Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

Annasopra

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I think most people are operating under the assumption that it's going to be a simple yes or no to marriage equality. Obviously if this changes closer to the time it could change things, but I think for now it's a reasonable assumption to make.

No - its a constitutional amendment.

Annasopra

tayto lover wrote: »

The wording could certainly cause problems.
Needs to be just a simple Yes or No to SSM marriage.

It cant be. Its an amendment to the constitution.

Annasopra

fran17 wrote: »

Right so the brainchild of Alan Shatter has been shelved and now minister Fitzgerald expects it soon...So in summery,there is doubts about sections of this bill regarding homosexuals so this referendum is plan B.Just say that then.

No

Civil Partners will be able to adopt jointly after that bill is made law. Therefore the idea that the referendum is bringing in adoption is not true because it will be law before and after.

B_Wayne

fran17 wrote: »

Right so the brainchild of Alan Shatter has been shelved and now minister Fitzgerald expects it soon...So in summery,there is doubts about sections of this bill regarding homosexuals so this referendum is plan B.Just say that then.

It hasn't been shelved... It's intended to be all wrapped up prior to any referendum. Any doubts were in relation to the surrogacy section rather than the gay part. Fact is,same sex parents already exist hence the need to reinforce the rights of the children and parents regardless of the outcome of same sex marriage referendum. Are you upset that you can't muddy the waters with 'won't somebody please think of the children!' style of arguments?

TwoShedsJackson

I'll be delighted when this passes. It's great to see how far a country like Ireland has come, even in my lifetime.

In the late 80s when I was first looking to get condoms you had to have a prescription from a doctor to get them. None of this waltzing into Boots for us oh no!! At least until the Virgin Megastore started selling them, and they were taken to court by one of the most odious right-wing group of twats ever, SPUC.

Every time something like this came along, we were told how it would be the end of civilised life as we knew it. Even now you only have to look at the likes of Alive! to see that there is an unpleasant hardcore element still hanging around, the only good thing to draw from it is that most of these reactionaries will be dead in twenty years.

floggg

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not as simplistic as that though, is it? And this is why I'm saying that it's equally important to ensure that the children of LGBT marriages are provided equal protection of the State, because right now they're not, because LGBT marriages outside the State aren't recognised is one thing, but also if one of the parties in the marriage has children from a previous relationship, there may be custodial issues that would need to be legislated for.

You cannot legislate however for one partner deciding that they don't want their child raised by another person, and that's something that will come up especially in relation to legislating for marriage equality - guardianship issues. So it's not so simple as saying "don't raise a child with another (wo)man", the previous partner may under legislation have no choice in the matter or the manner in which their children are raised, and then because of the way the children's referendum was passed, the State can simply step in and say "we're taking the child away now because you couldn't agree amongst yourselves" (well, not in so many words, but they now have that power!).


Or, y'know, we could just break out the violins, or talk about lovey dovey, rather than discuss complications and legal issues that may arise from whether the referendum passes or fails, since we seem to be gone from taking it seriously to descending to the facetious.

Well I don't know if that was meant to be an extreme example or not, but the issue would be dealt with on exactly the same way as would currently happen on the break up of a heterosexual couple.

A divorced husband doesn't have any say in who their ex-wife marries, even if the ex-wifw has primary custody of the kids.

If they have a particular concern about the new husbands influence on their kids, and they can seek custody but the court won't entertain petitions just based on "I dont like him."


So, if we have marriage equality (and judging by the way the issue was considered by the constitutional convention the referendum will be about allowing absolute equakity), the court will deal with any dispute of the kind you have outlined in the ordinary manner, awarding custody to the spouse who can provide the best home.

If that means a spouse in a same sex relationship, then the court will give them custody even if the other spouse objects.

floggg

fran17 wrote: »

Yes you see what is quite evident here that every now and then the mask slips and the true feelings and beliefs of people such as this one surfaces.



I would highly recommend that this person,not all people,work on his own life and issues before attempting to become a parent as he wishes to do.There probably are some gay couples out there who would make fine parents and that should be dealt with on a case by case basis.However in the case of the average,garden variety type I believe opening up this to all would be a social and civic calamity.
As our law currently stands a couple must be married to make an application to adopt a child and if this referendum is passed then Pandora's box is opened and the people of Ireland need to think long and hard about this.There is far more involved here than marriage.

You're making generalised assumptions about a whole group of people here, and yet feel yiu have the moral authority to judge other people and tell them they need to work on themselves?

Not supporting the comments made by David for the record. They were pretty immature, childish and petty.

Bit given the views you have expressed on gay people, and the posts you have thanked, I don't think you are any moral authority yourself.

Nodin

fran17 wrote: »

So in a roundabout way what I said is true.

No, because homosexual couples will be allowed adopt before the referendum.

One eyed Jack

floggg wrote: »

Well I don't know if that was meant to be an extreme example or not, but the issue would be dealt with on exactly the same way as would currently happen on the break up of a heterosexual couple.

A divorced husband doesn't have any say in who their ex-wife marries, even if the ex-wifw has primary custody of the kids.

If they have a particular concern about the new husbands influence on their kids, and they can seek custody but the court won't entertain petitions just based on "I dont like him."


So, if we have marriage equality (and judging by the way the issue was considered by the constitutional convention the referendum will be about allowing absolute equakity), the court will deal with any dispute of the kind you have outlined in the ordinary manner, awarding custody to the spouse who can provide the best home.

If that means a spouse in a same sex relationship, then the court will give them custody even if the other spouse objects.

See that's a much better and much more honest answer than -

"This referendum isn't about children".

If people smell BS and wishy-washy avoidance answers, is it any wonder they're going to get their backs up?

That's all I wanted, is that we acknowledge that these kinds of questions ARE going to be asked, not to trip people up or undermine people, but out of genuine concern for questions that need answers, and if we don't know the answers, I'd rather people admit "I don't know", than give what feels like some rehearsed party line answer.

You can't ask people to think about what if one of their children were LGBT, or what if someone related to them were LGBT and they didn't know it, etc, and then turn round and say "this referendum isn't about children, oh and and it doesn't affect anyone else but LGBT people".

That, to me at least, reads like you're trying to hide something from me that you don't want to give me an honest answer. Either give people an honest answer, or say "I don't know", but don't say something condescending and patronising like -

"This referendum has nothing to do with children, this referendum won't affect heterosexual people", etc, and then expect them to make any attempt to understand where you're coming from when you're unwilling to relate to their concerns.

I know there's going to be plenty of wind-up merchants appear between now and May, but if you waste more time on them than addressing legitimate concerns, people are going to start thinking you're ignoring them, and come the time of the referendum when you're looking for their support, they'll have forgotten all about you.

Doctor Jimbob

One eyed Jack wrote: »

See that's a much better and much more honest answer than -

"This referendum isn't about children".

If people smell BS and wishy-washy avoidance answers, is it any wonder they're going to get their backs up?

That's all I wanted, is that we acknowledge that these kinds of questions ARE going to be asked, not to trip people up or undermine people, but out of genuine concern for questions that need answers, and if we don't know the answers, I'd rather people admit "I don't know", than give what feels like some rehearsed party line answer.

You can't ask people to think about what if one of their children were LGBT, or what if someone related to them were LGBT and they didn't know it, etc, and then turn round and say "this referendum isn't about children, oh and and it doesn't affect anyone else but LGBT people".

That, to me at least, reads like you're trying to hide something from me that you don't want to give me an honest answer. Either give people an honest answer, or say "I don't know", but don't say something condescending and patronising like -

"This referendum has nothing to do with children, this referendum won't affect heterosexual people", etc, and then expect them to make any attempt to understand where you're coming from when you're unwilling to relate to their concerns.

I know there's going to be plenty of wind-up merchants appear between now and May, but if you waste more time on them than addressing legitimate concerns, people are going to start thinking you're ignoring them, and come the time of the referendum when you're looking for their support, they'll have forgotten all about you.

You do make valid points, but I don't think the comment about it not being about children was intended to be condescending or patronising because, well, it's not about children.

I can see how people who don't know this could get the wrong impression though.

Deenie123

Of course I will be voting, and I will be voting in favour.

I have the right to consent to marry someone I love, if I so choose to. Why shouldn't all people who are capable of consenting to marry also have this right?

Two men or two women getting married (civilly) doesn't change anything about any existing marriage.

I personally cannot see any reason why not to extend such a basic civil liberty to, what, 10% of the population who are currently denied it?

The LGB community aren't some strange sect, they're our brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, sons, daughters, friends, neighbours. They're people we grew up with and played together with in school. They aren't the perverted, twisted bogey man sitting in the shadows just waiting to undermine marriage because they're so opposed to it, they just want the same rights as everyone else.

ThinkAboutIt

i will be voting no. whatever way you dress it up, being gay is wrong. we were put on this earth to create life and gays cannot do that. they don't deserve the right to marry if they cannot create life.

AboutaWeekAgo

ThinkAboutIt wrote: »

i will be voting no. whatever way you dress it up, being gay is wrong. we were put on this earth to create life and gays cannot do that. they don't deserve the right to marry if they cannot create life.

Think about it.

Billy86

ThinkAboutIt wrote: »

i will be voting no. whatever way you dress it up, being gay is wrong. we were put on this earth to create life and gays cannot do that. they don't deserve the right to marry if they cannot create life.

So I take it you are of the opinion that sterile people, the elderly, and people who do not wish to have children should also be denied marriage?

shruikan2553

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You do make valid points, but I don't think the comment about it not being about children was intended to be condescending or patronising because, well, it's not about children.

I can see how people who don't know this could get the wrong impression though.

I think when people say its not about children what they mean is that a SSC will be able to adopt or have children from another method regardless of the result from the referendum.

When the likes of the iona institute talk about children they make claims that by having 2 mothers/fathers they are somehow at a disadvantage despite people who research this kind of stuff saying that they are fine and children may be better off with a married SSC vs unmarried SSC as marriage tends to bring stability to a relationship.

Children will be affected but it will be incredibly minor to the point that it is barely worth mentioning, although with the misinformation around children needing a mother and a father means that people assume that by "think of the children" they mean that they'll spontaneously combust if they come into contact with a gay couple.

Doctor Jimbob

ThinkAboutIt wrote: »

i will be voting no. whatever way you dress it up, being gay is wrong. we were put on this earth to create life and gays cannot do that. they don't deserve the right to marry if they cannot create life.

We were?

You're using a religious definition of marriage to argue against civil marriage equality. It's a fundamentally flawed argument. No one will be forcing any religion to marry same sex couples (nor should they be forced to do so, IMO, but that's another argument).

CiDeRmAn

ThinkAboutIt wrote: »

i will be voting no. whatever way you dress it up, being gay is wrong. we were put on this earth to create life and gays cannot do that. they don't deserve the right to marry if they cannot create life.

:eek:

Wow.
I thought all the dinosaurs were extinct.
Though, you probably reckon they died out a couple of thousand years ago.
As punishment from god.
For being gay.


Bob the gay velociraptor...
Well, they were all female on Jurassic Park you know...
True story.....

Billy86

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

:eek:

Wow.
I thought all the dinosaurs were extinct.
Though, you probably reckon they died out a couple of thousand years ago.
As punishment from god.
For being gay.


Bob the gay velociraptor...
Well, they were all female on Jurassic Park you know...
True story.....

Stop bullying people on the no side, they're just trying to explain their side of the argument!

CiDeRmAn

Billy86 wrote: »

Stop bullying people on the no side, they're just trying to explain their side of the argument!

I wasn't aware that he was engaging in debate.
And I wasn't bullying I was pointing out the absurdity of his position.

mickstupp

Billy86 wrote: »

Stop bullying people on the no side, they're just trying to explain their side of the argument!

Can you point out exactly what part of ThinkAboutIt's comment was an argument?

fran17

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No

Civil Partners will be able to adopt jointly after that bill is made law. Therefore the idea that the referendum is bringing in adoption is not true because it will be law before and after.

Nodin wrote: »

No, because homosexual couples will be allowed adopt before the referendum.

I'm very curious about this.Where have you seen the final draft and wording of this bill?Also how do you know the date it will be enacted into law?

Billy86

mickstupp wrote: »

Can you point out exactly what part of ThinkAboutIt's comment was an argument?

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

I wasn't aware that he was engaging in debate.
And I wasn't bullying I was pointing out the absurdity of his position.

The part where he says homosexuality is wrong without giving any reasons as to why, and then carries on to say if they won't have children together they shouldn't be allowed get married without making any reference to others like the elderly, sterile or those who don't plan to have kids.
sarcasmsarcasmsarcasm
Seems a pretty rock solid argument on his side, I reckon.

One eyed Jack

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You do make valid points, but I don't think the comment about it not being about children was intended to be condescending or patronising because, well, it's not about children.

I can see how people who don't know this could get the wrong impression though.

I know the referendum isn't about children, but I think it's important to acknowledge that everyone in society will be affected by the outcome, and that includes LGBT people across the social spectrum (I personally think LGBT people who are living in poverty are being ignored by the larger LGBT lobby groups), it includes heterosexual people, it includes religious people, and it includes children, because all these groups are all part of society! I think any exclusion of any particular group from the discussion would be a terrible mistake to make, and that's why I say that this referendum is more than just about giving two fingers to the 20% whom we know aren't likely to change their opinion.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Children will be affected but it will be incredibly minor to the point that it is barely worth mentioning

I don't think it's a minor point at all, as it will make such a positive change in the lives of many children I'm aware of. Why are some people in the 'yes' campaign trying to play down this fact?

How are some 'yes' campaigners able to say "This doesn't affect so and so and so", and then almost in the same breath say "This referendum affects everyone so we need everyone to come out and vote". These kinds of sentiments seem very contradictory, to me at least.

I'd rather see a positive campaign that actually IS inclusive and positive and focused on getting support at community level IN communities, than some disengaged Internet social media campaign that shys away from answering people's questions, yet expects support to materialise out of thin air.

Zen65

ThinkAboutIt wrote: »

i will be voting no. whatever way you dress it up, being gay is wrong. we were put on this earth to create life and gays cannot do that. they don't deserve the right to marry if they cannot create life.

There is a remarkable irony in having a username that implores one to think, and then make a statement that has so little thought in it.

Being gay cannot be wrong per se. It may not be to your taste (double entendre intended) but insofar as it harms nobody it cannot be deemed to be right or wrong. Gays can create life, should they choose to do so. They choose not to, as many heterosexual couples choose, but the capability is there (it involves donor eggs of course, but many heterosexual couples also require that).

The idea that we were put on this earth is a belief held only by those people who believe in an interventionist god, which may explain why you see homosexuality as having attributes of wrong or right to it. This is your right to believe, should you choose, but it does not follow that you have a right to enforce that belief on anyone else. If we were to use religious beliefs as a means of determining right and wrong then we would be free to enslave people from Northern Ireland here in the Republic, and free to kill anyone who held a different belief, which is at least half of the population of planet.

We cannot say that we were put here, only that we are here. If you could accept that as the only certainty you may be able to rationalise from a more logical base what is right, and what is wrong.

Nodin

fran17 wrote: »

I'm very curious about this.Where have you seen the final draft and wording of this bill?Also how do you know the date it will be enacted into law?

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/General%20Scheme%20of%20a%20Children%20and%20Family%20Relationships%20Bill.pdf/Files/General%20Scheme%20of%20a%20Children%20and%20Family%20Relationships%20Bill.pdf

http://www.childrensrights.ie/content/children-and-family-relationships-bill

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/government-drops-surrogacy-plans-from-family-law-overhaul-1.1941746

What exactly is your objection to gay folk getting married Fran?

Canis Lupus

ThinkAboutIt wrote: »

i will be voting no. whatever way you dress it up, being gay is wrong. we were put on this earth to create life and gays cannot do that. they don't deserve the right to marry if they cannot create life.

Jaysus, you won't be creating much life with your partner then I take it?

ThinkAboutIt wrote:

If she does anal, the fattie is worth keeping. If she doesn't, then get rid and find yourself a hotter bird.

fran17

Nodin wrote: »

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/General%20Scheme%20of%20a%20Children%20and%20Family%20Relationships%20Bill.pdf/Files/General%20Scheme%20of%20a%20Children%20and%20Family%20Relationships%20Bill.pdf

http://www.childrensrights.ie/content/children-and-family-relationships-bill

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/government-drops-surrogacy-plans-from-family-law-overhaul-1.1941746

What exactly is your objection to gay folk getting married Fran?

Irish times,you must be kidding.Childrens rights,a touch lightweight.So I went straight to the department of justice in breathless anticipation of the answers to those questions.Page 1,and I quote "This act may be cited as the children and family relationships act 201_".There is not even a year on this act let alone a day or month.All we can surmise is it will be this decade,and that's if its in its current form.I ask everyone undecided to think very carefully about this referendum and the domino effect it may have.

Browse my posting history Nodin,I've made my thoughts very clear on this subject.I played the game in the past on this forum and know very clearly now how it works and how it ends.The problem with trying to be rational on these subjects is that words and meanings must be redefined by the pro side because if they don't redefine them then they don't have an argument at all.It goes from such lunacies as "being homophobic if you disagree for any reason" to "redefined marriage" to "prostate orgasms".The list is endless and contrary to what you may believe this subject plays a very small part in my life and I don't have the time or the will to keep chasing strawman arguments.

floggg

fran17 wrote: »

Why must the yes side persist in untruths.Our law as stated requires for a couple to be legally married to make an application for adoption.A gay couple cannot make an application however if this referendum is passed then a gay couple can legally marry thus an application for adoption of a child can be made.Those are the facts.

The government has repeatedly stated its intention to introduce legislation in advance of the referendum to provide for joint adoption for same sex couples and lgbt family rights.

the government can and will do it separately from the referendum, and has made it clear it will do so beforehand. it is not therefore going to be at issue.

floggg

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Thanks for making my points for me, I was just going to go with their parents are in a civil partnership for a start, which already defines their relationship to their parents as different from the relationship between other children and their married parents, and if the referendum is passed, that does away with one stigmatising label at least.

I'd rather it didn't have to be put to a popular vote, but I had just assumed previous Governments were just too chickenshìt to legislate for it, but as lazygal pointed out way, way back in the thread - if the Government had simply legislated for marriage equality, it would be challenged constantly by some those advocating for a 'no' vote in the upcoming referendum.

I advocate for the rights of children in non-traditional families too btw, not like there's a shortage of children who are currently ignored by the current wording of the Constitution and legislation, but what this thread is about is the rights of children in LGBT marriages, or what are currently civil partnerships, if that's the way it was to remain if this referendum fails.

?

I imagine if and when marriage equality is provided for, the enabling legislation will have a general provision stating that all references in any legislation to a civil partnership shall be henceforth deemed to refer to a marriage. Alternatively, it will specifically amend each act in which the term is used.

Hence, even if the adoption legislation refers to a CP, it will be amended to marriage and so there will be no difference.

I don't see what issue you foresee in that regard.

And as I already said, if the government introduced it as legislation, the President could simply have referred it to the Supreme Court under Art 26 and resolved all issues of constitutionality before the Bill even became law.

CiDeRmAn

Do some believe that children are at a disadvantage being raised by a single sex couple?
Do statistics support this argument either way?
The only information I have is that a friend of mine is raising two boys with her partner and seem to be doing a wonderful job.
They would desperately like to get married, I hope they get what they want tbh.