How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

upinthesky

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I actually can't tell if this is a serious post or not.

100% serious, what makes you think it's not?

eviltwin

lisar816 wrote: »

100% serious, what makes you think it's not?

The walls in your house must be well thin

TheBeardedLady

lisar816 wrote: »

100% serious, what makes you think it's not?

Do you know what you're voting on in May? You're not voting on whether gay couples can have loud sex or whether they can adopt.



Ye know what? People who haven't a fecking clue what they're actually voting on shouldn't be allowed to vote. A quick few question as they enter the polling station:

1) Are you voting on the rights of gay couples to adopt?
2) Are you voting against the existence of gay couples?
3) Can you tell me, in your own words, what you're actually voting for today?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

lisar816 wrote: »

I will be voting No, only because i know it will not stop here, i already see they are bringing in a referendum to lower the age of voting to 16, then what? try and lower the age of sex to 16.

Also then there is the adopting children debate, i have 3 children and i personally would not want my children adopted by gay parents, i'm not saying they wouldn't love the child, but it's just how i feel and i can't change that, if gay marriage is brought in there will be a lot more couples living together, the thoughts of hearing two gay men having sex in the house next door makes me cringe, sorry NO.

lisar816 wrote: »

100% serious, what makes you think it's not?

Firstly, as far as I know, you can have a say who adopts your child. Objecting to other people raising your child is fine - your chice - why what makes you think you shoud have the right to object to other people raising other people's children?

Secondly... how exactly does gay marriage stop gay men having sex...? You must know that people - straight and gay - have sex without getting married all the time.

spikeS

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Do you know what you're voting on in May? You're not voting on whether gay couples can have loud sex or whether they can adopt.



Ye know what? People who haven't a fecking clue what they're actually voting on shouldn't be allowed to vote. A quick few question as they enter the polling station:

1) Are you voting on the rights of gay couples to adopt?
2) Are you voting against the existence of gay couples?
3) Can you tell me, in your own words, what you're actually voting for today?

No one would have got to vote on the last few eu referendums if we did that, we should remove referendums so informed leaders could just pass what is right, there is no need to vote for marriage equality the government should just pass it.

floggg

Flem31 wrote: »

Ty, just asked the question as was wondering if the rights etc voted on in the referendum would be applied retrospectively back to Civil Partnerships rather than forcing SSC to get them via marriage. Unlikely to be that proactive in this weird little nation of ours.

While I wondered whether they would just upgrade the relationship automatically myself at first, that approach does make a lot of sense when you stop and think about it.

Given the significant differences between marriage and CP, including longer separation period required for divorce, it would seem unconscionable that couples who agreed to enter CPs were made subject to more onerous obligations overnight.

While most couples will likely upgrade, their will some who would be prejudiced by the change.

upinthesky

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Do you know what you're voting on in May? You're not voting on whether gay couples can have loud sex or whether they can adopt.



Ye know what? People who haven't a fecking clue what they're actually voting on shouldn't be allowed to vote. A quick few question as they enter the polling station:

1) Are you voting on the rights of gay couples to adopt?
2) Are you voting against the existence of gay couples?
3) Can you tell me, in your own words, what you're actually voting for today?

That gave me a bit of a laugh, i can guarantee this first question will be voted on eventually if gay marriage is passed, so yes, these questions should be answered firstly, and if you don't agree with 1 of them you should be voting no.

floggg

lisar816 wrote: »

I will be voting No, only because i know it will not stop here, i already see they are bringing in a referendum to lower the age of voting to 16, then what? try and lower the age of sex to 16.

Also then there is the adopting children debate, i have 3 children and i personally would not want my children adopted by gay parents, i'm not saying they wouldn't love the child, but it's just how i feel and i can't change that, if gay marriage is brought in there will be a lot more couples living together, the thoughts of hearing two gay men having sex in the house next door makes me cringe, sorry NO.

So now we know how made the flyer.

Though personally of yiu don't like hearing them have sex, then you should probably stop eves dropping.

eviltwin

lisar816 wrote: »

That gave me a bit of a laugh, i can guarantee these other questions will be voted on eventually if gay marriage is passed, so yes, these questions should be answered firstly, and if you don't agree with 1 of them you should be voting no.

Please go educate yourself before May. Gay people can already adopt. The legal issues regarding joint adoptions will be sorted out in a separate bill.

TheBeardedLady

spikeS wrote: »

No one would have got to vote on the last few eu referendums if we did that, we should remove referendums so informed leaders could just pass what is right, there is no need to vote for marriage equality the government should just pass it.

I'm being facetious.




"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two person without distinction as to their sex".


So insanely unambiguous for the first time ever yet people seem more confused than they ever were.

PopePalpatine

Oh look, another Iona donor.

TheBeardedLady

lisar816 wrote: »

That gave me a bit of a laugh, i can guarantee this first question will be voted on eventually if gay marriage is passed, so yes, these questions should be answered firstly, and if you don't agree with 1 of them you should be voting no.

Sorry to break it to you but it'll be legal by May and you won't have any say in it. Now can we get back to the matter at hand?

Edit: Posted before I read the above.

spikeS

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

I'm being facetious.




"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two person without distinction as to their sex".


So insanely unambiguous for the first time ever yet people seem more confused than they ever were.

Yes I know but it's not something we should need to vote on government should just pass it, there is no need for our referendum system where uninformed people get to vote, removing it and letting the government decide from now on would best and would have done without the hassle we had with the last few referendums

floggg

lisar816 wrote: »

100% serious, what makes you think it's not?

I imagine it was more a case of hope than anything else. He likes to think the best of people.

TheBeardedLady

eviltwin wrote: »

Please go educate yourself before May. Gay people can already adopt. The legal issues regarding joint adoptions will be sorted out in a separate bill.

Mind-boggling how those who feign the most concern seem to know the least.

Tigger

spikeS wrote: »

I am guessing this sarcasm but anyway we raised the age of consent recently it was 16 when I was a teen

are you 99 years old?

In Ireland, the age of consent has been 17 years of age since the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1935. Last year, ministers discussed plans to lower the age of consent from 17 to 16, but came to no decision.

floggg

lisar816 wrote: »

That gave me a bit of a laugh, i can guarantee this first question will be voted on eventually if gay marriage is passed, so yes, these questions should be answered firstly, and if you don't agree with 1 of them you should be voting no.

That gave me a bit of alaugh.

Gay people can already adopt on an individual basis, and gay couples will be able to adopt jointly by the time the referendum is held, and regardless of the result.

So you didn't know what you would be voting on.

upinthesky

floggg wrote: »

That gave me a bit of alaugh.

Gay people can already adopt on an individual basis, and gay couples will be able to adopt jointly by the time the referendum is held, and regardless of the result.

So you didn't know what you would be voting on.

well this is common sense really.

spikeS

Tigger wrote: »

are you 99 years old?

In Ireland, the age of consent has been 17 years of age since the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1935. Last year, ministers discussed plans to lower the age of consent from 17 to 16, but came to no decision.

Oops thought it was 16 in the mid 90's

TheBeardedLady

spikeS wrote: »

Yes I know but it's not something we should need to vote on government should just pass it, there is no need for our referendum system where uninformed people get to vote, removing it and letting the government decide from now on would best and would have done without the hassle we had with the last few referendums

That's a separate thread, I think. I don't feel right voting on the civil rights of my fellow citizens but we vote on changes to our constitution and I'd like to keep that system in place. Takes absolute power out of the hands of the government and into those of the people. I'm happy enough with that system, though in this instance, I feel deep uncomfortable voting on this.

floggg

lisar816 wrote: »

well this is common sense really.

It's common sense that you didn't know what you were talking about?

floggg

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

That's a separate thread, I think. I don't feel right voting on the civil rights of my fellow citizens but we vote on changes to our constitution and I'd like to keep that system in place. Takes absolute power out of the hands of the government and into those of the people. I'm happy enough with that system, though in this instance, I feel deep uncomfortable voting on this.

It is strongly arguable that the no referendum was needed for this change. Marriage is undefined in the constitution, and thus there is no obvious impediment to the legislature defining it to include marriage between same sex couples.

lazybones32

Deleted User wrote: »

The user did not say that they are the same. They said in the context of the family they are the same.

I think you may need to reread what was actually written...a suitable replacement was found and the user doesn't actually say whether it was male or female but I think it was female. Saying that a child would be the same had they been raised by 2 men is an outrageous statement that is impossible to prove but somehow isn't open for criticism in this topic? Would you be the man you are now, if Mom or Dad was removed from influencing you? If Dad had a boyfriend instead of Mom, do you think you'd be the same...can you see the gist?

Daith wrote: »

Is there no difference between any two men? Or two women?

Maybe delve deeper into biology and psychology at your own discretion.

MrPudding wrote: »

This is not what is being said at all... What is being said is that the difference between males and females, in the context of raising children, is less important than the environment that the child is raised in is loving and supportive.

Of course a loving environment is the ideal and I'm not criticising the poster for taking steps to ensure the welfare of his family. My criticism was for saying that male and female input is the same - which it is not. Saying that his kids would've turned out fine if they were raised by two men is an assumption with nothing to back it up. His children would be different to what they are now - for better or worse.

MrPudding wrote: »

There is an enormous amount of literature on this subject. And we are talking well respected, peer reviewed journals, books by experts in their fields and governing bodies of professionals that work in child development, psychology and related fields.


Happy to point you in the direction of some related reading if you are interested...

I've read some of them before...well, skim-read. My particular fav was an Australian one which concluded that children do better with 2 Mothers ( lesbian couple) but I couldn't find whether the children were adopted, their ages or their gender.

MrPudding wrote: »

Well, it really is about denying someone a right. By telling a section of the population that they are not entitled to access to a particular institution, and the access is denied on the basis of their sexuality is discrimination. The sole purpose of this referendum is to remove that discrimination, because there is no good reason for it to be in place.

MrP

What Right is specifically denied? I've yet to hear of anyone being denied a Social Service in the Republic because of their sexuality, have you? The sole purpose you provide is somewhat different from the reasons stated by marriageequality.ie but I expect different tunes to be played...

Ave Sodalis

lazybones32 wrote: »

His children would be different to what they are now - for better or worse.

This is a non-argument really though. The children would be different to what they are now if they were raised by a different hetrosexual couple. There are too many factors that determine how people turn out, which is why even twins aren't the same despite being obviously raised by the same parents at the same time. Being raised by a homosexual couple will have no more baring on how the children will turn out than chosing to have children play outside for half an hour a day, or letting them run around outside whenever they have free time.

aloyisious

@Lisar816: The Govt announced last week that there will be no referendum (at least for this year) on lowering the voting age. The only two will be the Marriage equality (same sex marriage) and Reduction of the age qualification of presidential election candidates to 21 referendums.

reprise

MrPudding wrote: »

This is not what is being said at all... What is being said is that the difference between males and females, in the context of raising children, is less important than the environment that the child is raised in is loving and supportive.

There is an enormous amount of literature on this subject. And we are talking well respected, peer reviewed journals, books by experts in their fields and governing bodies of professionals that work in child development, psychology and related fields.


Happy to point you in the direction of some related reading if you are interested...

I'm interested. What have you got?

Annasopra

Flem31 wrote: »

When the SSM Referendum is passed in a few months, does anyone know what happens to Civil Partnership ?

No. We dont. Nobody knows.

In the UK they kept it in place.

Annasopra

floggg wrote: »

From what I know, there will be no automatic conversion of existing civil partnerships, though anybody who is in a civil partnership can have it converted to a wedding by the registrar on payment of a fee.

I don't know whether the ability to enter into CPs will be retained, but I really can't see why it would be.

Have you seen proposals on this? Im not aware of any.

Frigga_92

lisar816 wrote: »

I will be voting No, only because i know it will not stop here, i already see they are bringing in a referendum to lower the age of voting to 16, then what? try and lower the age of sex to 16.

Also then there is the adopting children debate, i have 3 children and i personally would not want my children adopted by gay parents, i'm not saying they wouldn't love the child, but it's just how i feel and i can't change that, if gay marriage is brought in there will be a lot more couples living together, the thoughts of hearing two gay men having sex in the house next door makes me cringe, sorry NO.

So you are planning to vote no because other totally unrelated referendums about voting age may happen down the line? That makes no sense.

Why would your children be adopted by gay parents?
Do you think gay people don't know how to love and care for children the same way as hetero people?

Why do you have a problem with a lot more couples living together? Why should people who love each other not live together if they want to?

Do you have the same problem with 2 lesbians having sex in the house next door? Do you need to be able to hear them having sex or just be aware that they are having sex to feel uncomfortable?

Ozymandius2011

Some people have the daft idea that if a child is raised by a gay couple they will grow up to become gay. But as Gerry Adams correctly pointed out a few days ago "You don't become gay - You are born gay".