Gay marriage referendum: what are we actually voting on?

SireOfSeth

metrosity wrote: »

In other news, Twitter are now encouraging people to vote yes to same sex marriage. That might make more vote no!

And what's Twitters agenda here? More or less the same agenda as all these English language attack usurper colleges I suspect - pumping people into the country - not to work in McD's - nope to work for Twitter etc..

"Hi, We're Twiter and we endorse pumping new immigrant ""diversity"" demographics into your country".

It would seem to me that they are a company happy to stand-up for peoples civil rights. Fair play to them! I wish even more businesses would follow suit.

SireOfSeth

ouncer wrote: »

There are so many things that disturb me about this referendum. And all of them are not related to same-sex marriage.

So let's start.

No 1: its a referendum where the people speak. So why do I need a politician or priest or yes or no campaigner to tell me how to vote. I have friends who are gay and relations who are gay, I know the issue. I resent being told how I should vote. So first up let me say I'm not religious. So I read about priests guiding their parishioners to vote no in the referendum. Why is this? They were put in a hole because the politicians insisted on a yes vote so they had to react. If politicians simply left these referendums alone it would be so much easier. By nature there is a natural distrust of politicians. Unfortunately we do, via our current system, have to vote for one of them. What we see in return is their wages, their expenses, their pensions, their back scratching with lobbyists (maybe a dob rate court case and his multitude of companies provided with state business might refresh the mind). So leo I'm impressed your gay. Strangely we as the citizens live with such issues as gay, abortion, choice of life and death, poverty etc.. We live these things as you do. We have a right to vote without being forced on on our viewpoint.

No 2: last week all the NO posters were stripped off the poles in our town. As said previously there should be not be a yes or no campaign. It is up to the people to decide. But I found this disgusting.

No 3: well tonight I got a visit from a bunch of yes capmaigners (registration from mayo strangely). So I decided to put them to the test. The blank expressions were funny. Purely to be a pain in the are I asked them about religious implications, surrogacy issues (basically to check them out). Bottom line they weren't sure on anything (love playing devils advocate).

So here's the point. You are voting on your opinion. Nothing else. Screw everybody else. How you feel on the matter is what's important. Like issues such as divorce, right to life, right to death, rights of children it is your choice. Vote with your heart. The only wrong vote, for me, is when you don't exercise your right to vote.

Confused!?! If you know the issues, why did you ask the campaigners about stuff not related to this referendum? Doesn't sound like devil's advocate, sounds more like a ludraman.

ouncer

SireOfSeth wrote: »

Confused!?! If you know the issues, why did you ask the campaigners about stuff not related to this referendum? Doesn't sound like devil's advocate, sounds more like a ludraman.

I'll keep that in mind.

ouncer

Here's a novel idea. So I have my opinion. I have no wish to share that opinion with anybody. Its my vote. So I will vote based on how I believe. I don't need someone to tell me how to vote. However if someone told me how to vote how would I feel. Not very positive. So you yes guys, what are you doing? I am so lost. The logic is there. Let people vote. Give them some degree of intelligence. I can see this vote failing as the Lisbon treaty failed due to folks forcing the vote. As said before it is our vote, us the people. Not a no vote campaign, not a yes vote campaign, not a political campaign. I cant believe the utter viciousness of the yes campaign. Tearing down posters, insisting to vote anything other than yes is the wrong vote. Ye guys disgust me. I already have gay friends and family members. I know how to vote. You yes campaigners disgust me on your idealogical bull****. I know. So i dont need ye sanctimonious yes voters to tell me how to vote. I don't need your bull**** ideas. I live among them. You yes ****ers are such parts. You don't even begin to know. We don't need your help

meglome

ouncer wrote: »

I cant believe the utter viciousness of the yes campaign. Tearing down posters, insisting to vote anything other than yes is the wrong vote. Ye guys disgust me. I already have gay friends and family members. I know how to vote. You yes campaigners disgust me on your idealogical bull****. I know. So i dont need ye sanctimonious yes voters to tell me how to vote. I don't need your bull**** ideas. I live among them. You yes ****ers are such parts. You don't even begin to know. We don't need your help

And you haven't noticed the exact same tactics from the no camp? And not forgetting the many utter nonsense posters the no camp have put up. You have very selective outrage.

ouncer

None whatsoever. Do I see yes posters pulled down. Absolutely not. The yes campaign disgusts me. They are utter bigots who don't even understand what it is to be gay. Screw ye fanciful well wishers. Live it and then know it. You sicken me.

meglome

ouncer wrote: »

None whatsoever. Do I see yes posters pulled down. Absolutely not. The yes campaign disgusts me. They are utter bigots who don't even understand what it is to be gay. Screw ye fanciful well wishers. Live it and then know it. You sicken me.

haha okay. I feel really good not being on the same side as you for some reason.

ouncer

So you are voting no. Well done. I am voting yes but I don't need bigots to tell me why

meglome

ouncer wrote: »

So you are voting no. Well done. I am voting yes but I don't need bigots to tell me why

Drat. I'm on the same side as you. Ah well. Such is a democracy.

ouncer

Probably because you think its the cool way to vote. People like you drive me nuts. Live the life. We don't need your support. We don't need people ripping down posters. We really don't need a yes campaign. It would have won without question before the righteous yes wingers got involved. Thanks a bunch. Smucks

meglome

ouncer wrote: »

Probably because you think its the cool way to vote. People like you drive me nuts. Live the life. We don't need your support. We don't need people ripping down posters. We really don't need a yes campaign. It would have won without question before the righteous yes wingers got involved. Thanks a bunch. Smucks

Have you been drinking?

ouncer

Of course, that must be it. Anybody who doesn't fit into your narrow yes opinion is drinking, on drugs or has a limited viewpoint. None of the above. As one who has a keen interest in the outcome of this referendum the yes vote bothers me. Its an imotive issue and your vote should be for the right reasons. Yes I want the yes vote but that's for me. I do not coerce people into a yes vote. It means much to me but not much if it is simply forced from the populace by dirty tactics.

James esq

I think it is about allowing gay people to get married to other gay people of the same sex. I assume that gay people marrying is not allowed by making a law, as the constitution does not allow it, I don't know. I would suspect that if passed it will lead to more referendums straightening (or more accurately gaying ) the rest of the constitution.

martingriff

ouncer wrote: »

None whatsoever. Do I see yes posters pulled down. Absolutely not. The yes campaign disgusts me. They are utter bigots who don't even understand what it is to be gay. Screw ye fanciful well wishers. Live it and then know it. You sicken me.

I have seen posters defaced and the yes side do not condone those actions of a few who pull down posters. Do you know what it is like to be gay why does it sicken you

ouncer

James esq wrote: »

I think it is about allowing gay people to get married to other gay people of the same sex. I assume that gay people marrying is not allowed by making a law, as the constitution does not allow it, I don't know. I would suspect that if passed it will lead to more referendums straightening (or more accurately gaying ) the rest of the constitution.

As you say it is really simple. Yes or no. Up to you. I do see one overall benefit (and I am not trying to swing your opinion, its just an impression). If the referendum gets passed it likely finishes the idea of (in the case of divorce) of the mother being the primary benefactor. Since all types of marriages are now respected, all partners must now be respected. As such the mother will unlikely get her payments from the father unless she can prove she deserves them (vice versa would be unusual but I expect it to become more usual). This is the benefit of same for all.

ouncer

martingriff wrote: »

I have seen posters defaced and the yes side do not condone those actions of a few who pull down posters. Do you know what it is like to be gay why does it sicken you

Martin, you miss my point. Being gay is as good as being hetro (there is no difference, we are all still simply people). What abhors me is that one side needs to deface another. That's simply ignorance.

SF12

ouncer wrote: »

As you say it is really simple. Yes or no. Up to you. I do see one overall benefit (and I am not trying to swing your opinion, its just an impression). If the referendum gets passed it likely finishes the idea of (in the case of divorce) of the mother being the primary benefactor. Since all types of marriages are now respected, all partners must now be respected. As such the mother will unlikely get her payments from the father unless she can prove she deserves them (vice versa would be unusual but I expect it to become more usual). This is the benefit of same for all.

It is - but I would imagine that in order for this to happen, it will require changes being made to legislation that exists for family law.

I am cautious about this vote, because I feel that changing the definition of marriage will have a knock-on effect on a substantial amount of other legislation that we really don't know the detail of, and probably won't be told much about. I am also concerned about the lack of legislation or regulation that exists around surrogacy, and the effect that this vote could have on future legislation for surrogacy (or vice versa).

Why is it that we can't give civil partnership the same rights as marriage without actually changing the definition of marriage? (That is a genuine question by the way). Why wasn't that done when civil partnership was created?

SireOfSeth

SF12 wrote: »

It is - but I would imagine that in order for this to happen, it will require changes being made to legislation that exists for family law.

I am cautious about this vote, because I feel that changing the definition of marriage will have a knock-on effect on a substantial amount of other legislation that we really don't know the detail of, and probably won't be told much about. I am also concerned about the lack of legislation or regulation that exists around surrogacy, and the effect that this vote could have on future legislation for surrogacy (or vice versa).

Why is it that we can't give civil partnership the same rights as marriage without actually changing the definition of marriage? (That is a genuine question by the way). Why wasn't that done when civil partnership was created?

Civil Partnership is just in legislation - it can be changed at any time (without a vote). Whereas, Civil Marriage is in our constitution - which is much stronger (requires a vote by the people to have it changed).

It might be worth your while checking this out (for an unbiased view)...
http://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9%3A20778447%3A0%3A%3A
...and...
http://refcom2015.ie/marriage/

SireOfSeth

James esq wrote: »

I think it is about allowing gay people to get married to other gay people of the same sex. I assume that gay people marrying is not allowed by making a law, as the constitution does not allow it, I don't know. I would suspect that if passed it will lead to more referendums straightening (or more accurately gaying ) the rest of the constitution.

If Yes wins, no more referendums will be required (on this topic). And, with regards to legislation, the Referendum Commission has a section titled: "Proposed changes to marriage rules if referendum is passed"
http://refcom2015.ie/marriage/

SireOfSeth

ouncer wrote: »

Here's a novel idea. So I have my opinion. I have no wish to share that opinion with anybody. Its my vote. So I will vote based on how I believe. I don't need someone to tell me how to vote. However if someone told me how to vote how would I feel. Not very positive. So you yes guys, what are you doing? I am so lost. The logic is there. Let people vote. Give them some degree of intelligence. I can see this vote failing as the Lisbon treaty failed due to folks forcing the vote. As said before it is our vote, us the people. Not a no vote campaign, not a yes vote campaign, not a political campaign. I cant believe the utter viciousness of the yes campaign. Tearing down posters, insisting to vote anything other than yes is the wrong vote. Ye guys disgust me. I already have gay friends and family members. I know how to vote. You yes campaigners disgust me on your idealogical bull****. I know. So i dont need ye sanctimonious yes voters to tell me how to vote. I don't need your bull**** ideas. I live among them. You yes ****ers are such parts. You don't even begin to know. We don't need your help

You might want to calm down there - you'll blow a blood vessel. Personally, I haven't felt, at any time, that anyone was forcing me or coercing me to vote either way.

seamus

ouncer wrote: »

None whatsoever. Do I see yes posters pulled down. Absolutely not. The yes campaign disgusts me. They are utter bigots who don't even understand what it is to be gay. Screw ye fanciful well wishers. Live it and then know it. You sicken me.

You are well aware that Yes posters have also been pulled down & defaced? Yes campaigners have been spat on, had guns pulled on them, being subject to verbal abuse.
Even when not campaigning they've received hate mail from No supporters directly to their door.

There are dirty actions on both sides. The only difference is that the Yes side has dealt with it with dignity and resolve, whereas the No side has taken every opportunity to whinge about it and claim they're being bullied and oppressed.

The No side do a good propaganda game, I'll give them that. If I ever follow through on my plans to become dictator, I'll definitely hire David Quinn as my head of propaganda.

Sofiztikated

Second time in a week I've been dropping herself in to work, and have noticed that even more Yes posters are missing from where they previously were.

And there are more Iona Institute sponsored Vote No posters up.

Hardly coincidental?

Glenman

I was thinking about this, I am unsure how to vote. If this is passed and lets say in two years time a teacher is teaching his national school class about the family and the traditional family as we know it is discussed, a mother and father and the children. Will teachers also have to teach that a family with two daddy's (no mammy) and the children is also normal? Will teachers also have to teach that a family with two mammy's (no daddy) and the children is also normal?

meglome

Glenman wrote: »

I was thinking about this, I am unsure how to vote. If this is passed and lets say in two years time a teacher is teaching his national school class about the family and the traditional family as we know it is discussed, a mother and father and the children. Will teachers also have to teach that a family with two daddy's (no mammy) and the children is also normal? Will teachers also have to teach that a family with two mammy's (no daddy) and the children is also normal?

Is is also a problem if the teacher has to teach about a single female parent family or a single male parent family, or an adopted child in a family etc etc?
No matter what way we vote next week the family structures out there will be exactly the same. Though if we vote Yes some additional people will be married.

Personally I'd prefer if a teacher taught about the reality of family structures today, and not what the religion books said it was in the 1950's.

One eyed Jack

Glenman wrote: »

I was thinking about this, I am unsure how to vote. If this is passed and lets say in two years time a teacher is teaching his national school class about the family and the traditional family as we know it is discussed, a mother and father and the children. Will teachers also have to teach that a family with two daddy's (no mammy) and the children is also normal? Will teachers also have to teach that a family with two mammy's (no daddy) and the children is also normal?

The simplest, and most basic answer to that question, is no, teachers won't have to teach anything to children that hasn't already been discussed among parents, teachers and at Board of Management level which in for example a Catholic ethos school would be along these lines -

The vision, the values, the human and Christian virtues, the revealed truths and the lived tradition which go to make up the Christian understanding of life cannot be taught without reference to sexuality and procreation, and to the responsible, respectful and loving use of these gifts of God.

It is the responsibility of the Board of Management to initiate the process of developing an RSE policy for the school. In practice, a policy
committee, consisting of representatives of parents, teachers and the Board of Management undertakes this task. Catholic primary schools
are strongly advised to have an RSE policy prior to delivering an RSE programme. The policy should give guidance to teachers on how to
approach moral and ethical issues relevant to RSE while taking the ethos of the school and the RE programme into account.

Everyone who is involved in the task of Relationships and Sexuality Education in a Catholic school should be guided by a number of basic
principles.

Extract taken from the Guidelines on Relationships and Sexuality Education which you may download and read about here.

SireOfSeth

Glenman wrote: »

I was thinking about this, I am unsure how to vote. If this is passed and lets say in two years time a teacher is teaching his national school class about the family and the traditional family as we know it is discussed, a mother and father and the children. Will teachers also have to teach that a family with two daddy's (no mammy) and the children is also normal? Will teachers also have to teach that a family with two mammy's (no daddy) and the children is also normal?

Probably depends on the class. If it's Religion, they can pretty much discriminate away to their hearts content. However, if it's CSPE, presumably they'd need to educate on the up-to-date facts.

C14N

Glenman wrote: »

I was thinking about this, I am unsure how to vote. If this is passed and lets say in two years time a teacher is teaching his national school class about the family and the traditional family as we know it is discussed, a mother and father and the children. Will teachers also have to teach that a family with two daddy's (no mammy) and the children is also normal? Will teachers also have to teach that a family with two mammy's (no daddy) and the children is also normal?

I went through the full 13 years of school and I don't believe at any time at all did a teacher discuss what a family is with the class. Why on earth would they do that in the first place?

C14N

In response to the OP, I'm just voting yes because it is something that will improve the lives of a large minority of people while having zero adverse effects on anybody else and it will be enshrined in the constitution.

gk5000

C14N wrote: »

In response to the OP, I'm just voting yes because it is something that will improve the lives of a large minority of people while having zero adverse effects on anybody else and it will be enshrined in the constitution.

Well it is having an adverse affect on me, because legally - current marriage and this version of same sex marriage shall be intermingled.

I have suggested we have an alternative "Same Sex Marriage" equal and distinct from current marriage which would have very limited negative affect on anybody.

So vote no to send them back to the drawing board for this.

C14N

gk5000 wrote: »

Well it is having an adverse affect on me, because legally - current marriage and this version of same sex marriage shall be intermingled.

What effect could it possibly have on you?