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

arayess

osarusan wrote: »

I would say that it is your place, depending on the situation.

As an extreme example - your child starts getting friendly with children who throw rocks at passing cars*. In this situation, would you not encourage your child to stay away from them when they are doing that?



*and for those who love strawmen arguments, this is not a comparison, it is an example (an extreme one) of a situation where I think it becomes more evident that such a principle is misguided.

I've been in that situation as my fella is a teenager.
I can't stop him being friends but have told him to head off when bad things start happening.
Can't tell him to pal with esp as he sees most of the lads in the area in school and spends more of his day in their company than mine.

But i see your point but don't overly agree - but in extreme cases if they were mugging old people or something but for having "extreme" opinions I wouldn't interfere as I'd hope my son would see the maddness himself.

OldNotWIse

kunst nugget wrote: »

You said this…



I gently poked fun at it. Bannasidhe, who has personal experience, understood where I was coming from with it. Get over it.

And seriously… Irregardless?

And in breaking news.....a typo has brought the yes campaigners dreams of a successful referendum crashing down...


...said no headline ever

OldNotWIse

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It got redefined

Oh God. Has anyone checked on the children??

osarusan

kunst nugget wrote: »

And seriously… Irregardless?

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Oh God. Has anyone checked on the children??

Let's chck what this child has to say:

kunst nugget

OldNotWIse wrote: »

And in breaking news.....a typo has brought the yes campaigners dreams of a successful referendum crashing down...


...said no headline ever

You think I'm on the No side?

Shrap

kunst nugget wrote: »

You think I'm on the No side?

Ah jaysus, no. I think the point was that it was infighting, over a typo. Have a cuppa and a bikkie eh? Hugs.

One eyed Jack

arayess wrote: »

I've been in that situation as my fella is a teenager.
I can't stop him being friends but have told him to head off when bad things start happening.
Can't tell him to pal with esp as he sees most of the lads in the area in school and spends more of his day in their company than mine.

But i see your point but don't overly agree - but in extreme cases if they were mugging old people or something but for having "extreme" opinions I wouldn't interfere as I'd hope my son would see the maddness himself.

Like anything else, our judgment is based on context, and it'd stretching the idea of prejudice or judgment against someone to say that we wouldn't want our children hanging around with their children if their children have a bad attitude or some nasty views about people, influenced by their parents, or wherever the influence is coming from.

It's very much dependent upon circumstances whether it's either a positive judgment or a negative judgment we make about other people, and anyone that says they don't judge other people is simply lying. We all judge other people, the only thing that differs is whether we judge them in a positive or negative way depending upon a number of various criteria which are our own prejudices.

I'll try and give two examples -

One of my neighbours, single mum, some funky ideas, but bearable, no problem with my child playing with her child, until I found out she parades around the house naked. She came to me a week later asking me why I wasn't allowing my child to stay in her house any more and was it because she was a single mother and I think I'm better than her. I'd to tell her straight out that she could do what she likes in her own house, but I wasn't comfortable with her parading herself around naked in front of my child.

Another example, black family in the neighbourhood, my child plays with them, they have a falling out over something and suddenly their children start calling my child "white birdshìt" and making **** motions in his direction any time he went out to play. I went and had a chat with the parents and they tried to make out I was a racist. I'd to tell them straight out I couldn't give a fcuk if they were pink and purple and just landed from the planet Mars, nothing gave them a right to behave like that towards another person.

It's all great in theory to say "oh I wouldn't judge", "oh I don't judge people", but the fact is we do, we all do, and it's how we differentiate between good and bad influences in our lives. There's nothing inherently wrong with judging other people, but it's how our judgment influences our behaviour towards other people that makes all the difference.

Bannasidhe

Shrap wrote: »

Ah jaysus, no. I think the point was that it was infighting, over a typo. Have a cuppa and a bikkie eh? Hugs.

I just baked some bikkies. Butch bikkies obviously. Totes.

OldNotWIse

kunst nugget wrote: »

You think I'm on the No side?

Nope, I just think trying to point score over a typo is silly

kunst nugget

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Nope, I just think trying to point score over a typo is silly

But it's irregardless… it's like the David Quinn of words. It doesn't make sense and is wrong on all levels…

kunst nugget

kunst nugget wrote: »

But it's irregardless… it's like the David Quinn of words. It doesn't make sense and is wrong on all levels…

It is a word that gets many peoples backs up for sure - I have never understood why really. Language purists and grammar nazis I guess - but dangerous ground on After Hours were such things are anti charter.

As for your last words - I always says you should never fart on elevators. That is quite literally wrong on so many levels.

Dow99

Folks,
As with my civil duty to this referendum I am looking into what exactly am I voting for in upcoming referendum.
I'm really struggling to find what is the actual difference between a civil partnership and marriage? I support gay partnership, call it what you want (civil partnership / marriage) but every technical reason why someone is telling me to vote yes is not correct ie inequality with tax, next of kin ect ect.

Can someone please let me know what is this referendum changing?

rainbow kirby

Dow99 wrote: »

Folks,
As with my civil duty to this referendum I am looking into what exactly am I voting for in upcoming referendum.
I'm really struggling to find what is the actual difference between a civil partnership and marriage? I support gay partnership, call it what you want (civil partnership / marriage) but every technical reason why someone is telling me to vote yes is not correct ie inequality with tax, next of kin ect ect.

Can someone please let me know what is this referendum changing?

Differences here

ohnonotgmail

Dow99 wrote: »

Folks,
As with my civil duty to this referendum I am looking into what exactly am I voting for in upcoming referendum.
I'm really struggling to find what is the actual difference between a civil partnership and marriage? I support gay partnership, call it what you want (civil partnership / marriage) but every technical reason why someone is telling me to vote yes is not correct ie inequality with tax, next of kin ect ect.

Can someone please let me know what is this referendum changing?

it is allowing same sex couple the same right to get married as opposite sex couples. nothing more.

as for marriage vs civil partnership there a number of differences why they are not equal. over a hundred differences if you want to count them. i posted a link a couple of days ago.

Zubeneschamali

Dow99 wrote: »

Can someone please let me know what is this referendum changing?

The big difference is that the Constitution protects the family, and says the family is based on marriage.

So even if every other law said that civil partnership was equal to marriage (separate but equal, if you like), the Constitution does not agree, and it is the primary law of the land. A civil partnership can never be a Constitutionally protected family.

Separate but equal is bad for other reasons, but they do not matter here: in this case it is impossible without a referendum.

Dow99

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The big difference is that the Constitution protects the family, and says the family is based on marriage.
.

Please back up with facts. I think we are being miss lead (on both sides) on what the difference actually are.

I have been told from the start that this referendum has very little to do with protecting the family, adoption ect.

Zubeneschamali

Dow99 wrote: »

Please back up with facts. I think we are being miss lead (on both sides) on what the difference actually are.

Might I suggest that you take a look at the Constitution yourself, instead of relying on others to do it for you?


ARTICLE 41
1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

Bannasidhe

Dow99 wrote: »

Please back up with facts. I think we are being miss lead (on both sides) on what the difference actually are.

I have been told from the start that this referendum has very little to do with protecting the family, adoption ect.

Civil Partnership is as a result of legislation and could be repealed by a future government rending all civil partnerships null and void. This cannot happen with marriage unless there is a referendum.

Irish courts have traditionally taken a conservative view as to what constitutes a 'family' and interpreted the Constitutional statement that marriage is the foundation of the family to mean only where there is marriage does (legally) a family exist.

Those are just two legally important differences. There are others to do with shared house etc etc.

It is all about protecting the 'family' of two adults by having them recognised as a family according to the Constitution.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Might I suggest that you take a look at the Constitution yourself, instead of relying on others to do it for you?


ARTICLE 41
1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

At no point does that say that a childless couple can not constitute a family and should not be afforded the same status or creditation.

41-2-2 is shamlessly sexist, and would point at an urgent need to be updated.

41-3-1 can be understood to support the motion.

Shrap

Dow99 wrote: »

I'm really struggling to find what is the actual difference between a civil partnership and marriage? I support gay partnership, call it what you want (civil partnership / marriage) but every technical reason why someone is telling me to vote yes is not correct ie inequality with tax, next of kin ect ect.

Can someone please let me know what is this referendum changing?

To me, it's not at all just about the technical differences, it's about the social and emotional differences too.

The current state of affairs has same sex couples as DIFFERENT, and not entitled to the same protection under the constitution as hetero couples. It has their children as DIFFERENT, and not entitled to the same protection under the constitution as the children of hetero couples.

That's enough for me to vote yes.

What this referendum will be changing is the DIFFERENCE made of gay people - our family and friends, our future family and their friends, our community members, our sense of inclusion in our own country.

Spanish Eyes

Did anyone read Una Mullally's piece in the Irish Times yesterday?

The lady has been recently diagnosed with cancer, and gave a great account of the diagnosis and the trauma she felt because of this. I wish her well, cancer has led to me losing three members of my close family in the last 7 years, and it is a horrible thing.

But.... the lady in question chose to say, that she was a bit embarrassed saying to the nurse when she arrived at the hospital that her "partner" (civil partner) was her next of kin, because she was concerned at the reaction of the nurse to this. As if nurses have not seen everything on the planet at this stage!

But whatever.

The implication in the article for me was, that if she had been "married" under the law and her partner was now her wife, she would feel less embarrassed to call Sarah ( her current partner) her Wife.

Now call me what you like, but honestly, will it be less embarrassing to call your next of kin your same sex Wife than your partner to a nurse?

I am baffled by this tbh.

BoatMad

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Did anyone read Una Mullally's piece in the Irish Times yesterday?

The lady has been recently diagnosed with cancer, and gave a great account of the diagnosis and the trauma she felt because of this. I wish her well, cancer has led to me losing three members of my close family in the last 7 years, and it is a horrible thing.

But.... the lady in question chose to say, that she was a bit embarrassed saying to the nurse when she arrived at the hospital that her "partner" (civil partner) was her next of kin, because she was concerned at the reaction of the nurse to this. As if nurses have not seen everything on the planet at this stage!

But whatever.

The implication in the article for me was, that if she had been "married" under the law and her partner was now her wife, she would feel less embarrassed to call Sarah ( her current partner) her Wife.

Now call me what you like, but honestly, will it be less embarrassing to call your next of kin your same sex Wife than your partner to a nurse?

I am baffled by this tbh.

your right to be baffled, but again , this has NOTHING to do with the referendum topic. those that are " embarrassed" by their LGBT status , will no doubt continue to be so.

TwoShedsJackson

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Now call me what you like, but honestly, will it be less embarrassing to call your next of kin your same sex Wife than your partner to a nurse?

I am baffled by this tbh.

Yes, once it has passed and society adapts to it over the course of some years.

StewartGriffin

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Might I suggest that you take a look at the Constitution yourself, instead of relying on others to do it for you?

The silly chap obviously thought since there are 6,500 posts in the thread he might find someone who knew what was going on.:rolleyes:

Zubeneschamali

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

At no point does that say that a childless couple can not constitute a family and should not be afforded the same status or creditation.

No-one said it did. One more time, this referendum is not about children.

The Constitution says that the family that it protects, the legal family, is based on marriage, not on children.

Civil partnership will not cut it.

We need a referendum.

Zubeneschamali

StewartGriffin wrote: »

The silly chap obviously thought since there are 6,500 posts in the thread he might find someone who knew what was going on.:rolleyes:

I do know what is going on. I told him.

He doesn't believe me, fine, but rather than demand "facts" from a source he doesn't believe (a source which actually just gave him the actual facts), he should check for himself.

Either what I told him is a fact, or it is not. 60 seconds with Google would tell, and he wouldn't have to worry that someone was misleading him.

Zubeneschamali

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

DBut.... the lady in question chose to say, that she was a bit embarrassed saying to the nurse when she arrived at the hospital that her "partner" (civil partner) was her next of kin

I remember reading of a case where someone said they were a patient's partner, and were told that it didn't matter what their working relationship at any firm was, they weren't getting into ICU to see them.

Bannasidhe

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Did anyone read Una Mullally's piece in the Irish Times yesterday?

The lady has been recently diagnosed with cancer, and gave a great account of the diagnosis and the trauma she felt because of this. I wish her well, cancer has led to me losing three members of my close family in the last 7 years, and it is a horrible thing.

But.... the lady in question chose to say, that she was a bit embarrassed saying to the nurse when she arrived at the hospital that her "partner" (civil partner) was her next of kin, because she was concerned at the reaction of the nurse to this. As if nurses have not seen everything on the planet at this stage!

But whatever.

The implication in the article for me was, that if she had been "married" under the law and her partner was now her wife, she would feel less embarrassed to call Sarah ( her current partner) her Wife.

Now call me what you like, but honestly, will it be less embarrassing to call your next of kin your same sex Wife than your partner to a nurse?

I am baffled by this tbh.

I'm not sure that Una Mullaly is civil partnered (open to correction!) - the article I read she referred to Sarah as 'girlfriend' which is not the same and legally, if the nurse was so inclined, she could refuse to recognise as a next-of-kin.

Trying telling the admitting nurse that your next-of-kin is your not civil partnered, long-term, same-sex 'partner' and you have no religion. It's a hoot. Especially when you have just been rushed there in an ambulance. My sister had to rush to the hospital as I was in a bad way and it was quite possible someone who could legally act as my next-of-kin be there to give permission for emergency treatment should be it necessary. My 'girlfriend' wasn't willinng to risk being told legally she could do it.

Wife is a legally recognised term - 'partner' is a bit wishy washy. I mean 'partner'.. what the hell does that mean? Business partner? Tennis partner? Bridge partner?

Spanish Eyes

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Yes, once it has passed and society adapts to it over the course of some years.

We are five years into Civil Partnership now.

Ms Mullally is out and proud and good luck to her, but she is still shy about her "partner" . She has written lots about her life and partner, she is gung ho canvassing for Yes, but still is embarrassed about calling Sarah her Partner to a stranger in a hospital?

So how will Sarah becoming her "wife" change that embarrassment?

That is what puzzles me.

And BTW I am voting Yes... but I am totally amazed by someone saying they are embarrassed to say their partner is next of kin

So that embarrassment and shyness will suddenly disappear overnight once they are married, and she can call her partner her "wife".

I just don't understand that.

Can anyone else understand what I am saying, without resorting to rants!

Sofiztikated

frostyjacks wrote: »

Thought it was obvious. A healthy society should aim to have children born into a solid, balanced family unit. Not an unbalanced unit, choosing a designer baby like it's the latest fashion accessory.

I know plenty of people that fit the second category you have listed. Fúck all of them happen to be gay, though.

frostyjacks wrote: »

I have no issue with any of the above, provided the children are raised in a loving, healthy family unit. I just don't see why we should buy into the lie that a gay marriage should be classed as equal to a normal marriage.

How many of us, hand on heart, would be comfortable sending our sons to a sleepover where the friend's parents are homosexuals? Like it or not, these are the issues people will be thinking about when they're casting their vote

Part 1: Why can a gay couple not provide the loving, healthy family? Is there something in the "So now you're gay? Here's what you are not allowed to do!" handbook?

Part 2: What exactly are you not comfortable with? That your son might catch the gay? Or is it that the gays might suck his cóck raw?