Gay marriage referendum: what are we actually voting on?

fran17

Daith wrote: »

What we know in the present is that regardless of the referendum passing or failing

Gay people can still adopt and Gay couples will be able to adopt jointly.

Ok I really want to move on from this so let's make this absolutely clear.You can confirm for me 100% that now,in the present,this Bill will be introduced before the referendum?And also this Bill will give absolute clarity regarding the legality of same sex marriage in relation to adoption of a child? Because this referendum,if passed,will.

Daith

fran17 wrote: »

Ok I really want to move on from this so let's make this absolutely clear.You can confirm for me 100% that now,in the present,this Bill will be introduced before the referendum?

No, the bill is separate to the referendum.
The Government have said they want it to be passed before the referendum. Are you 100% sure the bill won't be passed regardless of the referendum?

fran17 wrote: »

And also this Bill will give absolute clarity regarding the legality of same sex marriage in relation to adoption of a child?

No it has nothing to do with civil marriage. It is about couples in a civil partnership.

fran17 wrote: »

Because this referendum,if passed,will.

Yes because a married couple can apply jointly to adopt. That's called equality.

It does not deal with the question of same sex couples in a civil partnership who may not decide to get married but want to adopt.

Just to be clear....regardless of how you vote in the referendum, same sex couples in a civil partnership will be able to adopt children. Is there anything else you need cleared up?

NuMarvel

fran17 wrote: »

Ok I really want to move on from this so let's make this absolutely clear.You can confirm for me 100% that now,in the present,this Bill will be introduced before the referendum?And also this Bill will give absolute clarity regarding the legality of same sex marriage in relation to adoption of a child? Because this referendum,if passed,will.

Be it via the Bill or the referendum, children adopted by gay couples will have a legally recognised relationship with both adoptive parents, and not just one as is the case now. That will apply to all adopting gay couples be they cohabiting, or in a civil partnership/married (depending on the outcome of the referendum).

Similarly, the Bill guarantees a child adopted by a heterosexual couple a legally recognised relationship with both adoptive parents, be that couple married or cohabiting. The child's rights will no longer be conditional on the marital status of their adoptive parents.

I trust that clarifies the changes that the referendum and the Bill will bring to adoption legislation. Neither the Bill nor the referendum will grant anyone the right to adopt, as no such right exists. What changes is that an adoptive child is granted the stability and benefits of a recognised relationship with their adoptive parents, regardless of the gender or marital status of their parents.

fran17

Daith wrote: »

No, the bill is separate to the referendum.
The Government have said they want it to be passed before the referendum. Are you 100% sure the bill won't be passed regardless of the referendum?



No it has nothing to do with civil marriage. It is about couples in a civil partnership.



Yes because a married couple can apply jointly to adopt. That's called equality.

It does not deal with the question of same sex couples in a civil partnership who may not decide to get married but want to adopt.

Just to be clear....regardless of how you vote in the referendum, same sex couples in a civil partnership will be able to adopt children. Is there anything else you need cleared up?

Now we are getting somewhere,took a while but we are getting there.
The government may have said they want this bill,which we have not even seen draft form of yet,to be passed before the referendum but we await to see this.No of course I'm not 100% sure this bill wont be passed before the referendum and I never said I was.However many people here,including yourself,are using the assumption that it will be passed to make the argument against the referendum,if passed,being the doorway to homosexual couples making an application for adoption,which it will be.That is presently misinformation and you should refrain from that.
Your second point is correct.If,yes if,this bill is passed before the referendum date it will not give legal clarity to the issue regarding married homosexual couples and adoption.This clarity comes if the referendum succeeds.
Your third point concretes my point.
No your wrong,how people vote in this referendum will have the final say on adoption rights to homosexual couples whether you like it or not.
I wont answer your final flippant question because,frankly,its beneath me.

NuMarvel

fran17 wrote: »

The government may have said they want this bill,which we have not even seen draft form of yet,to be passed before the referendum but we await to see this.

The current version of the General Scheme of the Bill was published in September. So yes, we've seen a draft form of the Bill. It is disinformation to say we haven't seen what will be in the Bill. You should refrain from doing that.

fran17 wrote: »

No of course I'm not 100% sure this bill wont be passed before the referendum and I never said I was.However many people here,including yourself,are using the assumption that it will be passed to make the argument against the referendum,if passed,being the doorway to homosexual couples making an application for adoption,which it will be.

Whether it's by the Bill or the referendum, children adopted by gay couples will finally be able to have the security of a recognised relationship with both adoptive parents.

If you're opposed to this change, then please explain how the status quo, i.e. where a child adopted by an unmarried couple is regarded as being raised by a single parent, is better for the child.

fran17 wrote: »

Your second point is correct.If,yes if,this bill is passed before the referendum date it will not give legal clarity to the issue regarding married homosexual couples and adoption.This clarity comes if the referendum succeeds.

How can a Bill passed before gay couples can marry address the issue of gay couples marrying? For one the legislation has to account for the possibility that the referendum won't pass, and for another a Yes vote doesn't mean gay couples can marry the next day. Legislation still has to be brought forth to give effect to it, so there may be a few months between the referendum and the resulting legislation. Add to that that couples are required to give 3 months notice to marry, and you're probably looking at the end of the year before we'd see the first gay couple marrying in Ireland.

I think you need to clarify what issues need to be clarified.

fran17 wrote: »

Your third point concretes my point.
No your wrong,how people vote in this referendum will have the final say on adoption rights to homosexual couples whether you like it or not.

As I've said before, whether by the Bill or the referendum, at some later this year, children adopted by gay couples will enjoy a legal relationship with both parents. All the referendum changes is whether that couple have the option to marry or not.

Godge

NuMarvel wrote: »

If you're opposed to this change, then please explain how the status quo, i.e. where a child adopted by an unmarried couple is regarded as being raised by a single parent, is better for the child.

This is the thing I don't understand about opponents of same-sex parents' adoption.

If someone came in here and said that the only proper place for a child was in a heterosexual couple environment and proposed that children should be taken off single parents, that children of widowed parents should also be taken away if they didn't remember the live parent, at least they would be consistent. However, none of the opponents of same-sex parents' adoption are prepared to go that far but that is the logic of their argument.

AlanS181824

Equality for ALL citizens regardless of who they love, it's pretty simple really!

NuMarvel

Godge wrote: »

This is the thing I don't understand about opponents of same-sex parents' adoption.

If someone came in here and said that the only proper place for a child was in a heterosexual couple environment and proposed that children should be taken off single parents, that children of widowed parents should also be taken away if they didn't remember the live parent, at least they would be consistent. However, none of the opponents of same-sex parents' adoption are prepared to go that far but that is the logic of their argument.

While removing children from single or widowed parents would be a logical extension of their argument, it's fair to say it wouldn't be a proportionate measure. So I can see why they wouldn't go that far with their thinking.

Where their argument falls down completely however is that their opposition to marriage doesn't prevent gay couples raising children. The bar on marriage doesn't stop gay couples raising kids , because people don't need to be married to become parents.

Even if we accepted their initial premise (that same sex couples raising kids disadvantages the child someway), we have to ask why they continue to advocate a measure that doesn't achieve their desired outcome. It's a verifiable fact that gay couples can and do raise children. It's been happening in Ireland since at least the late 70s so clearly the bar on marriage has failed in stopping it. Yet, time and again, some variation of "children deserve a mum and dad" is trundled out, with no explanation of how barring gay couples from marriage supports or achieves that aim. It's a completely irrational position, and not one anti-marriage activist has ever tried to explain the contradiction.

The bar on marriage doesn't stop gay couples raising children. It just stops married gay couples raising children. Which is ironic, given how much we're told marriage is a child-centred institution.

Godge

NuMarvel wrote: »

While removing children from single or widowed parents would be a logical extension of their argument, it's fair to say it wouldn't be a proportionate measure. So I can see why they wouldn't go that far with their thinking.

Where their argument falls down completely however is that their opposition to marriage doesn't prevent gay couples raising children. The bar on marriage doesn't stop gay couples raising kids , because people don't need to be married to become parents.

Even if we accepted their initial premise (that same sex couples raising kids disadvantages the child someway), we have to ask why they continue to advocate a measure that doesn't achieve their desired outcome. It's a verifiable fact that gay couples can and do raise children. It's been happening in Ireland since at least the late 70s so clearly the bar on marriage has failed in stopping it. Yet, time and again, some variation of "children deserve a mum and dad" is trundled out, with no explanation of how barring gay couples from marriage supports or achieves that aim. It's a completely irrational position, and not one anti-marriage activist has ever tried to explain the contradiction.

The bar on marriage doesn't stop gay couples raising children. It just stops married gay couples raising children. Which is ironic, given how much we're told marriage is a child-centred institution.

Their argument is full of contradictions. I agree with all the points you make.

The reason I was putting forward my point is that if you did have a religious right-wing fundamentalist suggesting you take kids of single parents etc., at least you could respect the coherence and internal logic of the argument even if you disagreed completely with the premise and the proportionality. The current religious objections lack even the internal logic.

ardmacha

Godge wrote: »

This is the thing I don't understand about opponents of same-sex parents' adoption.

If someone came in here and said that the only proper place for a child was in a heterosexual couple environment and proposed that children should be taken off single parents, that children of widowed parents should also be taken away if they didn't remember the live parent, at least they would be consistent. However, none of the opponents of same-sex parents' adoption are prepared to go that far but that is the logic of their argument.

This is complete nonsense. This issue is not the taking away of children, nobody is proposing that any children will be taken away whatever the outcome of the referendum.

Annasopra

ardmacha wrote: »

This is complete nonsense. This issue is not the taking away of children, nobody is proposing that any children will be taken away whatever the outcome of the referendum.

Isnt that the point though. The logical conclusion of those against same sex couples adopting would be to do so.

Godge

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Isnt that the point though. The logical conclusion of those against same sex couples adopting would be to do so.

Exactly, either a heterosexual couple environment is the only place to bring up kids or it isn't.

If it is, as opponents of same-sex marriage suggest, then single fathers aren't fit to bring up kids.

Put it another way, if a single father, left widowed by his wife dying in childbirth with twins, is ok to bring up kids, how can two fathers be worse?

oscarBravo

Godge wrote: »

...if a single father, left widowed by his wife dying in childbirth with twins, is ok to bring up kids, how can two fathers be worse?

Sounds of sodomy, innit.

Sheldons Brain

Godge wrote: »

Exactly, either a heterosexual couple environment is the only place to bring up kids or it isn't.

If it is, as opponents of same-sex marriage suggest, then single fathers aren't fit to bring up kids.

Put it another way, if a single father, left widowed by his wife dying in childbirth with twins, is ok to bring up kids, how can two fathers be worse?

This is offensive to widowed people who made every effort to fully provide for their children and who through no fault of their own end up with only one parent. A person who made every effort to build a home with the other parent of a child should not be compared with someone whose interest is in a random sexual partner and not the child.

However, because it is appropriate for a widow or widower to bring up their children does not mean that the government should contrive to increase the number of widowed people. There is a difference between outcomes and what you are trying to achieve.

B_Wayne

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

This is offensive to widowed people who made every effort to fully provide for their children and who through no fault of their own end up with only one parent. A person who made every effort to build a home with the other parent of a child should not be compared with someone whose interest is in a random sexual partner and not the child.

However, because it is appropriate for a widow or widower to bring up their children does not mean that the government should contrive to increase the number of widowed people. There is a difference between outcomes and what you are trying to achieve.

Everyone refers to a fundamental inferiority of same sex couple's ability to raise children however the research does not verify this and completely discounts this as a belief that is unfounded.

Sheldons Brain

B_Wayne wrote: »

Everyone refers to a fundamental inferiority of same sex couple's ability to raise children however the research does not verify this and completely discounts this as a belief that is unfounded.

I don't think children should be used as mere objects to be passed around in social experiments to make adults feel good about their sex lives.

Sheldons Brain

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

I don't think children should be used as mere objects to be passed around in social experiments to make adults feel good about their sex lives.

[img][/img]http://media.tumblr.com/f93911a35dadb5d39b8944449693dcb9/tumblr_inline_ml0pl3F1up1qz4rgp.gif

Sheldons Brain

Deleted User wrote: »

[img][/img]http://media.tumblr.com/f93911a35dadb5d39b8944449693dcb9/tumblr_inline_ml0pl3F1up1qz4rgp.gif

Do you know how to work boards?

Do you think that children should be used as mere objects to be passed around in social experiments to make adults feel good about their sex lives?

shruikan2553

For the referendum people will be voting on whether or not 2 people of the same gender can get married and every mention of marriage in the constitution and any legislation applies to such couples.

Currently a single person can adopt a child regardless of sexual orientation. Currently if you wish to adopt as a child as a couple you must be married. Civil partnerships do not have all of the same rights as a married couple, one of which is the above.

The government will be changing this so that a cohabiting couple or civil partnership will be able to adopt a child. This is a change in adoption legislation which will allow a couple to adopt regardless of gender or orientation much like how they can adopt if they adopt as a single person now. This will not be voted on by the public and is completely separate from the referendum.

If the referendum passes then 2 people will be able to adopt as a couple regardless of their genders or orientation.
If the referendum doesnt pass then 2 people will be able to adopt as a couple regardless of their genders or orientation.

We are not voting on the above about adoption, we are voting on if marriage in the constitution includes 2 people of the same gender. Sadly this is something few people are willing to debate and instead have to rely on the disinformation about adoption.

Godge

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

This is offensive to widowed people who made every effort to fully provide for their children and who through no fault of their own end up with only one parent. A person who made every effort to build a home with the other parent of a child should not be compared with someone whose interest is in a random sexual partner and not the child.

However, because it is appropriate for a widow or widower to bring up their children does not mean that the government should contrive to increase the number of widowed people. There is a difference between outcomes and what you are trying to achieve.

It is not in any way offensive to widowed people. I am not saying they are worse parents, I am asking how can they be better parents than loving same-sex couples?

If it is ok for a single widowed father to raise twins whose mother died in childbirth and with whom he had a minimal relationship, then what is wrong with two fathers?

What about a single mother who had a one-night stand? How is she better able to bring up a child than two loving lesbians, one of whom was artificially inseminated?

There are probably religious fundamentalists in the States who would take children off single parents to place them in heterosexual couples. At least they are consistent and logical when they oppose same-sex marriage unlike the hypocritical illogical objections from the Irish religious types.

oscarBravo

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

A person who made every effort to build a home with the other parent of a child should not be compared with someone whose interest is in a random sexual partner and not the child.

I'm genuinely curious: are you deliberately trying to be offensive by implying that anyone in a same-sex relationship merely has a "random sexual partner", or are you simply oblivious to the implicit offensiveness?

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

I don't think children should be used as mere objects to be passed around in social experiments to make adults feel good about their sex lives.

Happily, nobody thinks that. Better yet, nobody arguing in favour of marriage equality has ever suggested that.

Please keep posting. By having nothing to contribute but logical fallacies and offensive remarks, you're really helping to demonstrate that there are no rational arguments against marriage equality.

Sheldons Brain

Godge wrote: »

It is not in any way offensive to widowed people. I am not saying they are worse parents, I am asking how can they be better parents than loving same-sex couples?

It certainly is offensive, and that such gratuitous offence is directed at bereaved people is indicative of the quality of those supporting this measure.

Godge wrote: »

There are probably religious fundamentalists in the States who would take children off single parents to place them in heterosexual couples. At least they are consistent and logical when they oppose same-sex marriage unlike the hypocritical illogical objections from the Irish religious types.

The world is not black and white and composed of opposites, whatever lunatics in the US may think. Reality is a spectrum, there are things which are outright undesirable, things that are not quite ideal and things that should be aimed for. It is not hypocritical, but rather rational and compassionate, to recognise the spectrum of things. But rationality will not play much part in this particular debate and as your comments on bereaved people showed, compassion won't have much role to play either.

oscarBravo wrote:

I'm genuinely curious: are you deliberately trying to be offensive by implying that anyone in a same-sex relationship merely has a "random sexual partner", or are you simply oblivious to the implicit offensiveness?

I seriously doubt that your are "genuinely curious". My point was that the sexual partner had no connection to the child and that the whole rationale in this project is that there should be no connection with parenthood and your sexual partner.

By having nothing to contribute but logical fallacies and offensive remarks, you're really helping to demonstrate that there are no rational arguments against marriage equality.

You are always keen to attribute logical fallacy to other posters, without of course ever pointing out what the fallacy is. There are some for whom argument is about as welcome as free speech is to ISIS.

fran17

Godge wrote: »

Exactly, either a heterosexual couple environment is the only place to bring up kids or it isn't.

If it is, as opponents of same-sex marriage suggest, then single fathers aren't fit to bring up kids.

Put it another way, if a single father, left widowed by his wife dying in childbirth with twins, is ok to bring up kids, how can two fathers be worse?

If you are being serious with this comment,i hope not,but if you are then I really can not see how a debate about this issue is possible.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

For the referendum people will be voting on whether or not 2 people of the same gender can get married and every mention of marriage in the constitution and any legislation applies to such couples.

Currently a single person can adopt a child regardless of sexual orientation. Currently if you wish to adopt as a child as a couple you must be married. Civil partnerships do not have all of the same rights as a married couple, one of which is the above.

The government will be changing this so that a cohabiting couple or civil partnership will be able to adopt a child. This is a change in adoption legislation which will allow a couple to adopt regardless of gender or orientation much like how they can adopt if they adopt as a single person now. This will not be voted on by the public and is completely separate from the referendum.

If the referendum passes then 2 people will be able to adopt as a couple regardless of their genders or orientation.
If the referendum doesnt pass then 2 people will be able to adopt as a couple regardless of their genders or orientation.

We are not voting on the above about adoption, we are voting on if marriage in the constitution includes 2 people of the same gender. Sadly this is something few people are willing to debate and instead have to rely on the disinformation about adoption.

Your first three paragraphs are correct and I think everyone is well aware of this information now.However the issue that is of relevance here is the change that will be enacted if this referendum is passed.This is the subject that most of the yes campaign refuse to acknowledge.
The total result of the child and family bill,if or when enacted,will give clarity to the use of homosexual couples when referring to the interpretation of cohabiting couples,part 12-head 75 of the revised general scheme.
The child and family bill will not give rights to homosexual couples regarding adoption as the yes side have already conceded in this debate,#93.
As I've had to explain many times already,there is many reason why a child grows up in an alternative family environment and adapts perfectly well to this to become socially,psychologically and morally rounded.However should legislation create a distorted and unnatural environment,natural being the presence of either a male or female or both in there lives,for there child and adolescent years? I believe not.

B_Wayne

Fran, my parents were relatively old when they had me. My father had very little presence in my life from around the age of twelve. But the fact is I had numerous influences in my life that were male and female that weren't my parents. This is pretty much the same for every child. Providing them with the best environment is the aim however you seem to be more obsessed with saying same sex parents corrupt their environment. We've proved that it isn't true but you block your ears. That's all that happens in this debate with you.

Annasopra

fran17 wrote: »

The total result of the child and family bill,if or when enacted,will give clarity to the use of homosexual couples when referring to the interpretation of cohabiting couples,part 12-head 75 of the revised general scheme.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

fran17 wrote: »

As I've had to explain many times already,there is many reason why a child grows up in an alternative family environment and adapts perfectly well to this to become socially,psychologically and morally rounded.However should legislation create a distorted and unnatural environment,natural being the presence of either a male or female or both in there lives,for there child and adolescent years? I believe not.

So basically you accept the evidence that children who grow up and are parented in alternative family structures are perfectly well rounded socially, morally and psychologically.

Ok well then what other basis do you have for your beliefs?

Annasopra

fran17 wrote: »

If you are being serious with this comment,i hope not,but if you are then I really can not see how a debate about this issue is possible.

I think Godges comments are perfectly serious.

oscarBravo

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

I seriously doubt that your are "genuinely curious".

I am. My suspicion is that you genuinely don't see how you're being offensive, but I'm not prepared to rule out the possibility that you're actually setting out to do so.

My point was that the sexual partner had no connection to the child and that the whole rationale in this project is that there should be no connection with parenthood and your sexual partner.

Your point is predicated on the assumption that a homosexual relationship inherently involves a random sexual partner, as opposed to a heterosexual relationship which admits the possibility of a genuine lifelong loving commitment.

That assumption is blatant, in-your-face, no-holds-barred homophobia. Again, I don't know whether you were deliberately setting out to be offensive with the assumption that gay people can't have committed long-term relationships like straight people can - that's a question that only you can answer.

You are always keen to attribute logical fallacy to other posters, without of course ever pointing out what the fallacy is.

I generally do point out what the fallacy is, but I'll confess that I didn't in this case because I thought it was painfully bloody obvious.

You said: "I don't think children should be used as mere objects to be passed around in social experiments to make adults feel good about their sex lives." This is called a "straw man" logical fallacy. You're arguing against something that nobody else has argued for, in an effort to make it seem as if your opponents have in fact argued for it.

It's easy to disprove the notion that it's a straw man fallacy: all you have to do is quote the post where someone else has said that they do think that children should be used as mere objects to be passed around in social experiments to make adults feel good about their sex lives.

There are some for whom argument is about as welcome as free speech is to ISIS.

I'm sure that's true, but then there seem to be some for whom argument amounts to little more than (intentional or incidental) offence and logical fallacies.

NuMarvel

fran17 wrote: »

Your first three paragraphs are correct and I think everyone is well aware of this information now.However the issue that is of relevance here is the change that will be enacted if this referendum is passed.This is the subject that most of the yes campaign refuse to acknowledge.

What change? Adoption? People aren't refusing to acknowledge it, people are telling you it will be dealt with prior to the referendum.

fran17 wrote: »

The total result of the child and family bill,if or when enacted,will give clarity to the use of homosexual couples when referring to the interpretation of cohabiting couples,part 12-head 75 of the revised general scheme.

Firstly, what do you mean by the total result of the Bill when enacted? The Bill deals with a vast range of areas, the majority of which will apply to children being raised by heterosexual parents. The Bill is not solely, or even primarily, about children being raised by gay couples, never mind adopted.

Secondly, you need to read Part 75 again, because you've missed the definition of civil partners.

fran17 wrote: »

The child and family bill will not give rights to homosexual couples regarding adoption as the yes side have already conceded in this debate,#93.

You are incorrect on both counts. In terms of adoption, the Bill will mean ALL couples, be they civil partners, married, or cohabiting, will be treated equally. They will all be able to apply jointly, to be assessed jointly, and if deemed suitable, to adopt jointly.

And nothing in post #93 can be interpreted as a concession about the rights of gay couples in terms of adoption.

fran17 wrote: »

As I've had to explain many times already,there is many reason why a child grows up in an alternative family environment and adapts perfectly well to this to become socially,psychologically and morally rounded.However should legislation create a distorted and unnatural environment,natural being the presence of either a male or female or both in there lives,for there child and adolescent years? I believe not.

All family environments mean children will have the presence of a male or female in their lives. Or do you think same sex couples have no gender?

Furthermore, you seem to grossly misunderstand the adoption process. The decision as to who will adopt is made by qualified child care workers, on a case by case basis, not by legislation. And through the fostering system, these people already know that gay couples can provide a natural, healthy environment for children to grow up in.

I've already explained to you that the only change that will happen to adoption legislation this year is to ensure an adopted child's rights aren't infringed by the adopting couple's marital status. If you think that shouldn't change, then please set out your reasons.

Sheldons Brain

oscarBravo wrote: »

I am. My suspicion is that you genuinely don't see how you're being offensive, but I'm not prepared to rule out the possibility that you're actually setting out to do so. Your point is predicated on the assumption that a homosexual relationship inherently involves a random sexual partner, as opposed to a heterosexual relationship which admits the possibility of a genuine lifelong loving commitment.

That assumption is blatant, in-your-face, no-holds-barred homophobia.

Ah yes, the usual resort to an accusation of "homophobia", sure if an ad hominem attack will do then who needs debate.

Please withdraw this accusation. I did not make any statement one way or the other as to the length or loving nature of same sex relationships.

NuMarvel

The Sunday Times is reporting that last November's voter registration campaign resulted in 40,000 new voters.

This presumably includes the 20,000 new voters that the student unions were successful in registering.

While there's no guarantee that all 40,000 will vote (or that they'll vote in favour of change), that's a very impressive result and a major boost for the Yes Campaign. And there will likely be more registrations when the Supplementary Register is published next month, and again when the referendum date is announced.