Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
HAVING RED HAIR is something distinctively Irish, as we have one of the highest frequencies of people having red hair in the world at 10 to 30 per cent.
As that percentage suggests, not everyone has it — and those that do are not guaranteed to have redheaded children.
Reports circulated in the middle of the last decade, using a National Geographic article as a source, that redheads were dying out and could be extinct by the end of the century. This spread like wildfire and it is still a common belief, despite the fact that National Geographic never actually wrote an article on that topic.
So are they really dying out?
Recessive gene
To look at this, we must look at the genetics. The MC1R gene, which causes people to have red hair, pale skin, and freckles, is classed as “recessive”. If you studied Biology for the Leaving Cert, alarm bells are going off in your head right now.
Genes can be either dominant or recessive, and decide different attributes. In the GIF below, the Y is the dominant gene, and y the recessive gene.
Say that Y is what makes someone a brunette. It’s dominant, so its characteristics override that of the y, which we’ll say is the redhead gene.
Two of the possible offspring won’t display characteristics of a redhead, but will still carry the gene.
The only way they will definitely display all of the characteristics is if they have two copies of y, like the green pea below (Why are they peas, you ask? There is a reason).
(Watch full video here. Image Credit: Ted-Ed/YouTube)
Dr Anne Parle-McDermott, a DCU Genetics lecturer who you might recognise from Angela Scanlon‘s documentary Oi Ginger!, explained to TheJournal.ie that people tend to assume that because a gene is recessive, it’s likely to die out.
However, this is not how genes work. In fact, a lot of people are carrying the gene, which could crop up if they have children, or when their children have children.
Either every redhead would have to not reproduce for them to die out, or, as Dr Parle-McDermott explained, environmental factors would cause either a mutation or natural selection:
Unless there is some disadvantage in the environment we’re living in, they won’t be selection against the MC1R gene.
Right now, your hair colour doesn’t make too much of a difference to how well you can survive on Earth, so redheads are safe for now.
Is there a myth you’d like debunked? Email nicky@thejournal.ie
You have 2 admit when it comes to misleading posters, Labour are expert!
Two?
Dunno, that FG poster – “Vote Yes for Jobs” is up there.
Joan Bruton makes me want to vomit. Sorry this is off topic.
Diphenhydramine might be of some benefit.
Yes David but what ages saying here is true.
What she “is saying” I mean. Autocorrect
Think it was the Lisbon Treaty in fact.
Fine Gael – Vote YES for Jobs…
Jesus wept.
You do not need to be an expert at bull, all you really need is to be able to talk without thinking and any dumb sod can do that. What you really need for people to believe the bull you are speaking is yes people, kissy bottom like, stamina and those after your job?
Remember the story about the Emperors new clothes?
Deborah Behan
Not at all, bang on target, hope fully Joan will spare us her sad and demeaning election posters at the next GE.
Have some compassion for the voters Joan, DON’T RUN IN THE NEXT GE>
She would certainly know sad and demeaning from looking at the mirror!
I have just decided to switch from voting yes to no after seeing these two p****s
Joan…is that an iPhone I saw ya with on the telly??
Who gives a f@uck what joan burton thinks….. Really?
Some say she is Bruce Jenner
Agreed but on this one she is right .
Nearly as bad as Vote yes for Lisbon , Yes for Jobs .
Shitbags the lot of them .
Would diphenhydramine kill her, Tap?
I’d have gone with cyanide, but it might not be necessary once her constituents remove her from the Dáil.
The purpose in voting Yes on the 22nd May is to enable same couples marry each other, nothing more and nothing less.
The Referendum is not about Labour of FG. The Referendum is not about children, fathers rights or about supposed new world order conspiracies. The Referendum is about same sex marriage.
A vote 4 fg ff labour is a vote 4 cheap labour https://youtu.be/27UL3tZW1bk
Labour traitors bankers lap dogs thats all they are. there using the referendum as a way of keeping our eyes off the real problems in Ireland.Labour you suck._.
Anthony Lang
Er, NO, actually its about changing the constitution, and as a consequence the laws pertaining to marriage and child welfare.
You would be better off explaining to the voters why this agenda is being pushed in every banker/corporate country in the world and, why those countries that say NO are attacked. As happened in Russia when they introduced laws to protect children and stop foreign adoptions.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2013/s3794616.htm
You are asking the Irish people to believe that the propaganda campaign run to change society, the bearded lady winning the Eurovision, the mass media campaign are normal, that anyone that notices this are talking about conspiracies, your fooling no one.
This joint venture by the government and LGBT, must be recognised for what it is, a joint venture, like the government, you are trying to fool the people, lgbt has made it bed with the government, now they must lay in it.
This is politics! It’s never straight forward, the message is simplified to all but not to the intellectual it is more complex , go read what rights come with the Union of marriage…
My 15 year old daughter asked me about the ‘No poster’ with a baby on it, when we were in the car yesterday. I told her it was about the hay marriage referendum, she thought it was about abortion. Gave us a few minutes to chat before we got home. She asked what I was voting and I told her I would vote YES and she said if she could vote she would vote YES too.
I really don’t see what kids have to do with it. A child is born gay/straight not made gay/straight by parents. As long as the child is loved and nurtured it doesn’t matter what sex the parent/s are.
I’m very confident the YES vote will win.
Lily doesn’t see what kids have to do with it after using her child to try to manipulate sentiment as well as highlighting the influence parents have on children’s views on the world. Quite an argument how children need a male and female mother and father, and the unique special influence of having a female and male in that child’s life.
I don’t see what your child has to do with it…..
I think I would have been better off without my father in my life. I wouldn’t have had the horrid upbringing I had. Constantly in fear.
@Lasair
Care to tell me exactly what unique qualities a mother brings into the upbringing of children that can’t be brought by a father and vice versa?
Lily
So do you think we should devise a state which abandons the ideal, because of personal cases. Or should we have the state uphold the ideal while trying to support and make a society where people finding themselves in the non-ideal situation or circumstances have a proper community of family, friends and neighbours who are supportive and there for them? The ideal of what is best for children should always be held by the state, while helping and supporting those whose conditions depart from the ideal. I think you would ideally want every child to have a good Mom and Dad, we both know life doesn’t always work that way, but it shouldn’t stop us wanting it for all children and wanting the state to strive for that.
You have Rio Ferdinand who lost his wife at the weekend. Those 3 kids the youngest being just 4 years old, no longer have a mother. But they will be loved by their father. You have all these single mothers and fathers who raise their kids. So personally I think as long as the child is loved, cared for and nurtured, they will be a happy kid. Doesn’t matter if they have 2 dads and 2 moms, or just 2 dads or 2 moms, 1 dad and 1 mom or 1 dad or 1 mom or any other variation you can throw in. Its all about how the child is loved and treated. You have dads who let their daughters paint their nails, and mothers who play soccer with their sons.
As for my daughter – that was really to point out the poster could mean anything.
If you think men and women are not different, then I cannot help you Larissa, men and women bring to a child a different way of being or essence. For instance, girls get a lot of their self esteem from their Dads and how their Dads treat them. If a girl is treated badly, or ignored by her father, she will usually end up with abusive mysoginistic “bad boy” men, always seeking their approval and attention, which does not happen in the girl/mother dynamic.
Lily
But the kids had a mother and a father, a mum and dad influence in their lives. But not only that, Rio is heterosexual and brings a heterosexual fatherly influence into their lives, even had they never known their mother, they would have had that heterosexual male essence in their lives which is completely different to a homosexual male/male upbringing or influence. So we are not talking about a single parent. Single parents who are heterosexual still bring an experience of the heterosexual world to the child, thus the child still gets the idea of what a heterosexual male experience is therefore understanding of what the female hetersosexual experience is, also are we going to say that it is ideal that all children or any children should be brought up by a single parent, is that the ideal we should strive for? No, it is not ok and children deserve 2 parents and a Mum and Dad, this is the ideal we should try to emulate and achieve for all, and failing that, then the society should be able to have communities of people who care and support and are neighbourly towards those who depart from the ideal as in the case of single parents.
*misogynistic
My mother was loved by her dad, they got on great and were very close. Yet she went for bad boys. My dad being a very bad boy.
I didn’t feel loved by my dad as a kid. I married a golden boy. I’ve never dated a bad boy or fell for one.
So from personal experience I can’t agree with your statement.
Lily these are your personal experiences you relate, you are lucky, but in general what I described is the case, one need only look around the western world to see families born into dysfunctional families, absent father, with their daughters repeating the pattern. And we must base legislation on what the general case is and how detrimental to society known patterns are. In America the case of black women being single Mums and the black fathers having run off etc is well known and has led to much dysfunctional behaviour in black communities, that is not the ideal and the state should never try to depart from striving to achieve the ideal for everyone.
Lily
That comment has no substance, for advocating same sex marriage, you could end up with two fathers.
I’m gay and a parent to 3 amazing kids
Larissa
I never said that, I have talked about what is ideal, I have never said for example a single parent would not make a great parent, but does that mean a child does not deserve a Mum and Dad, of course it does. Of course there are single parents of homosexual people who make great parents just as there are those who make awful parents, but in terms of legislation, we must always think of children and future children and we must all, always put our own needs 2nd to what is best for children. The state should always adopt the position that it wants the ideal for the upbringing of our children, and that is that we want every child to have a Mum and Dad, every child deserves a Mum and Dad and that is in the best interests of the child, not the wishlist of homosexual adults. Life may depart from this ideal and best interest, and where it does, the state should be crafted so that we have a society supports and is there for the people not in the ideal situation, whether that be the extended family, friends and community being a proper community of care. But the state should always strive for the ideal and for what is in the best interests of the child above the wishes of any other group first.
could have ended up with two loving fathers. It wasn’t because he was a man that was the issue. Its because he was an as#hole.
*single parents OR homosexual people who make great parents
@Lasair
You know that the wishes of the parents are the last thing that has any influence on whether they’re allowed to adopt a child.
And in any case, it’s a moot point to argue about as it has nothing to do with the referendum and has already been legislated for in tfe children and family bill.
I understand fully Lily, but again, I am talking about what children need in terms of the ideal, what they should have. You should have had a loving Mum and Dad, before having a single parent or before having 2 loving males. I never said the issue was to do with males. I said the ideal is having a Mum and Dad a male and a female in the life of that child. Not 2 males or 2 females which cannot and simply are not the same as a child having a loving male and a loving female. 2 loving males can never provide what a loving female provides and 2 loving females can never provide what a loving male provides, that is simply a fact, while they can all provide love, the intrinsic differences, experiences and influences or essences of a male and female are still there, still exists.
Lasair, if you think a person’s parenting, home making, and life abilities are defined by their sex organs, no one can help you.
People are individuals not genders and can’t be so neatly placed in boxes.
Larissa
I am sure no adoptive parents go in announcing what their wishes are. However the very fact that some homosexuals want to deny a child in general terms the duty of the state to strive to have a Mum and Dad for all children by relinquishing that stance in it’s constitution, is de facto putting the needs of the child secondary to the wishlist of some (because it is not all) homosexual adults. As marriage is inextricably linked to the welfare of children, regardless whether some numbers of couples want children or not, marriage historically, in general terms and for practical everyday considerations for the vast majority is all about the upholding of a protective and nurturing environment where little human beings come into existence and are ideally, hopefully given at least that hope and state aspiration of security.
Carol
Once again and to repeat myself, I never said that, go and read the comments, this is the same twisting of things from the yes side.
Lily, if you said no, your child would have said that as well. Because she is your daughter and a passing thought all marriage have an effect on children, all you have to do is look at the destruction divorce has on children to see that effect?
Larissa
Bottom of the barrel stuff. I am not homophobic. The sentence you cite does not show that either. When someone says “some” homosexuals they clearly make a distinction between ALL and clearly know that is not the desire of ALL homosexuals, thus I do not attribute that to ALL homosexuals. You clearly do not know what I am talking about, the other points in your comment were addressed many times by me, I show how children are in fact the whole point in this referendum because they are the whole historic point and why marriage came into being as explained elsewhere and further explained when someone else said marriage did not come into being because of children. I suggest Larissa that when you are no longer able to tolerate arguments you were not able to counter in the first place, that you do not resort to insult and the homophobic card.
Lasiar, I understood you perfectly. I just think you’re talking dog poo.
Vote yes to allow gay couples to have their relationship and commitment protected and to enshrine the civil partnership provisions in the constitution. Civil partnership can be too easily changed in legislation and this is not fair to gay couples.
The children piece is relevant, as I have tried to explain in previous blogs, but probably not statistically significant. Vote yes for equal celebration and treatment of all permanent sexual relationships.
Funny that Michael. My husband is voting No (she is well aware of why he is voting No and this was discussed between them before she saw the poster). She makes up her own mind, she is very opinionated, which has been mentioned to us by her teachers and has got her in trouble a few times. She was raised to speak her mind and have her say.
I had a nice little chat with my 8yr old boy the other day .
He is in favour of two people of the same sex that are in love marrying -but not in favour of them adopting ..The reason he gave for this was that the child would be bullied ..
T’was interesting to hear it from a young child’s perspective !
Your personal experience is not the norm
Kids have been bullied by other kids since the dawn of time. Gay parents can go on the list that includes specky, ginger, fat, short, tall, thick, swot etc
So anything different from them?
Corkboi do you think your son was right? And if so, doesnt that just mean we should do more to make kids more accepting rather than trample on rights to accommodate bullies?
Children to teens are influenced more by people around them in their opinions than anything else and that is a fact.
Carol
No, you didn’t have a clue what was being explained or conveyed that was evident in your reply.
Heartwarming Lily thank you for sharing………yawn yawn yawn
Lasair you sound exactly like eire warning. And you ignore the fact that same sex couples are already parents and because of the child and family relationships act are legally on par with a married heterosexual couple in terms of applying to adopt. One doesn’t need to marry to have children.So by voting no you will not stop same sex couples raising children. A yes vote on the other hand will afford protections and recognition to children being raised by same sex couples. That is how a yes vote will benefit children as well as benefiting all lgbt children. A no vote will negatively impact on those children. It will not impact any others. Bringing children into this debate is disingenuous as we are not being asked for our opinion on same sex parenting and our vote will have no impact on it. We can only allow or refuse same sex couples access to civil marriage. That is all. Can you say how even one child will be helped directly by the no campaign or by a majority no in the referendum?
Depends on who their parents are,Dell-and what kind of person that the young child is ..
My young lad is very sensitive so I didn’t push my own personal feelings onto him ..Just found it interesting ..
Daisy- I know only too well that there is different types of school bullies ..This came from an eight year old and I respected what he said. After all – he’s the ‘young’ lad in the playground .
Lasair.
Already pointed out to you that marriage need not have children to be considered family for the purpose of Article 41.
This is the ruling of the courts. This is the way Irish law stands right now.
If – as you assert, marriage was inextricably linked to children then fertility tests would be required when registering your intent to marry. They are not.
And now you’re using the gender stereotype argument about parenting. The American Psychological Association disagree with you, and unlike you – they’re the relevant authority on the subject.
When a man and a woman enter a marriage they now do so as equals, the woman is no longer her husbands property. By seeking to base your exclusions on marriage on these perceived notions of “essences” (I had told Eire Warning that energies made them sound airy fairy – and would you look at that, I’m not the only one noticing your similarities) you seek to reinforce these gender types of marriage – ones which do not reflect the equality men and women strive for.
You are in effect claiming that a man cannot make a good homemaker and a woman cannot be the breadwinner. Something proven wrong daily.
None of which is of course relevant to marriage – which doesn’t cast a legal requirement to procreate or be capable of doing so.
I really do not understand your logically view that a mother and father is ideal for a child and two males or females is not ideal.Perhaps this is your opinion as it is evident that you have no supportive factual evidence to back up the claim you have made.Do tell me exactly why (with evidence) two males or two females do not fall into the category of being “ideal”?
I personally know a gay couple with one child and I tell you something that child was brought up with love,affection and a good atmosphere.He is now married with two children with his wife and is quite successful.Of course this is one case.
In this referendum,I will be voting a yes as it is about time.Also I have witnessed the argument that children of gay couples get bullied.Ironic because children of heterosexual get bullied as well (witnessed this and also for evidence ask a school teacher).The bullies reflect on their parents view of people (children learn from their parents) and if this is changed,there be no bullying.
Finally,I know a lot of LGBT youth look at the journal.ie and will be taken a back by the ignorance of people.Not everyone is as ignorant,a lot of people support you.Its perfectly okay to be gay,bisexual,transgender,lesbian and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
It is already legal for a single person to adopt. The mother/father issue isn’t even relevant.
You lost me at hay , you sad bot .
Troll alert .
Lasair I see you mentioned Black marriages. Do you object to them marrying too?
@Lasair: Ideals? Many once regarded a white father and white mother as ideal. It was enshrined in law in many countries. Ideals must be questioned and very often do not fare well with the passing of time. Your ideal belongs in the wife-chained-to-sink era. Some hetero marriages are abusive, yet as long as they fit your narrow view of the word, they are ideal. You and your ilk uphold a world order wherein children were abused with impunity. Is it then any surprise that you misuse the notion of children’s needs to prolong the life of that gasping, flogged horse that you call an ideal Ireland? Let us bury this shameful and cruel world. Vote YES.
The Nazis regarded marriage between “Aryans” and Jews as falling short of their racial “ideals”. Thats why they banned it in the Nuremburg Laws.
Shanti
The whole idea of marriage when it came into existence was about a relationship that went a long ways to protect the children by ensuring both parents focussed getting resources and putting toward their offspring, which by default means a far more concentrated effort of support for those offspring, marriage was always about passing on in far better measure the protection and nurture to the offspring ensuring they had a better chance. Thus marriage was always about children first and foremost, change the idea of marriage, the ability of 2 human beings to create another out of their love and whom their creation is inextricable linked and you change how we view and treat children as a whole, even adopted children.
Yes I read Eirewarnings comments, as stated previously I agreed and thought he/she made very poignant points. I think their point about male and female ‘energies’ is apt, although I call it influences or essence. I think energy is perhaps even more apt and accurate. I am surprised you would have a problem with that word seeing as you speak of karma coming back to hurt those who hurt homosexuals. So energies do exist, I will be using that word myself from now on, male and female energies, yes quite proper to speak of it as such.
Oh, the whole idea of marriage when it came into existence was about children was it?
So how come they allowed same sex marriage back then?
The Ancient Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans all had same sex marriage. Imperial China did too. And the tribespeople of the Americas and Australasia never really ditched the tradition of honouring the diversity of human experience and love.
It’s only relatively recently in the grand scheme of history that marriage became about children. I’m sorry – but history doesn’t corroborate your assertions.
If anything history shows that marriage was largely a property transaction. The wife being included in that property – in fact, most of the laws that rendered a wife as property took a long time to be repealed in this country. Spousal rape has only been a crime for 25 years.
As a matter of fact, even the current case law does not suggest that children are required for marriage, so I’m addition to your understanding being based upon no more than your ideals – it’s even out of sync with the matter we are being asked to debate. Which is the union of two people under the banner of family when previously they were strangers before the law.
Children are not included in this part of the equation, the laws pertaining to parenting, adoption, guardianship, fostering etc are all covered in other parts of legislation which is unaffected by this amendment.
And I’m not in the least bit surprised you agree with Eire Warning, like I said. All of your arguments are the exact same with only slight tweaks to the grammar.
Hence why myself and others have been led to believe you are one and the same.
To a degree but most psychologists say that homophobia starts in the home. They pick it up from a parent.
Shanti
This is interesting, so now we are having to be diverted away from the marriage argument for yet another yes side “we are all the same person” diversionary ploy.
In general in the journal articles so far, the no side have not resorted to name-calling or this latest cynical ploy of saying the no commentors here are more than one person. I find it pathetic that the yes side who keep bleating that the no side have no argument are themselves main culprits to resort to name-calling and underhand ploys. Just when the yes side are no longer able to cope with the arguments against them, they come out shouting nazi, homophobe, bigot, and “you are all the same person”. I find this behaviour in the face of taking down no posters, having virtually the whole media onside, having the leftist journal push ‘yes’ propaganda articles, while ‘yes’ propagandists here disingenuously proclaim to denounce the poster pullers, this is truly astonishing stuff and not surprising at all.
People could easily have laid the same accusation about the yes campaign, that Anthony, Shanti, Liberte et Equalité, Dell, Irish Druid, Demise Grad were all the same person and sounded exactly the same. They seem to make the same points, some make great pains to point out their victimhood status or afflictions they have, or how they experienced persecution. People could have made claims these personal accounts were part of a cynical ploy to garner sympathy for the yes side.
But no, the no side have stuck to trying to make their arguments and points, while it has been the preserve of the yes side to name-call, slander, attempt to divert away from no arguments, attempts to stop and stifle debate, false accusations of homophobe, bigot, nazi, being other or the same people. Insincere offers of apology on making such accusations as they continue with same behaviour later on. Unsurprising loathsome behaviour and antics, unworthy of any parent whatever side of the debate you are on.
If this is the currency of behaviour the yes side have to offer, then this is truly not where we want our society to go.
Ok..
Let’s see.. We have had Gerard calling homosexuals “deviant” and claiming that they’re trying to assert world dominance.
Tony Kilduff comparing them to bestialists and paedophiles.
David Fitzpatrick reckoned all gay people were child snatchers, right from the womb as well..
We’ve had all manner of people here claim that homosexuals are “sick”, “wrong”, “unnatural”, “perverted”, “selfish” etc.
And that’s just here.
John Waters reckons the lgbt community don’t actually want marriage, they just wanna ruin it for everyone else. Breda O Brien tried to compare marriage equality to incest..
And yet it’s the no side who are being bullied. Are they being “forced into a closet” like poor aul Breda?
I reckoned you may have been Eire Warning because your argument style was extremely similar. So I was at least dealing with the argument put forth. Have I tried to tell you that you are somehow less of a person?
Because that’s what arguing for a no vote does. It says you are worth less than me because I’m heterosexual. I’m not willing to say that to my gay friends and family. Clearly some are, and yet they think they’re being victimised for wishing to do so.
Shanti
And here we still are, down the diversion you not only opened up but are keeping up. And we’re talking about the no commentors here. In general it is true to say the yes side have behaved deplorably. I could easily make the same comment that your argument style is very similar to Anthony, Liberte et Equalité, Dell, Irish Druid, Demise Grad or others, even the fact the same individuals have described their own personal lives as leverage points to manipulate sentiment, is something similar to some of those individuals, but I have never said you are all the same person, it can never be proved, so is always a retrograde attempt at diversion in the face of stronger argument.
“People could easily have laid the same accusation about the yes campaign, that Anthony, Shanti, Liberte et Equalité, Dell, Irish Druid, Demise Grad were all the same person and sounded exactly the same. They seem to make the same points, some make great pains to point out their victimhood status or afflictions they have, or how they experienced persecution. People could have made claims these personal accounts were part of a cynical ploy to garner sympathy for the yes side. ”
You are free to keep up the diversion tactics.
The no side always bring up children in votes on moral issues in a cynical and damaging way. “Hello Divorce Bye Bye Daddy” being another example. The sky hasn’t fallen since divorcs was introduced
tell that to the kids who’s parents have divorced
Jason, I’m sure it would have been much better for the children’s wellbeing if Mammy and Daddy stayed together, hating each other, maybe being violent to each other. The good old catholic way, eh?
Irish Druid
Maybe not for you, the sky would not fall without this useless referendum either.
Who is.
Doesn’t lighten the damage done Daisy. Nothing to do with religion.
So, just keep ticking along then Jason?
So your logic Jason is stay together just for the sake of the kids. It doesn’t matter if a couple have grown apart, constantly fight have no life together but just put on a happy side for the sake of the children? Do you think that this is a healthy relationship that the kids should be in the middle of? If you do your deluded!!
Fake Avast, if a parent is abusive then the spouse has every right to divorce them and the child is consequently spared the abuse also.
Some politicians have damaged themselves beyond repair and should quietly await their retirement.
priceless coming from a woman who used childrens allowances as weapon to pay bond holders
That doesn’t make her comments on the referendum any less true. People really need to separate their dislike for the government from this referendum and just focus on exactly what is being asked.
Dylan
Her credibility is zilch.
She is not the type of person that you would want representing or supporting you.
If they really want to help the Yes campaign they should stay away from it.Their credibility is shot.
Glen, Joan and her ilk dont represent me..I’m voting yes because of my own opinion on the matter. After May 23rd they’ll just jump on the next populist issue…but a leopard never changes its spots
Glenn
Without pensions.
Course they are. They’re using whatever they can get their hands on. Seems any old red herring will do for the ‘no’ side.
Red Herring with a side order of Cheese and Whine.
Sour Grapes for afters.
Joan Burton is a weapon.
More like water ballon shield.
A toxic one
How dare they she says having cut child benefit.
Reading your comment hurts my head.
Different issue, Alan.
Not really a different issue, after the first water protest herself and endas immediate offence was that they’ll cut child benefit if people didn’t sign up, literally using children’s wellbeing to further their campaign
And in clarity to my above comment, I’m a yes voter, I just simply can’t ignore the blatant double standards and utter hipocracy this woman spews on a regular basis, that she thinks the government she’s in has a patent on using children as weapons
I hear what you’re saying. However, the water charges affect us all equally and is about revenue. Marriage equality is about the statutory protection of a minority as dictated by the majority.
So by that logic it’s ok to use children as weapons in certain situations….?
No, Stuart, it’s not. However, comparing the threat of a budget cut (happened to be child benefits) to using children in encouraging people to actively and specifically deny a minority group statutory protection is not one and the same thing.
Your right, it’s not one in the same. The no side (although I completely disagree with them) are using hypothetical instances that may affect a child to further their campaign, whereas enda/burton were ACTUALLY goin to affect the wellbeing of children by ACTUALLY leaving them financially threatened out of spite. So I guess your right, it’s not the same thing
I can’t believe someone trotted out water charges is a debate on marriage equality
Weapons? Are they hurling children at people?
Don’t give them any ideas.
Yes side says children being used as weapons in a statement that uses children as weapons.
“Children Deserve A Mother And Father; Vote No”
Okay, I don’t see what this has to do with the referendum seeing as it’s about equal marraige rights. Do they presume every gay couple want to adopt?
I’m not gay but I never plan to have kids so..
Doesn’t this come under advertising laws or litter laws?
The poster’s are not associated to the marraige referendum because they suggest the ‘issue’ is about adoption.
Niall tis is the whole point. From time immemorial marriage has been the basis of creating a stable unit within which to raise children.
We are not now redefining marriage, actually this was done with the Murray judgement.
So since marriage and the family is now defined as a couple regardless of children, no reason to leave gay coupes out of it and every reason to include them.
Vote yes to allow gay couples to have their relationship and commitment protected and to enshrine the civil partnership provisions in the constitution. Civil partnership can be too easily changed in legislation and this is not fair to gay couples.
The children piece is relevant, as I have tried to explain in previous blogs, but probably not statistically significant. Vote yes for equal celebration and treatment of all permanent sexual relationships.
We will have to find another way to celebrate the married mum and dad. Suggestions anyone? Church marriages methinks.
Since ‘time immemorial’ we had slavery.
Irish Druid
Since time immemorial we had mothers who gave birth to children, not all “time immemorals” are bad, anyone can name things that are traditionally bad, just as they can name what is good,
Katy points to a “time immemorial” that is good
From time immemorial marriage has been the basis of creating a stable unit within which to raise children.
She’s right but this is coming from someone who is trying to use her own adoption in an cynic attempt to garner sympathy from the electorate in what will be a disastrous election campaign for her.
in an cynic
“in an cynic” ?
It’s probably not a good idea to make grammatical errors when trying to correct somebody else’s error, you look less of cock that way especially when you type it twice and still can’t get it right.
‘you look less of cock’ ?
See you’re learning, you’re not a complete cock, good for you.
Stop drinking all day long .
No voters need to stop imposing their moral values on other people.
I don’t want their hateful morals, thanks. Send them back to the dark ages, where they belong.
@Daisy
I think they’re not even wanted in the Dark ages, because without them there wouldn’t be any Dark Ages, one can only wonder where society would be now without the crippling influence of the church during the ages.
@Larissa, you are so accepting and tolerant of other people’s beliefs and views eh! I’m intrigued to know what goes through a hypocrite’s mind when they spout their intolerant views out…….please enlighten me.
Believe what you want John but don’t impose your values on me
They are using children as weapons like seriously where was all this concern for children in foster care, unsuitable living situations and less than desirable family situations before the debates for the referendum? Exactly there was not any because they didn’t give a sh!t then and they certainly don’t now all it is a smokescreen for their discrimination.
Joan Burton you amaze me.
You seem to think that marriage is suitable to all Gays and lesbians!
Marriage is a commitment between a male and a female only!
Please do not confuse the issues which you are doing deliberately!
You are trying to deceive the Irish electorate!
Two gay men and two lesbian women cannot procreate . You cannot force any Law to do it!
Please as Tainaiste of this Country do not confuse the electorate!
Men are different to women . They cannot be the same.
Recognising difference and protecting difference is NOT discrimination.
Why does an Taoiseach and you refuse to debate the issues on TV?
Is Enda a coward?
We are voting on civil marriage not religious marriage. Marriage has been redefined many times such as legalised interracial marriage in the US
Legalised interracial marriage did not redefine the fundamental premise of marriage, which was an institution of union between a heterosexual man and woman as a fundamental protective womb (so to speak) for the protection of the potential children they would go on to create, so no, interracial marriage has nothing to do with your argument that “marriage” has been redefined. It has never been thought of, redefined or tampered with to mean the deconstruction of it’s protective function and nurturing characteristic in terms of it providing a male and female Mum and Dad in the life of the child they are parents of.
I was going to Vote No, but all of these red herrings and religious types are really putting me off, I’m still undecided, but I’m leaning toward a Yes Vote now, just to annoy the bullies. There are a lot of Soft No Voters like me that are being lost by these ridiculous posters that are being put up around the country that have nothing to do with the Referendum. I used to look up to Fred and Rose West or Joseph Fritzl as the ideal Man-Woman marriage and environment to raise a child in, but now I’m not so sure.
Marriage is constantly evolving and redefining, since the beginning of time, most recently in Ireland in ’96 with the (long overdue) introduction of divorce.
@Lasair
You may want to read this article and look at the slogans brought up against interracial marriage and compare them with what is being brought up by the No-side against marriage equality now, you may find them oddly similar.
There are also a lot of soft yes minded voters being put off by the daily in your face attitude of the yes campaign to be fair Richard, I have had a few chats on this topic with quite a few friends, and the weird thing is, even though we are mostly very very good friends and enjoy the “craic” and a pint together, both Male and Female and both Married and single, You can nearly feel the crackle of tension after some such debates.
Tis very good that our friendships are solid enough to get over it all and remain who we are, which is firm fiends with a difference of opinion.
* Friends
If marriage was about procreation then you would need to submit fertility tests when registering your intent to marry with the registrar.
If you wish to use the procreation argument then you must apply it equally or you are simply discriminating against gay people while putting a convenient excuse on top.
So. Are all childless marriages invalid? Should they be excluded from the constitution as it speaks of family?
Well no, not according to the courts, according to them, a married couple with or without children constitutes family as per article 41, Murray v Ireland 1985. http://Www.refcom2015.ie/marriage
This is the law as it stands and you are not in a position to change it. That children or the capacity to procreate is required for marriage is not a position grounded in either fact or law.
You really are obvious .
Shanti
A large part of marriage is about procreation, because love naturally leads to its expression through sex and for many the desire to be a family unit.
Self delusion for any reason can not change this, it is pure ignorance to deny it.
The birds and the bees procreate, so what makes you think that it has nothing to do with relationships ??
You are beginning to sound like something out of ” Brave new world “
Helen Lovejoy calls for a No Vote. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RybNI0KB1bg
The no side have every right and in fact it is their duty to speak about children, this debate is not about equality, it is all about children. The no side can do no other than to talk about and indeed speak up FOR children and future generations.
Marriage IS about children, you cannot cosily try to term this referendum and say, no, stop talking about children, this will never affect children, so stop talking about how this will affect them, when marriage is all about children, marriage is an institution to protect children, whether all homosexuals go on to have no children whatsoever, the point is, having changed the concept of marriage, we have now changed our expectation and view of how we affect children, the potential is there to for the complete dismemberment of the family unit – that of a child having the prime expectation to have the state expect that each and every child should have a Mum and Dad, a male and female influence in their life. When we change the nature of marriage, we are automatically changing that presumption, which means we are automatically changing our view on children, which means any change which affects children and future children, means all other considerations go out the window and this becomes a debate about children, not the wishlist of homosexual adults, any homosexual adult who does not see this, is not taking the needs of children first and should not be a parent. This is where homosexuals who are voting no, have admirably got it right.
Are you speaking for homosexual children and are you standing up for their right to be accepted at equal in our society? Are you standing up for them and saying when they grow up, they will be equal to you, that they will be afforded the same comfort, safety, and protection of marriage to the person they love and wish to spend their life with? Are you telling those children, that their children will be less, that they won’t be a family in the same sense as heterosexual kids in their class? Don’t talk nonsense about defending children unless you are defending children and not just the children that fit your notions of who is more equal than others.
Today most homosexual children are raised by heterosexual parents and as far as I can see, are doing very well if not better than the per capita ratings of heterosexual children. None of them are not accepted as equal in society and standing up for the right of marriage to be protected in terms of it’s historic and fundamental role as the nurturing womb of ALL children heterosexual or homosexual, is in fact standing up for homsexual children that is standing up for them more than the yes sides purported false aims of doing so for false aims of homsexual adult wishlist, as stated, this referendum has nothing to do with equality, it is all about children, and those who stand up for marriage are standing up more for children and more for homosexual children, who also need a Mum and Dad, need a male and female presence, influence, experience, essence in their lives. As stated todays homosexuals from hetersexual families are doing extremely well, sometimes better than heterosexual children if taken on a per capita basis.
You’re understanding of society, this entire debate, and what it means for homosexuals and their families regardless of gender is sadly abysmal.
Carol
Yes people can say what they wish, does not make it true. I could say you’re understanding of society, this entire debate, and what it means for homosexuals and their families regardless of gender is sadly abysmal, especially if my argument is utterly bankrupt.
“Article 41 pledges the State to guard with special care the institution of marriage on which the family is founded. In a number of cases, the courts have decided that the Constitutional rights which apply to the family based on marriage are not necessarily applicable to non-marital families.
The fact that a couple do not have children does not mean that they do not constitute a family in the Constitutional sense. It was decided that: “A married couple without children can properly be described as a “unit group” of society such as is referred to in Article 41 … The words used in the Article to describe the “Family” are therefore apt to describe both a married couple with children and a married couple without children.” Murray v Ireland [1985] IR 532.”
http://Www.refcom2015.ie/marriage
These are the Facts Lasair. You like to think about marriage and children being intrinsically linked – the courts have ruled you are wrong.
We are being asked to vote on a point of law, it is prudent to consider that law when being asked to vote upon it.
You also seem want to ignore the passage of the children’s referendum which places the childs rights front and centre. Plus the psychiatric and psychological professions united insistence that being raised by homosexuals does not in itself amount to a disadvantage to the childs development. You also seem to be ignoring that all the children’s advocacy groups are supporting the referendum.
Why is that?
You could say it. But you would be wrong.
If the lgbt youth are doing ok Laisar then why has the ISPCC said 20% of them have attempted suicide.
The posters from Mothers and fathers matter are irrelevant to the actual referendum …
People have the right to say “no” without continious judgement, this is a democracy something that our government doesn’t understand and dont want to understand. If people want to vote yes and people want to vote no all should be respected.
I have no respect for anyone who would attempt to legally deny another person equal human rights.
I would have even less respect for anyone that would purposely deny rights to a child to suit their own ridiculous fantasies. Frankly disgusting.
It’s downright pathetic that any Yes/No campaigners should try to involve children in their referendum choices.Reminds me of parents having a domestic quarrel and using their children as some kind of ‘human shield’ for their differences? Let common sense and equality prevail on this issue. The referendum is about marriage for all and not about proper parenting.
Why do the no side demonize surrogate mothers?
How can a referendum on marriage not effect children? Adults are the only ones with a vote but not the only ones with rights in this matter. We have to make informed decisions on what’s best for them as well as what’s best for adults. Life involves balancing our rights with those of others.
Sara, people are selfish and when they cry for equality or rights it is a lever in order to get their way. When someone wants something badly enough they do not care about others, it becomes me me me with them. Love does not work that way as in love as the person being loved matters more than the persons own desires and some can not see this?
No one has mentioned how a gay divorce would effect children, divorces has a very damaging effect on children but how will a gay divorce effect a child or the child’s siblings, this topic is not being discussed at all?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/surviving-your-childs-adolescence/201112/the-impact-divorce-young-children-and-adolescents
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/parentsandyouthinfo/parentscarers/divorceorseparation.aspx
“A child may feel:
•a sense of loss – separation from a parent can mean you lose not only your home, but your whole way of life
•different, with an unfamiliar family
•fearful about being left alone – if one parent can go, perhaps the other will do the same
•angry at one or both parents for the relationship breakdown
•worried about having caused the parental separation: guilty
•rejected and insecure
•torn between both parents.
These feelings are often made worse by the fact that many children have to move home and sometimes school when parents separate, and most families in this situation come under some financial strain, even if they did not have money worries before.
Even if the parental relationship had been very tense or violent, children may still have mixed feelings about the separation. Many children hold onto a wish that their parents may get back together.”
Gay marriage will have an effect on children and a gay divorce will have a greater effect.
So what about children of gay couples who get bullied by other children for having gay parents as that will happen. Then how can people say then that gay marriage has no effect on children as other children can be cruel as can people in general?
divorce has the same implications matter if you are homosexual or heterosexual i personally think staying together is worse for all involved, i am not sure you seem to have a problem with the family law and divorce and equality. this is what you say about equality people are selfish and when they cry for equality or rights it is a lever in order to get their way. divorce will still have the same implications for children because that is the law it won;t change if two men/woman get married, adoption will still be the same if two men/women get married because that is the law. you need to lobby the government for change on both issues as you feel strongly about this as for equality now your just going to have to put up with that, do you not think that the children you so heartily protest for deserve equality in our society i do. as for bullies there are plenty of bullies around to day and bully children for having the wrong foot wear so bullying is a big issue for every reason your mas ugly your das a drunk bla bla it will always happen. it won;t just start on the 22 may.
But homosexual and heterosexual relationships are not the same as the clue is in the names of homosexual and heterosexual when it comes to structure, biology, evolution, experience, psychology, social issues, society, history, experience and familiarity in society of it.
The biology argument doesn’t work when it’s an infertile couple or an old one. I know it might be news to some but marriage is about love.
Article 41 pledges the State to guard with special care the institution of marriage on which the family is founded. In a number of cases, the courts have decided that the Constitutional rights which apply to the family based on marriage are not necessarily applicable to non-marital families.
The fact that a couple do not have children does not mean that they do not constitute a family in the Constitutional sense. It was decided that: “A married couple without children can properly be described as a “unit group” of society such as is referred to in Article 41 … The words used in the Article to describe the “Family” are therefore apt to describe both a married couple with children and a married couple without children.” Murray v Ireland [1985] IR 532.
http://Www.refcom2015.ie/marriage
This is why the referendum is not about children. That and the fact that we had a referendum on children, which inserts their own rights into the constitution.
Marriage doesn’t require children to be considered family under the constitution. Therefore being unable to procreate is not a valid barrier to marriage.
Ok Sara but the Children already being raised by gay couples have to be considered too. Because the unrelated civil partner of their natural or adoptive parent is not next if kin, he/she dies not have hospital visitation rights. I am concerned that without marriage equality, that a breaved civil partner would not have child custody, leading to the child being put into what passes for our care system.
Well she would say that, wouldn’t she.
For all of you YES voters out there, especially those of you under twenty five, who value keeping an open mind, this video is one I would encourage you to submit your resolve to. I think it is especially beneficial if you are under twenty five. Even if you don’t agree with the message, the story is more than worth the effort of looking at.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=A4iqhU24phs
Paddy Manning is obnoxious and aggressive, he was the only person who brought the tone of the debate on The Late Late down, up until that point it had been extremely civil, and while I do not agree with Keith Mills or Petra Conroy (neither of whom were in any way convincing), I came away with a new respect for Mr. Mills in particular, he carried himself well. Manning on the other hand has a seriously bad attitude, and loses his argument every time with his intimidating body language and shouting, not a good example. Also, Manning wasn’t raised by two gay parents, but this young 19 year old was, so I think he’s someone that those under 25 and upwards also should listen to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMLZO-sObzQ
Mannings website describes him as Catholic. Is religion influencing him? He mentioned some time ago being gaybashed. I think Manning is conditioned by these experienced to want to keep gays in the shadows instead of living their lives as equal citizens. I recommend counselling for self loathing.
Richard Cheney
Considering it was two against one, he did very well.
I would find it very hard to support anything Burton. White and Shatter agree with. But will have to do a doublethink on the day and vote Yes.
Labour complaining about misleading the people… Frankfurt’s way or our way, what a joke… Then there is the Property charge, Bondholders being paid what they lost but with a billion extra, water charges, USC, LIFETIME COMMUNITY RATING, New bin charges by weight in July, cut in child allowance, Scambridge, this government breaking E.U. rights under E.U. employment laws, trying to charge people with wells water charges, sewage charges, then the scandals over the HSE, Shortall, James Reilly and his interests in his carehome business, people on trollies, Simon Coveney’s brother Patrick who was dragged into the horsemeat scandal, “Hogan was photographed with his arm around his press secretary, Yvonne Hyland, in December 2012 while on a government-funded trip to Doha” and other scandals…
http://www.labour.ie/download/pdf/labour_election_manifesto_2011.pdf
http://www.slideshare.net/OfficialFineGael/fine-gael-manifesto-web
Separate issues
No because shoddy trades people say like politicians who do not know what they are doing can do more harm than good. How do you know if they are fit or shoddy but by looking at their past and what they have done.
The quality of work of a person is based on their fitness to do the work and this government are not fit to tie their own shoes. How many mistakes has this government done with referendums so far?
It’s true Labour have broken their economic promises. However marriage equality WAS an election promise. Are you saying they should break it?
Who suggested it, the gay business lobbyists?
Minorities have a right to speak for their rights like the Blacks in the US. You are obviously a troll
If you are going to have an argument or a debate then put your point across, trying to win an argument with troll or Nazi is just desperation and not polite?
Rubbish
What is it with people, if you disagree with them then you are a bigot and if you disagree with a certain view they have then you suffer from a phobia, not meaning a fear but a hatred. So gay people do not agree with gay marriage, does that make them homophobes?
Michael imagine you were not allowed to marry and we had to have a vote to allow you to. Not very nice huh?
That is when a persons own desires tell them what to believe and how to think?
There were women who opposed women being given equal rights. We don’t know all of their individual reasons, but a little Stockholm syndrome wouldn’t be unlikely.
Luvvies alert ……….Liar’s party agreeing with Shatter, a fine test of vipers.
*nest
The no side don’t like surrogate mothers
I’m no fan of labour, and certainly won’t be voting for them come next election. But in their defence SSM has been on their policies well before it was a popular idea. I don’t think this referendum would be happening was it just Fine geal in power, I don’t even think we’d have civil partnerships at this point. This is one issue where I feel Joan is being genuine.
Of course the no side are using kids as a weapon in the referendum debate. But the yes side are saying , it doesn`t matter if both parents are of the same sex as long as they are loved and nurtured, yada yada. There is no evidence for this, I certainly would not like to have had both parents of the same sex. I believe in Yin and Yang and we have balance and diversity in every other aspect of life, why then is it so wrong to believe that is the best way to raise kids as well. If it is passed it will be regarded as a second class version of parenthood. Just imagine the bullying such kids will be subjected to at school if they have parents of the same sex.
Children aren’t born with prejudice. They learn that from their parents.
The American Psychological and Psychiatric associations have both been rather emphatic that there’s no disadvantage to the child as a direct result of their parents sexual orientation.
Conversely, there’s no good evidence to suggest that they can’t provide as good a home as a heterosexual couple.
Kids learn prejudice from society and their peer groups, and lots of places, prejudice is all around us, you can try legislating against it, good luck with that.
Has anyone asked the kids yet, or do they have no say?
Shanti
You will find studies that will support any theory, most studies are biased in some way, either because of the need of researchers to be funded or due to a preconceived notion that they wish to support.
You may find some things in this link worth debating
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=if04g01
Big Pharma surpassed oil as an earner about 10 years ago, psychiatry in America is nothing more than a mafia, they now feed psychotropic drugs to 5 year old school children so they can have a patient for life.
The FRC has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Centre.
Shanti
A pity, as you have seen they are anti gay but, it gives lot of things to debate, I don’t agree with them BTW, I’m seeing similar things from the YES brigade. Everyone is biased, yet they believe it is them that are reasonable, it cuts both ways.
Joan Burton is entitled to her opinions!
She is not entitled to tell Irish Faith people how they should vote.
Why does she refuse to debate the issues on TV ?
Why does Enda Kenny refuse to debate the issues?
People who intend to vote NO are entitled to their opinions.
The word marriage relates to a male and a female who commit to each other in a bond of marriage.
Two gay men or two lesbian women can never be called a couple.
Recognising difference and protecting difference is NOT discrimination!
Joan debate the issues on TV.
Don’t hide behind Enda?
All Irish people should vote on this very important and fundamental issue.
Please be informed and vote NO.
Protect marriage as a Christian.
Does Enda and Joan want to persecute all Christians in Ireland.
This was not part of the Government Programme.
Definition of marriage in English:
noun
1The legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship:
Marriage is not a christian thing, you can keep a church wedding between a man and a woman though.
The emperor Hadrian, Elagabalus and Nero were married to men.
We do not have an official religion. Church and State must be separate.
i know fg and labour think by people voting yes it is an endorsement for them it is not and i suppose people think fg/lab are garnering votes from the gay community they are trying’ fg/lab has created the most unequal society we have known for years so if i won’t ever vote for fg/lab but will vote for equality. i do get why people are pissed at moan move beyond her we will get to her and enda at the election and eradicate them because if your for eqality you cant be for them.
No-one will believe a yes is to support the govt. The yes to Lisbon II didn’t help FF.
Noreen Lunney
People will not forget that that it was FG/Lab that floated this boat, nor will they forget the vile abuse used by LGBT to smear people, while they demeaned people like single fathers that have been fighting for years for equality.
I’m sure the Family (in camera) secret courts will be there to support LGBT at the end of the day.
You can give it out but you can’t take it gerry
The no side have no issue with surrogate mothers but I would say gave an issue with surrogacy.
I can see a world of constitutional problems with same sex marriage.
In heterosexual marriage, impotency or adultery are grounds for divorce.
How will the courts deal with same sex divorce? How does one prove adultery?
Would that be with a man or a woman?
How about impotency?
This is a minefield. Vote No.
Seeing as you can tell the future any chance of Fridays Euromillions numbers ?
Adultery I think would be infidelity with either sex
I make valid points and the best I get is a smart Alec comment.
So adultery would be infidelity with either sex. I can see a whole series of problems.
Of course he does. Any plans for the Gardai or the IDA to give us their views on the issue??
The welfare ones be next saying we cut your dole if you don’t vote yes lol.
Explain this inconsistency to me someone from the no side.
Petra Conroy says she is a single mother (thereby making it a legitimate matter of public discussion in my opinion). Yet the no camp says a “child deserves its mother and father”.
Is that not gross hypocrisy at best and double standards at worst?
Where possible.
Marriages break down, people die.
A child deserves a ‘mother and father’, where possible.
No hypocrisy there.
No it us not hyprocity!
A child deserves a mother and father.
Natural law allows a mother or father to die in which case the child is reared by the surviving spouse!
This Referendum is about the meaning of marriage
Marriage is a union of a man and a women only.
Do not confuse the issues.
gays and lesbians have Civil Partnership God bless them that is their legal right.
Create a new word to describe their partnership but it can never be “Marriage”
Let’s get real !
Choose another word that is suitable.
IF A MAN HAS TWO WIVES OR MORE IT IS CALLED POLYGAMY !
Choose another word that does not offend the vast majority of people who are married.
Better a child – subject to voluntary adoption – be raised by a same sex couple than go into a broken care system where children keep disappearing , getting involved with drugs or being abused.
Joan and Alex should have a surrogate child together.
in an cynic?
Sad & Demeaning,
Was she deceiving herself?
Going to vote no, because this crowd Lab and FG are so fake
Going to vote yes because it is the right, fair and just thing to do.
How can you possibly claim a no vote is a protest vote when every party from FG all the way to the anti-austerity alliance and SF are advocating a yes?
The no people claim the same thing, both campaigns are dominated by loud bullying hectoring, holier than thous, who claim to have the holy grail and know what God wants and `what the right thing to do` is, a plague on all their houses.
Every main party is backing a yes vote not just the government parties. Voting to deny your fellow citizens equal rights because you’re annoyed with the government is pointless and selfish.
Sam Rhodes
That is going to be the main problem for the yes campaign.
Who mentioned God?
Who is bullying?
You simply don’t like the view of the No side.
There is a point to be made about surrogacy. If the referendum is passed, it will not be possible to positively discriminate in favour of married childless heterosexual couples, who may have been waiting years to have a child, as the concept of spouses will also include homosexual couples.
Discrimination is wrong
Vote no. Children shouldn’t have to settle for gay parents.
Simon Coveney is due to debate the issues in UL on Thursday night at 7.30pm
Rumour has it that Simon has withdrawn!
Sad is there any. minister in Government willing to debate the issues or are they all cowards ?
Joan clearly does not understand the people of Ireland.
She is a leader in Government that is putting this Referendum to the Irish people.
Marriage is a union between a man and a women.
Polygamy is a union between a man and 2or more women.
Devise a new word to describe a union of man with man.
Devise a new word to describe a union of women with women.
Simple logic.
sadly Joan and Enda have caused a lot of unnecessary haste
Is Enda or Joan prepared to debate the issues?
If not why are we having this Referendum?
Are we living in a democratic Country ?
There are an awful lot of American religious loons appearing all of a sudden. Links to the FRC being one clue.
have your say