Ireland set to legalise same-sex marriage

[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/arti...arents-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; 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.