficult to interpret - where they say they want one thing can be easily substituted by another. So ideally they would want their biological parent(s), but many are happy adopted by other couple irrespective of sex.

So why must it strictly be between a man and a woman?

Polygamy is impractical in the confines of westernised marriage. A contract between two people is manageable. Adding an extra person in the equation makes it difficult.

Children with no parents are extremely unfortunate in these instances, and they almost always wish it wasn't the case. They wish they knew their biological parents. Just like Steve Jobs did as an adopted child - the difference being Steve could meet his parents, orphans cannot.

I am not denying that they can be happy with adoptive parents; but it certainly is not ideal.

I believe there are things that a male role model provides, and the same for a female. The mix is good.

"makes it difficult" is not particularly detailed. What do you mean 'makes it difficult'?

Once again, I see a male and female adoptive couple as different to a same-sex adoptive couple.

Regarding the bit in bold; I'm not a ******* idiot.

- - - Updated - - -


Do you then oppose step-parenting too? Someone who is willing and able to love and care for a child should be allowed to, and your views seem to be very inconsistent - you're making the claim that biological matching is important, but also have said that you support adoption. Either you think biology alone makes one a parent or you support all types of adoptive parenting, you can't just pick and choose based on "dem r gay tho"

Yeah if everyone involved is fully in consent of the situation

But you can't ignore children in the equation when your entire reason for opposing gay marriage is because of some spiel about the "family unit"

I suspect your views on polygamy will not be supported by the rest of the 'perfect world' users on here.

Also, I can pick and choose. There is a difference between a same-sex couple and a mixed couple.

My 'entire reason' isn't about children, it just makes a part of my argument. Marriage to me is between man and woman, children or no children.

[GommeInc]

I am not denying that they can be happy with adoptive parents; but it certainly is not ideal.

I believe there are things that a male role model provides, and the same for a female. The mix is good.

"makes it difficult" is not particularly detailed. What do you mean 'makes it difficult'?

Once again, I see a male and female adoptive couple as different to a same-sex adoptive couple.

Regarding the bit in bold; I'm not a ******* idiot.
Why? So you would prefer they were left to fend for themselves or left in some sort of children's home?

A stable family environment is surely better irrespectively of whose home it is.

Simple. What happens when the marriage breaks down? Who gets what assets out of the breakdown of the marriage? How would you protect the others in the marriage(s)? How can the state provide state assistance to so many people, as are the benefits of a marriage? It would be logistically impossible for a council to set aside funds to support a person in more than one marriage as they may receive too much from the state. Marriage certificates will become over-complicated, as would death certificates and accompanying information (which usually rambles on about marriages/partners). The system has been adapted for monogamy and changing it would not be worth while when you could just have mistresses - which are a western thing.

Why? You fail to provide answers and instead opt for story telling.

Bit in bold: Then provide answers to avoid looking like one.

[FlyingJesus]

Also, I can pick and choose. There is a difference between a same-sex couple and a mixed couple.

You should probably note actual reasons when you make claims like these, otherwise it really does just revert to those "just because" arguments that have absolutely no basis in anything

[Alysha]

Obviously my opinion on this matter is biased, but I hate it when people link homosexuality to incest or polygamy. It's all very different.

I am pleased with this result, I know a few people from uni actually flew back to vote because they were proud to vote yes.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Obviously my opinion on this matter is biased, but I hate it when people link homosexuality to incest or polygamy. It's all very different.

But as long as they love eachother why does it matter to you... as opponents of SSM are always told.

[FlyingJesus]

Similar arguments being used for two things does not make those things equal or even necessarily comparable

[-:Undertaker:-]

Similar arguments being used for two things does not make those things equal or even necessarily comparable

Not yet.

[FlyingJesus]

What