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

Ave Sodalis

S.O wrote: »

All these people interfering with and removing no campaign poster's- one thing they won't be able to do is interfere with how people vote in the privacy of the polling booth in a few week's time; given the nastiness of certain people its just as well that people have the right to vote by a secret ballot.

The No side are nasty. Taking down posters, although illegal, is not nasty. Not that you're going to read this post anyway...

Zillah

aloyisious wrote: »

Meantime on the other side of the border, not so many miles away.................... http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/04/27/this-parliamentary-candidate-wants-to-re-criminalise-homosexuality-no-shes-not-running-for-ukip/?utm_source=PNFB&utm_medium=socialFB&utm_campaign=PNFacebook

Cameras in abattoirs is a good idea though. What a funny mix:
- Homophobic
- Islamaphobic
- Anti-abortion
- Draconian executions
- Animal rights

One of these things is not like the others.

Nucular Arms

I can't vote anyway, if I could I would vote yes, but I honestly find it extremely puzzling how anyone that this referendum doesn't directly, or even tangentially affect (such as gay family member/ friends) manages to care so much to be honest.

I would have as much interest in a referendum looking to ban soy milk or something.

Not that I have a problem with soy milk or anything, it would just similarly not be a major issue for me either way.

And yet the public at large have taken it up as some kind of moral crusade (both sides).

I can't say I really understand the motivation.

Also, if the distinction being made by the yes campaign is that a marriage should be considered simply a legal agreement between consenting adults and should not be affected by the churches view on the subject, would they be in support of voting in bigamy or other multi marriages?

Surely if the logic holds for two consenting adults it should hold for five, or ten, or 500?

Just to reiterate... I am all for the yes campaign, but I would have no problem voting the rest in as well.

walkingshadow

smash wrote: »

Biblically correct? fcuking lol....

Wow, shes hot.

Stinicker

Healy Rae wades into the Argument, with a straight talking no nonsense approach. Kerry will vote strongly No by a 3 to 1 majority.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iczEtaytJu4

Blahblah2012

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I happen to know quite a bit about the lack of unmarried father's rights because my son is one. Stood right beside him through court dates.

How did you stand beside your son in court when only the mother and father and solicitors are allowed in the court? It is held in camera.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

He grew up being denied two legally recognized parents.

He grew up with one parent... YOU...and your partner lived with you as well.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It is not an either/or situation.

No...it's a cart before the horse situation...and it is the government I blame

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The powers that be have decided that same-sex marriage needs a referendum to be introduced so we are having that referendum.

A wonder what that says about the powers that be...considering their position a couple of years ago

Bannasidhe wrote: »

There is no need for a referendum to improve father's rights, it could be covered by legislation.

I won't hold my breath. They're too busy putting the cart before the horse.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

To vote no in the referendum because you believe the Children and Family Relationships Act hasn't gone far enough in the area of unmarried father's rights strikes me as spiteful tbh.

I see plenty of spite here...towards those that can't be swayed.

Blahblah2012

eviltwin wrote: »

Ah sure why bother voting at all so....I feel for you and your issues re your child and I sincerely hope you come to a resolution but letting the rights of gay couples suffer because you're suffering is misguided and unfair. Every bit of progress even if it doesn't directly affect you is good for parental rights. Shame you can't that.

You make the gay community sound like they are inmates in Belsen with all the drama. A gay marriage is not a straight marriage and there should be a distinction.

eviltwin

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

You make the gay community sound like they are inmates in Belsen with all the drama. A gay marriage is not a straight marriage and there should be a distinction.

Why should there be a distinction?

Jack Nicklaus

I shall be voting No. I agree with civil partnerships but I believe that marriage involves a man and a woman. I believe that homosexuality is unnatural and fundamentally wrong and that society should not endorse it.

Mod: rereg banned

One eyed Jack

Nucular Arms wrote: »

I can't vote anyway, if I could I would vote yes, but I honestly find it extremely puzzling how anyone that this referendum doesn't directly, or even tangentially affect (such as gay family member/ friends) manages to care so much to be honest.

I would have as much interest in a referendum looking to ban soy milk or something.

Not that I have a problem with soy milk or anything, it would just similarly not be a major issue for me either way.

And yet the public at large have taken it up as some kind of moral crusade (both sides).

I can't say I really understand the motivation.

Also, if the distinction being made by the yes campaign is that a marriage should be considered simply a legal agreement between consenting adults and should not be affected by the churches view on the subject, would they be in support of voting in bigamy or other multi marriages?

Surely if the logic holds for two consenting adults it should hold for five, or ten, or 500?

Just to reiterate... I am all for the yes campaign, but I would have no problem voting the rest in as well.

Ok, the exact wording of the referendum is this -


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


There is no distinction being made by the yes campaign. The distinction is already inherent in the legislation as it stands, and the yes campaign is focused simply on removing that one discriminatory criteria -


"Be of opposite sexes - for legal purposes, a person's gender is deemed to be the one he/she had at birth, even if he/she subsequently had medical procedures to alter his/her gender."

The yes campaign is not seeking to redefine the institution of civil marriage. It is seeking to extend the opportunity to enter into civil marriage to all citizens of the State without distinction as to their sex.

Bigamy and multi-marriages have nothing to do with the amendment being proposed in the referendum. I hope the above explanation helps you understand what you're actually voting yes to, and any further questions, well, don't be afraid to ask!

smash

Jack Nicklaus wrote: »

I shall be voting No. I agree with civil partnerships but I believe that marriage involves a man and a woman. I believe that homosexuality is unnatural and fundamentally wrong and that society should not endorse it.

This is what, the 5th or 6th random new account that's popped up today to disagree with gay marriage? Or am I imagining it?

Blahblah2012

galljga1 wrote: »

I do not require help.
You do not know better.
You are equating your particular situation with everyone elses.

Ah yeah...I'm the only single father in this country..

galljga1 wrote: »

You are not happy with the law as it pertains to your situation so you vote no?
Maybe this is cart before horse as you say.

I'd possibly vote no anyway.

galljga1 wrote: »

Because this issue is being dealt with before fathers rights you vote no? I think that is a ridiculous reason.

Yes...fathers rights need to be dealt with first. After all there are gay fathers.

Tigger

Deleted User wrote: »

What does the 8 year old think?

Middle child : no one listened

RayM

Jack Nicklaus wrote: »

I believe that homosexuality is unnatural and fundamentally wrong and that society should not endorse it.

In fairness, you're only saying what most people on the No side secretly believe, but are afraid to say.

Blahblah2012

eviltwin wrote: »

Why should there be a distinction?

Is a Mercedes a BMW?

smash

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Is a Mercedes a BMW?

No.... but it's still a car. In the same way 2 gay men can still be married.

eviltwin

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Is a Mercedes a BMW?

A car is a car to me but we're not talking about cars.

You started your posts saying fathers rights were being ignored so you were voting no almost like you felt it was unfair this issue was taking precedence and I can understand that to a point.

Now your just making the gay marriage is different argument, of course it's different, it's two people of the same sex. Does that make it any less valid or important? No.

wp_rathead

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

He grew up with one parent... YOU...and your partner lived with you as well.

How dare you
Perhaps not a biological parent but to.say Bannasidhe's partner was not a parent to their child shows up some disgusting bigotry on your part pal

Nucular Arms

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Ok, the exact wording of the referendum is this -


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


There is no distinction being made by the yes campaign. The distinction is already inherent in the legislation as it stands, and the yes campaign is focused simply on removing that one discriminatory criteria.

I understand that alright, I was more just musing on the logic behind some of the yes campaign's rhetoric as opposed to the actual wording of the proposed amendment.

If another referendum were proposed next year to alter the definiton to read "between two or more persons" would the yes campaign have any logical basis upon which to oppose it? In my mind there wouldn't be. I would as easily vote yes to that as I would for the current amendment.

Off topic anyway so nevermind.

pl4ichjgy17zwd

wp_rathead wrote: »

How dare you
Perhaps not a biological parent but to.say Bannasidhe's partner was not a parent to their child shows up some disgusting bigotry on your part pal

+1

To quote your good self, Blahblah2012

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

The fúckin cheek of you.

Bannasidhe

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

How did you stand beside your son in court when only the mother and father and solicitors are allowed in the court? It is held in camera.





He grew up with one parent... YOU...and your partner lived with you as well.




No...it's a cart before the horse situation...and it is the government I blame





A wonder what that says about the powers that be...considering their position a couple of years ago




I won't hold my breath. They're too busy putting the cart before the horse.




I see plenty of spite here...towards those that can't be swayed.

Having read your other posts it appears you are simply a No voter casting about for an excuse that makes it seem like you are not thewordthatmaynotbesaid.

That's fine just stop pretending it has anything to do with unmarried fathers or anyone one else.

jobbridge4life

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Ah yeah...I'm the only single father in this country..




I'd possibly vote no anyway.





Yes...fathers rights need to be dealt with first. After all there are gay fathers.

In all seriousness how on Earth can you think denying rights to one group will in anyway advance the cause of another? The forces that blight both LGBT marriage and additional rights for unmarried fathers are one and the same. Everything that defeats their ends is an incremental victory for all those whom they oppress. I despair.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Yes...fathers rights need to be dealt with first. After all there are gay fathers.

I think priority is an issue; this is primarily a time-wasting referendum.

There's a slate of issues that are more pressing.

If we wanted a referendum, we could have one to remove the ban on termination non-viable pregnancies. At least there's a real issue at stake there.

If we were really interested in protecting the homes of all families, we could propose legislation improving the tenure of people in rented accommodation - whether they are married, single, gay or whatever.

Sound reasoning for a No vote.

jobbridge4life

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think priority is an issue; this is primarily a time-wasting referendum.

There's a slate of issues that are more pressing.

If we wanted a referendum, we could have one to remove the ban on termination non-viable pregnancies. At least there's a real issue at stake there.

If we were really interested in protecting the homes of all families, we could propose legislation improving the tenure of people in rented accommodation - whether they are married, single, gay or whatever.

Sound reasoning for a No vote.

Not if you're LGBT, or have children/siblings/parents/relatives/friends who are LGBT. Also your post contains literally not one reason to vote no. Not one. Hilarious.

One eyed Jack

Nucular Arms wrote: »

I understand that alright, I was more just musing on the logic behind some of the yes campaign's rhetoric as opposed to the actual wording of the proposed amendment.

If another referendum were proposed next year to alter the definiton to read "between two or more persons" would the yes campaign have any logical basis upon which to oppose it? In my mind there wouldn't be. I would as easily vote yes to that as I would for the current amendment.

Off topic anyway so nevermind.

I don't know tbh, it'd be a different campaign on a different discussion. I know what you mean alright, but I wouldn't take it as a given that marriage equality advocates in the current campaign would automatically support redefining the institution of civil marriage in the constitution which is a civil union of two people.

To introduce polygamy/polyandry, one would have to campaign for the institute of civil marriage to be redefined as allowing for more than two people.

That wouldn't be the same as arguing for equal opportunity to enter into civil marriage though for two people with no distinction as to their sex, which is the logic and the argument behind the yes campaign. Legislating for civil marriage equality for people who are LGBT, still wouldn't allow for anyone to enter into a legally recognised polygamous/polyandrous civil marriage.

Sonics2k

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

He grew up with one parent... YOU...and your partner lived with you as well.

Nope, they were my parents. One was my biological mother, the other my other mother. Both were parents in the same way an adopted childs parents are its parents. Or just how a step mother can become a parent to a child.

Blahblah2012

wp_rathead wrote: »

How dare you
Perhaps not a biological parent but to.say Bannasidhe's partner was not a parent to their child shows up some disgusting bigotry on your part pal

Well I don't know the particulars...but I don't consider my ex's new partner to be a parent of my child..even though he lives there

GCU Flexible Demeanour

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Not if you're LGBT, or have children/siblings/parents/relatives/friends who are LGBT.

That's a massive assumption.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Also your post contains literally not one reason to vote no. Not one. Hilarious.

Sure, you don't need a reason to vote No. You don't just agree to every goddam proposal that's put in front of you. You need a real reason to vote Yes.

"Government wasting our time" is a good reason to vote No.

wp_rathead

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Not if you're LGBT, or have children/siblings/parents/relatives/friends who are LGBT. Also your post contains literally not one reason to vote no. Not one. Hilarious.

Or even have a shred of human empathy

Sofiztikated

Why is everyone so concerned about the gay dads getting married, and not the gay mammies?

@BlahBlah2012 - I understand that you are a single parent, and have previously been shít on by legislation. Dude, it sucks. It really does. But your decision to vote no because of said problem won't help said problem. In fact, it will continue to keep single dads single! This change would allow some of those single dads marry their partner, and then single dad becomes married dad. Yes, the majority of single dads may not want to, but it would help your brothers in arms.

The fact is, the rights of single fathers is not the issue at hand. While you may feel it should be, it's not. How would you feel if, by some means, there was a referendum to give single fathers all the rights that you believe they should have, and someone said, "No, it should be the rights of animals that should be the issue we're voting on, so I'm voting no, keep the rights of single fathers right as they are, right this instant!" You'd be appalled, and rightly so.

Please, please set the slights against you to one side, and think properly about whether an amendment should be made that would allow 2 people be afforded the same rights as 2 other people. Yes, 1 couple might have the same genitals, but should that deny them the same rights that the other couple already has?

And remember, not all same sex couples want to get married. Similarly, not all mixed sex couples want to get married.

Think of 25 people that you know. It's quite likely that one of that 25 describes themselves as gay, lesbian, bi or trans. Is it fair that that one person cannot do the same thing as the other 24 people?