SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Daith · 02-07-2014 7:58am

RobertKK wrote: »

What will defeat the referendum will be the Yes side saying no voters are bigots and homophobes. It is an incentive for No voters to vote who will feel they are not allowed to be entitled to their views.

But other people aren't entitled to their views if they think someone could be a homophobe?

I doubt very much the yes side are going to be calling everyone who votes no a homophobe btw. Just as I doubt the No side are all going to call de gays "intrinsically disordered"

iwantmydinner · 02-07-2014 7:59am

RobertKK wrote: »

What will defeat the referendum will be the Yes side saying no voters are bigots and homophobes. It is an incentive for No voters to vote who will feel they are not allowed to be entitled to their views.

There are a lot of counter cultural people in Ireland, who don't feel the need to support or do what media and others promote as being the norm or what they view as a right. They don't feel the need to be in agreement with what they are told they must support. They are strong in their views.

I expect it will be a tight referendum with a few percentage points in it - either way.
Remember the children's referendum had support over 80% according to the polls, the real result was much closer.

Denying. Equal. Rights. To. Other. Humans. Is. Bigoted.

comongethappy · 02-07-2014 8:04am

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Denying. Equal. Rights. To. Other. Humans. Is. Bigoted.

Its really that simple.

With zero rational argument for a 'No', it's all that is left.

shruikan2553 · 02-07-2014 8:07am

I find it strange that the people worried about the sanctity of marriage don't care about divorce.

seamus · 02-07-2014 8:08am

RobertKK wrote: »

It is an incentive for No voters to vote who will feel they are not allowed to be entitled to their views.

"You must tolerate my intolerance".

No voters are perfectly entitled to their views. That's why we're having a referendum.

Don't confuse the right to hold an opinion with the right to hold an opinion free of criticism. Because the latter doesn't exist. Respecting someone's right to hold an opinion doesn't mean you have to respect their opinion.

If someone is incapable or unwilling to defend their viewpoint, then don't get involved in debates on the matter.

c_man · 02-07-2014 8:15am

RayM wrote: »

I'd sort of prefer that too. As a heterosexual, I don't feel very comfortable about being given the chance to decide what rights other people should have. It's a bit like being told I can vote in another country's general election.

Well you can

(assuming you're an Irish citizen)

Oh god, the referendum is another year away? I wish they'd get it over with, lessen the amount of bollocks we'll have to hear from both sides.

Daith · 02-07-2014 8:16am

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I find it strange that the people worried about the sanctity of marriage don't care about divorce.

Oh they did. I think it was the Iona's crowd "Hello Divorce, Goodbye Daddy"

Then they had a divorced dad who was a psychiatrist on RTE last year saying that gay people can't marry because of children.

Funny world

c_man wrote: »

Oh god, the referendum is another year away? I wish they'd get it over with, lessen the amount of bollocks we'll have to hear from both sides.

The thing is they need to get the bill which allows joint gay adoption to pass first. This is really more important (in my view) than the referendum itself.

It would eliminate the entire "Well I don't mind gay people marrying but not sure about adoption or them raising kids" line.

shruikan2553 · 02-07-2014 8:18am

c_man wrote: »

Well you can (assuming you're an Irish citizen)

Oh god, the referendum is another year away? I wish they'd get it over with, lessen the amount of bollocks we'll have to hear from both sides.

On the plus side a gay couple will be able to adopt by then causing Iona to have to come up with something that might be slightly related to SSM.

But what about the children?
They are already being turned gay by their adoptive parents and SSM will have no affect on it.

P_1 · 02-07-2014 8:26am

RobertKK wrote: »

What will defeat the referendum will be the Yes side saying no voters are bigots and homophobes. It is an incentive for No voters to vote who will feel they are not allowed to be entitled to their views.

There are a lot of counter cultural people in Ireland, who don't feel the need to support or do what media and others promote as being the norm or what they view as a right. They don't feel the need to be in agreement with what they are told they must support. They are strong in their views.

I expect it will be a tight referendum with a few percentage points in it - either way.
Remember the children's referendum had support over 80% according to the polls, the real result was much closer.

True but you must understand the context of how the members of the no side have painted LBGT people for years. When you're constantly being told by people that your way of life isn't normal nor should you be given certain rights because of it you are going to get some kind of a backlash.

I agree that turning the other cheek (not an easy feat by any measure) to some of the more colourful remarks that are sure to come out from the no side will be the best option for the yes side. So rather than calling conservative commentator x a homophobe for their remarks a better way would be to say "conservative commentator x, you said this, I think that's a rather homophobic thing to be saying, could you clarify it".

Basically give them enough rope to hang themselves with

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 8:48am

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Denying. Equal. Rights. To. Other. Humans. Is. Bigoted.

That is a poor argument. Look to reproduction, and apply your argument.
Nature denies biological children to two people of the same sex. Producing biological children naturally is confined to opposite sexes.
So nature denies equality in humans. Nature has the relationship between man and woman differently than to that of the same sex.
Using the arguments some use, nature is bigoted and homophobic for denying same sex couples the "right" to produce biological children together.

In real life same sex marriage will not give equality, that is why the government has to fiddle around with adoption rights to give a perception it is equal, due to nature denying same sex couples a biological child.
Nature has children with a mother and father. If nature wanted same sex adoption and equality as some argue they are fighting for it would have allowed biological children for same sex couples.

The fact is same sex marriage will never be truly equal as people of child bearing age in a marriage will only have the possibility of a biological child in an opposite sex marriage.

We can vote yes for perception reasons.

PopePalpatine · 02-07-2014 8:55am

P_1 wrote: »

True but you must understand the context of how the members of the no side have painted LBGT people for years.

Hey, maybe using terms like "homophobe" might get the anti- side to grow a tiny bit of empathy for those they've labelled "deviants"/"queers"/"******s"/"dykes" etc.

shruikan2553 · 02-07-2014 8:55am

RobertKK wrote: »

That is a poor argument. Look to reproduction, and apply your argument.
Nature denies biological children to two people of the same sex. Producing biological children naturally is confined to opposite sexes.
So nature denies equality in humans. Nature has the relationship between man and woman differently than to that of the same sex.
Using the arguments some use, nature is bigoted and homophobic for denying same sex couples the "right" to produce biological children together.

In real life same sex marriage will not give equality, that is why the government has to fiddle around with adoption rights to give a perception it is equal, due to nature denying same sex couples a biological child.
Nature has children with a mother and father. If nature wanted same sex adoption and equality as some argue they are fighting for it would have allowed biological children for same sex couples.

The fact is same sex marriage will never be truly equal as people of child bearing age in a marriage will only have the possibility of a biological child in an opposite sex marriage.

We can vote yes for perception reasons.

What about people who are in a hetrosexual marriage who can't have children?

Engines don't grow on trees. Should we use them? If you want to live as nature intended feel free, I'm quite happy with advancing as a species.

comongethappy · 02-07-2014 8:56am

RobertKK wrote: »

Look to reproduction, and apply your argument.

Why?

The question is about marrying someone, not about procreation.

Logic transference doesn't need to apply.... Might as well say "look to vehicle maintenance and apply your argument".

Muise... · 02-07-2014 8:58am

RobertKK wrote: »

That is a poor argument. Look to reproduction, and apply your argument.
Nature denies biological children to two people of the same sex. Producing biological children naturally is confined to opposite sexes.
So nature denies equality in humans. Nature has the relationship between man and woman differently than to that of the same sex.
Using the arguments some use, nature is bigoted and homophobic for denying same sex couples the "right" to produce biological children together.

In real life same sex marriage will not give equality, that is why the government has to fiddle around with adoption rights to give a perception it is equal, due to nature denying same sex couples a biological child.
Nature has children with a mother and father. If nature wanted same sex adoption and equality as some argue they are fighting for it would have allowed biological children for same sex couples.

The fact is same sex marriage will never be truly equal as people of child bearing age in a marriage will only have the possibility of a biological child in an opposite sex marriage.

We can vote yes for perception reasons.

We're not having a referendum to change nature. Because that would be retarded.

We're having a referendum on the equal right to marriage; marriage being a human construct based on a commitment between two people who love each other to share their lives.

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 8:59am

shruikan2553 wrote: »

What about people who are in a hetrosexual marriage who can't have children?

That is why I used the word the possibility of a child, as well as child bearing age.

seamus · 02-07-2014 8:59am

RobertKK wrote: »

Nature denies biological children to two people of the same sex. Producing biological children naturally is confined to opposite sexes.
So nature denies equality in humans. Nature has the relationship between man and woman differently than to that of the same sex.
Using the arguments some use, nature is bigoted and homophobic for denying same sex couples the "right" to produce biological children together.

Nature is not an intelligent agent. It's a series of processes.

This argument is pretty pointless, it's like saying that nature denies disabled people the right to walk therefore giving them equal rights is all for show.

GalwayGuy2 · 02-07-2014 8:59am

I saw the title and thought it was a bill for S and M

SEPT 23 1989 · 02-07-2014 9:02am

RobertKK wrote: »

What will defeat the referendum will be the Yes side saying no voters are bigots and homophobes. It is an incentive for No voters to vote who will feel they are not allowed to be entitled to their views.

There are a lot of counter cultural people in Ireland, who don't feel the need to support or do what media and others promote as being the norm or what they view as a right. They don't feel the need to be in agreement with what they are told they must support. They are strong in their views.

I expect it will be a tight referendum with a few percentage points in it - either way.
Remember the children's referendum had support over 80% according to the polls, the real result was much closer.

So the Iona Institute are counter cultural now?

upside down world

P_1 · 02-07-2014 9:03am

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Hey, maybe using terms like "homophobe" might get the anti- side to grow a tiny bit of empathy for those they've labelled "deviants"/"queers"/"******s"/"dykes" etc.

In an ideal word that would be the way to do it alright but sadly they've managed to Orwell that away into another argument.

Plus it is more civilised to eviscerate somebody through logical argument than by what they'd construe as name-calling.

Duggy747 · 02-07-2014 9:03am

RobertKK wrote: »

Nature has children with a mother and father. If nature wanted same sex adoption and equality as some argue they are fighting for it would have allowed biological children for same sex couples.

Using nature for this argument is a strange and poor one at that, nature isn't exclusive to male and females and is in-discriminant, it's not some form that dictates the rules.

But since you mentioned nature / reproduction only for mothers and fathers, there is the whole thing of asexual reproduction..... :pac:

floggg · 02-07-2014 9:03am

Woodville56 wrote: »

This whole thing about marriage as a expression of love and equal rights etc. just doesn't do it for me personally. Love isn't just about a ceremony or a piece of paper stating that two people are married. My understanding is that it's about people's care and commitment to each other and a ceremony or marriage licence doesn't add, subtract from that commitment or enrich it's living imo. I have many straight friends and also know some gay couples, some of them in long term "non solemnised" relationships, some married, some in civil partnerships. Like them, I feel the civil union /partnership legislation regularised the tax and inheritance / legal issues, so I'm not sure what the hullabaloo about the public solemnisation of a commitment between two people, which is inherently a personal thing, be that same sex or heterosexual. Maybe a simplistic view but marriage isn't all about being out and proud !

If that's the case, why have civil marriage at all? But as long as the State is in the marriage game, it should be extended to all citizens (regardless of gender) on equal terms.

And no, it didn't regularise the tax, inheritance, adoption, family law and while range of other legal rights and obligation.

But again, if it did, why maintain the artificial distinction? Surely the only people creating a hullabaloo over a ceremony are the ones saying only their group should be allowed have it, and not the other. They are the ones who want to maintain an artificial distinction between straight and gay people for no reason but to make themselves feel superior.

It's separate but equal nonsense

Maximus Alexander · 02-07-2014 9:04am

seamus wrote: »

Nature is not an intelligent agent. It's a series of processes.

This argument is pretty pointless, it's like saying that nature denies disabled people the right to walk therefore giving them equal rights is all for show.

Holy crap Seamus, nearly everyone one of your posts is just... I mean, I don't even need to bother posting. Bravo sir.

Daith · 02-07-2014 9:04am

RobertKK wrote: »

That is a poor argument. Look to reproduction, and apply your argument.

Look to logic to apply your argument. No married couple is required to have children to remain married. So why bring children into it?

No parents are required to be married to have children.

Or the fact that a gay person may actually be the biological parent of the child.

I Heart Internet · 02-07-2014 9:08am

Sauve wrote: »

I'd presume it's a given that it'll be passed, going on conversations I've had. I can't think of one person I know who's outwardly against same sex marriage.

Then again, I'm sure there are many who are all for it in public, but it could be a whole different story in the privacy of a polling booth...

Not wanting to get into the debate per se, as the OP says, but the above point is a good one.

For better or worse, it's now deeply unfashionable to say that you would vote no in the same-sex marriage referendum, or even to say you don't know until you see the wording of the proposal. Anything other than a clear yes is a public no-no in some circles.

This has the potential to back-fire. People will kick against this received wisdom - that the only way to vote is to vote yes. If enough people on the hard yes-side push the wrong buttons, the kick-back could be very hard and they may live to regret it.

That's just my (uninformed) political take on things. Not an analysis of the merits of a yes or no.

floggg · 02-07-2014 9:08am

Woodville56 wrote: »

I'm not denying anyone the right to equality and their day out , I'm just makin the point that from my experience there's not a universal clamour for SSM among the gay community despite what the LGBT lobby would portray. Commitment is about more than the marriage certificate and the razzmatazz, that's all I'm saying. Whatever floats your boat !!
Personally however I do have a dislike of the "in your face" crowd among the LGBT community who brand anyone who doesn't agree with their campaigns and views as bigoted, stupid, fundamentalists etc etc.- it just demeans their cause , just as the catholic right will resort to similar insulting rhetoric.

Sorry but I struggle to respect your any argument which is based on the idea that I am "less than" just because I'm gay.

I firmly believe that there is no argument against marriage equality not based on some combination of bigotry and ignorance.

Neither are acceptable grounds for opposing equality for me in my book, and I don't care if you dislike the fact that I won't pretend otherwise.

floggg · 02-07-2014 9:15am

Woodville56 wrote: »

A good argument from the no side ( mainly Catholic rightwingers I expect) will be that SSM is in conflict with their religion, a valid argument if you are of that church - will the pro SSM be respectful of such arguments I wonder ?

Religious beliefs are certainly a valid reason why a practicing catholic should not marry a same sex partner.

It's not a valid reason however for the state to deny me the right to do so if I wish.

Think of same sex marriage like pork. Some faiths prohibit the consumption and touching of pork, so if you follow such a faith you shouldn't eat rashers. You don't have the right to prevent me from eating a rasher though - and as long as it causes no harm or there's no public policy reasons why I shouldn't I should be free to do so if I wish.

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 9:16am

seamus wrote: »

Nature is not an intelligent agent. It's a series of processes.

This argument is pretty pointless, it's like saying that nature denies disabled people the right to walk therefore giving them equal rights is all for show.

We are a product of nature, are you saying nature is not the agent that gave us our intelligence through a series of processes?

Annasopra · 02-07-2014 9:17am

mactheknife19 wrote: »

I guess I'm like a large percentage of the population in that I've paid little attention to this subject as it's something that does not impact me personally. Much like when I was younger and single I didn't really take notice or much interest in the referendums around abortion or divorce. Where now that Im married with kids I would have more of an interest and opinion. Personally I don't have any close friends who are gay . Those that I know happen to be brothers of friends. So I guess that's why this subject is something that doesn't play a part in my day to day life. However I will vote as I believe it's my duty. I assume I'm voting Yes to SSM but that's because I assume it's basically comes down to equality. Can someone just give me the short version of what I'm voting for. I assume that what I'm really voting for is equality to endure SSM have the same rights as others around tax, pensions, inheritance, adoption. Is there anything that would still be out after a Yes vote.

Thats pretty much it. That a marriage of a gay couple and straight couple will be fully equal. The constitution will be changed to allow for this.

Maximus Alexander · 02-07-2014 9:17am

RobertKK wrote: »

We are a product of nature, are you saying nature is not the agent that gave us our intelligence through a series of processes?

You should follow that thought through to its logical conclusion then - nature is the agent that created homosexuality, so how can there be anything wrong with it?

Annasopra · 02-07-2014 9:18am

Gannicus wrote: »

I agree. I reckon you are right shopaholic01, but in saying that I reckon unless the masses get up and vote the militant Christians will come out in numbers and I wouldn't be surprised if there is a no vote as a result. I'll be voting for it but I know out of my friends (who are in favour of SSM), myself and one other of my friends will vote the rest will say the agree with SSM but they'll sit on their hands, come referendum day.

Well then you need to actively ask them to vote!

Daith · 02-07-2014 9:23am

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That's just my (uninformed) political take on things. Not an analysis of the merits of a yes or no.

Attacking people never works. I fully intend to just counter the general questions with facts

I've been involved in these discussions before and the No side have never given any reason. I would love to have a reason. An intelligent one. What I've experienced is the following

1) Marriage is a religious institution.
Impossible, plenty of people get married outside of the church.

2) Churches will have to marry gay people.
Churches can marry who they want and are protected in law if they choose not to marry a gay person.

3) Gay marriage will lead to same sex families.
Irish law already allows a single person (gay or straight) to adopt/foster a child. Same sex families exist in Ireland. The referendum won't change this. Joint adoption should be in before the referendum

4) A child should have a mother and a father
Children are being raised by any number of family units in Ireland. Single parents, grand parents, un-married parents, divorced parents. Should we disallow these people to raise children?

5) A child should be raised by their biological mother and father
This doesn't just apply to same sex parents but to any adoptive parent. Do you believe that we shouldn't have adoption in Ireland?

6) A marriage is only there to raise a family
No married couple is forced to have a baby to maintain their married status. Why should gay people be treated any differently?

7) I'm a straight person. Can't be arsed to vote
What if someone if you're family turns out to be gay? Would you not want to give them a chance to marry someone?

floggg · 02-07-2014 9:27am

Woodville56 wrote: »

I don't have a problem with gay marriage , my issue is with those who from their own conscience and convictions ( religious or otherwise) are being labelled as homophobic, stupid, looney, intolerant etc . There are many good and decent Christian people of various religions who will vote against this legislation out of deeply held beliefs and who are not homophobic or stupid either.
It's the labelling by LGBT I dont like . If all Catholics who follow catholic teaching vote against this legislation, are you really saying that each of these voters are homophobic or stupid or both ? I didn't think that having a conscience about something would be so objectionable to LGBT !
As for myself I'm not anti gay or anti SSM, just anti those who name call and insult anyone who has a different view or who admits to believe in an "imaginary god" as described earlier in a posting here .
As for my voting intentions , jury still out on the marriage thing, probably will support the legislation but not impressed with the tone of the LGBT spiel so far - might impress the converted but dunno how it will go down with your average catholic who has concerns about this issue to be labelled stupid or homophobic , might just backfire !

If I am a otherwise swell guy who just happens to believe in a god who says black people should be treated as lesser than white people, would you say I am racist or stupid or both?

Cause there are people who hold that view. Is it equally as valid and worthy of respect as anti-gay religious beliefs?

If not, why not?

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 9:32am

comongethappy wrote: »

Why?

The question is about marrying someone, not about procreation.

Logic transference doesn't need to apply.... Might as well say "look to vehicle maintenance and apply your argument".

If that was the case, the state wouldn't be changing the adoption laws. The only way same sex couples can have children together is through adoption.

The state and others are saying these need and will be changed before the referendum, which in effect is to keep a perception of equality alive, given nature doesn't allow procreation to same sex couples of child bearing age.

I Heart Internet · 02-07-2014 9:34am

Daith wrote: »

Attacking people never works. I fully intend to just counter the general questions with facts

I've been involved in these discussions before and the No side have never given any reason. I would love to have a reason. An intelligent one. What I've experienced is the following

This is the kind of high-handed approach to debate which is dangerous, imho. Like it or not, some people think they have valid, intelligent reasons to vote No. If you start a debate by telling someone all of their points are unintelligent and you don't recognise them as valid, you are on a hiding to nothing. You'll appeal to your own supporters but not the nos or maybes.

All your points are good, btw (except the "are you against adoption!?" one

). But starting off by dismissing all counter arguments is a bad idea.

Daith · 02-07-2014 9:34am

RobertKK wrote: »

If that was the case, the state wouldn't be changing the adoption laws. The only way same sex couples can have children together is through adoption.

The state and others are saying these need and will be changed before the referendum, which in effect is to keep a perception of equality alive, given nature doesn't allow procreation to same sex couples of child bearing age.

Yes because adoption and marriage are separate issues

It's an anomaly in Irish law that allows a single gay person to adopt and not a gay couple.

MetalDog · 02-07-2014 9:36am

I'll be voting yes to this, and if it does not pass, myself and my better half (I am heterosexual) will not get married in Ireland. We'll go off and get hitched abroad.

And I don't give a f*** how many people in my family get annoyed by that, as I've already made it clear to them that this is the case. I'm prepared to take a stand on this and I don't give a bollox who I offend.

Daith · 02-07-2014 9:36am

I Heart Internet wrote: »

This is the kind of high-handed approach to debate which is dangerous, imho. Like it or not, some people think they have valid, intelligent reasons to vote No.

Well it's hardly like I'm going to dismiss people and saying their argument isn't intelligent. That's just for the Boards NO people :P

I'll argue peoples facts.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

All your points are goo, btw (except the "are you against adoption!?" one ). But starting off by dismissing all counter arguments is a bad idea.

I'm not sure. Adoption is coming up all the time on this.

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 9:37am

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

You should follow that thought through to its logical conclusion then - nature is the agent that created homosexuality, so how can there be anything wrong with it?

It is natural and I never said there was anything wrong with it.

I just find the equality argument in regards to marriage as weak, as it is really just for perception of equality, as nature denies what some would argue is a 'right' if they could change it.

Changing marriage to allow same sex marriage does not equate to equality, when the possibility in a marriage of couples of same sex couples of child bearing age are not the same as the possibilities for those of the opposite sex.

floggg · 02-07-2014 9:37am

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Actually my only concern, which I have raised in another thread, is the situation that has occurred in the UK where Marriage equality has resulted in the closure of every Catholic adoption agency, now I am sure that a popular thing among the AH crowd but remember when you Hi-five the idea of a child not being raised by a Catholic family thing you are really doing is making some poor womans already difficult decision even harder.

Sorry, but the blame for the closure of those agencies lies squarely with the Catholic Church, not same sex marriage.

Nobody forced them to close - they chose to do so however rather than accomodate same sex wedded couples.

Clearly therefore the see maintaining their bigoted stance to learns gay people as being more important to them than providing adoption services to the kids.

So please don't try and and paint it like this is something they were forced to do by the evil gays. The are more than welcome to provide adoption services, but they refuse to do so if it means having to treat people on an equal basis. That's there fault, not mine.

Daith · 02-07-2014 9:38am

RobertKK wrote: »

Changing marriage to allow same sex marriage does not equate to equality, when the possibility in a marriage of couples of same sex couples of child bearing age are not the same as the possibilities for those of the opposite sex.

Again with the children.......

I Heart Internet · 02-07-2014 9:38am

Daith wrote: »

I'm not sure. Adoption is coming up all the time on this.

Yeah, but saying people who are against gay people adopting are against adoption full stop is simplistic.

Legs.Eleven · 02-07-2014 9:38am

Cos this isn't boasting about committing voter fraud what is it?

I've PMed you discuss this further. Not wreaking people's head discussing something non-related.

Daith · 02-07-2014 9:39am

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Yeah, but saying people who are against gay people adopting are against adoption full stop is simplistic.

How so?

Gay people can already adopt in Ireland.

The referendum will have nothing to do with the rights of gay people adopting so voting yes or no won't actually change it.

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 9:40am

Daith wrote: »

Yes because adoption and marriage are separate issues

It's an anomaly in Irish law that allows a single gay person to adopt and not a gay couple.

No they are not according to the state, who have said that only a referendum on SSM will take place when adoption law is changed. The state has tied the two together.
Adoption law change with SSM referendum to then follow.

Maximus Alexander · 02-07-2014 9:40am

RobertKK wrote: »

It is natural and I never said there was anything wrong with it.

I just find the equality argument in regards to marriage as weak, as it is really just for perception of equality, as nature denies what some would argue is a 'right' if they could change it.

Changing marriage to allow same sex marriage does not equate to equality, when the possibility in a marriage of couples of same sex couples of child bearing age are not the same as the possibilities for those of the opposite sex.

I suppose I don't really see how this is relevant. Straight couples are still allowed to marry in their 70s, when there is no possibility of bearing children. Or indeed if they are infertile or simply have no intention of having children.

Marriage and rearing children are not in any way synonymous, so I can't see this as anything other than a red herring. Perhaps you could explain why you think it's not?

Daith · 02-07-2014 9:42am

RobertKK wrote: »

No they are not according to the state, who have said that only a referendum on SSM will take place when adoption law is changed. The state has tied the two together.
Adoption law change with SSM referendum to then follow.

It's a separate issue. Even if the referendum fails, gay people will still be able to adopt as a couple.

The referendum should only be about two people getting married. Not your idea that marriage must mean children. The fact you need to bring up children shows you actually have no argument against two people of the same sex marrying.

I Heart Internet · 02-07-2014 9:43am

Daith wrote: »

The referendum will have nothing to do with the rights of gay people adopting so voting yes or no won't actually change it.

Yet you brought it up in your imaginary Q&A session with a No voter.

floggg · 02-07-2014 9:45am

P_1 wrote: »

It's attitudes like this that sometimes make me feel a bit sad. Ok fine you might disagree with the lifestyle but is it actually causing you any harm?

What ****ing lifestyle?

Sorry, I know you didn't mean anything by it, but I live the same lifestyle as my straight brother. The only difference is the gender of the person in attracted to - that's hardly a lifestyle in of itself.

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 9:45am

Daith wrote: »

Again with the children.......

Well we hear the term 'marriage equality', I just think it is a stupid term when the possibilities for couples of child bearing age are different for heterosexual couples compared to homosexual couples within a marriage.

It makes the people who use the term seem uneducated if they are arguing for something and different possibilities exist for heterosexual compared to homosexual.
It is viewing different possibilities within marriage as equal, where one groups has a high percentage chance of one outcome and the other has no chance of the same outcome.
It is a stupid term as it is not marriage equality.

Daith · 02-07-2014 9:46am

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Yet you brought it up in your imaginary Q&A session with a No voter.

You're right. Hopefully I'll be able to change it to

Q) I support same sex marriage but not gay people adopting"
A) Gay people can adopt. Even if the referendum is defeated gay people can still adopt

I'm not trying to be antagonistic but to actually use facts. You can see already how children are being brought it the debate about the referendum.

SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Comments