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

jobbridge4life

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Same argument could be applied against mixed race marriages, marriages where one or both partners have an obvious disability, marriages where there is a large age difference between parents, marriages where adoptive child is obviously not same race as parents...

Or where the parents are really fat... or objectively ugly... or poorer than their neighbours and so on and so forth.

endacl

smash wrote: »

That's your argument? Seriously?

That was a sentence? Seriously?

:eek:

kunst nugget

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In fairness, that might be when you all gang up and bully someone?

Tbf, it's not a concerted move to 'gang up and bully' people. One opinion is in the minority and one is in the majority. Should people who agree with the general consensus on this thread not post for fear of hurting the feelings of those that don't?

gravehold

eviltwin wrote: »

What's the long term ramifications ?

Once it gets added to the constitution it cannot easily be reverted, so thing like adoption which a future goverment might want to give preference to straight couple cause future studies find it's the best way to raise a child. With a yes our constitution wouldn't allow then but a no vote would mean they could just revert the act.

bb1234567

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Same argument could be applied against mixed race marriages, marriages where one or both partners have an obvious disability, marriages where there is a large age difference between parents, marriages where adoptive child is obviously not same race as parents...

Precisely, any arguments against it are complete bull

smash

endacl wrote: »

2. I haven't fully formed reason number two, and would appreciate some help with this one. Something to do with 'I don't have a problem with them, but why do they have to force it down our throats?'.

I think it's something to do with men having to turn gay and get married in the event of a separation or divorce if they want to maintain custody of their children. Of course this then holds it's own issues... do you get to remain the pitcher or are you now the catcher? and then depending on that answer, you could turn into a child abuser! :eek:

endacl

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In fairness, that might be when you all gang up and bully someone?

For real? Lots of people holding the same opinion is bullying?

How would you define 'copping on'?

Not a NSA agent

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm not just stirring it. I do think that people needed to be challenged on how they decide to vote.

Your challenges so far have been either irrelevant or that treating homosexual couples as equal isn't a good enough reason to vote yes.

For those of us who think people should should be treated as equals by the state that is enough unless something seriously problematic will happen. So far we have they cant consummate the marriage or that there are no women.

You consider it bullying when anyone dares challenge someone voting no.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

sup_dude wrote: »

Buddhism accepts others too, funny that.

And I accept you. I want to ease your suffering.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Just - in plain English - what specific harm will children come to if they are raised by a same-sex couple that they could not also suffer if raised by a married heterosexual couple. ?

I can't think of any. But, then, I think framing the question that way is a bit pointless. Children will be raised in all kinds of circumstances. Is it ideal for a child to be raised by a grandparent? Sort of pointless to ask, if that's the only home available to a child.

Post children's referendum, aren't the rights of children supposed to be paramount anyway?

If there's some residual "children's" benefit left in Article 41, is the question more to identify it and ask why it should be denied to non-marital children?

endacl

smash wrote: »

I think it's something to do with men having to turn gay and get married in the event of a separation or divorce if they want to maintain custody of their children. Of course this then holds it's own issues... do you get to remain the pitcher or are you now the catcher? and then depending on that answer, you could turn into a child abuser! :eek:

Feck. It's worse than i thought...

Ave Sodalis

gravehold wrote: »

Once it gets added to the constitution it cannot easily be reverted, so thing like adoption which a future goverment might want to give preference to straight couple cause future studies find it's the best way to raise a child. With a yes our constitution wouldn't allow then but a no vote would mean they could just revert the act.

It won't... oh forget it. Are you just covering your eyes, going "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right"?

endacl

gravehold wrote: »

Once it gets added to the constitution it cannot easily be reverted, so thing like adoption which a future goverment might want to give preference to straight couple cause future studies find it's the best way to raise a child. With a yes our constitution wouldn't allow then but a no vote would mean they could just revert the act.

Hyzepher

gravehold wrote: »

aai.gov.ie/index.php/domestic-adoption/faq-domestic-adoption.html

You are so wrong married couple get preference, childrens and families act just make cp the same so gay couples can adopt the same as a married couple. If you vote no the next goverment can revert that easily. But if yes then the gay couple are constitutionally protected married couple.

If you are against it voting no will mean things can be set back the way it was a few years ago easily but if they get constitution protection as a married couple it's to late

The AAI do not rank or give preference to any group when determining the suitability to adopt. Your link simply outlines the groups they are permitted to adopt - in no particular order of preference.

Have a guess how may domestic adoptions were granted last year?
Now have a guess how many births outside of marriage there were last year.

Now do some maths and work out how trivial it is to focus on whether children have a mother and a father in terms of this referendum.

The fact is that there is a very high percentage of children who are not involved in what the "no" side consider a REAL family.

If you are so concerned with the welfare of children then I'd recommend that you focus your energy into areas that will actually make a difference rather than using it to cover up your obvious dislike for gay equality.

Bannasidhe

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I can't think of any. But, then, I think framing the question that way is a bit pointless. Children will be raised in all kinds of circumstances. Is it ideal for a child to be raised by a grandparent? Sort of pointless to ask, if that's the only home available to a child.

If you don't want to answer the question as asked that's fine.

If I ever pose a question which contains the phrase ' please critique the phrasing of this question' the above answer will be acceptable.

gravehold

sup_dude wrote: »

It won't... oh forget it. Are you just covering your eyes, going "I'm right, I'm right, I'm right"?

Isn't that what you are doing too, you are saying yes won't effect adoption in any way but having gay marriage in the constitution does have effect of making reverting the children's act and married straight couples get preference again impossible

floggg

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Once again , for those in denial , who cling onto the argument about childless married couples and who refuse to acknowledge the legitimate concern and belief that marriage is more than just tax breaks and looking lovely at a ceremony (ie children )

"So, a minority of cases (ie infertile and voluntary childless marriage -compared to most marriages that do have children) should be used to aid the case of the majority (or every ) of cases (incapability of two men/or two women to procreate) falls flat on its face ?"

Quoting it a second time doesn't make it any more sense.

Hyzepher

gravehold wrote: »

.... does have effect of making reverting the children's act and married straight couples get preference again impossible

Never had preference over any of the other groups that were allowed to adopt - including single gay people

One eyed Jack

gravehold wrote: »

Isn't that what you are doing too, you are saying yes won't effect adoption in any way but having gay marriage in the constitution does have effect of making reverting the children's act and married straight couples get preference again impossible

Where are you getting this idea from that married straight couples get "preference" in the first place from?

seamus

gravehold wrote: »

They cannot give preference to mrried couples if there is gay married couples

The law can give preference to heterosexual couples, if that's your issue.

Nothing to say that they cannot change the adoption laws to prefer hetero couples.

You're right in that using "married" as a euphemism for "no homo" will have to end in the event of a "Yes" vote, but you're wrong if you believe that the law will not be allowed to discriminate if necessary.

endacl

gravehold wrote: »

Isn't that what you are doing too, you are saying yes won't effect adoption in any way but having gay marriage in the constitution does have effect of making reverting the children's act and married straight couples get preference again impossible

I'm pretty sure you mean 'revoking' not 'reverting'. Just so your future posts make less nonsense.

No charge.

Hermy

endacl wrote: »

1. Puppies. What happens to the puppies in a so called gay 'couple' divorce. As a couple, it could be argued that they would share ownership in any puppies either party brought to the relationship. There is a very real danger that a court would be in the constitutionally bound position of having to order the puppies of said relationship be either put down, or cloned, so each partner could have one identical puppy. As we all know, cloning is evil and very much against church teaching. So that's reason one.

That arguement is so onesided it's unbelievable!
What about kittens?
Or gay couples who don't like pets?
Or aren't allowed have pets in their rented property?
Or where one of the couple is allergic to cat hair?
And don't get me started on the damaged done to puppies who have to grow up in a gay household with the potential for gay divorce!

gravehold

Hyzepher wrote: »

The AAI do not rank or give preference to any group when determining the suitability to adopt. Your link simply outlines the groups they are permitted to adopt - in no particular order of preference.

Have a guess how may domestic adoptions were granted last year?
Now have a guess how many births outside of marriage there were last year.

Now do some maths and work out how trivial it is to focus on whether children have a mother and a father in terms of this referendum.

The fact is that there is a very high percentage of children who are not involved in what the "no" side consider a REAL family.

If you are so concerned with the welfare of children then I'd recommend that you focus your energy into areas that will actually make a difference rather than using it to cover up your obvious dislike for gay equality.

Your missing the point yes side said it won't effect adoption at all and gave out to the no side for bringing it up. But a yes vote a very stong ramification to adoption not directly but secondarly so NO have a point in bring up adoption

endacl

Hermy wrote: »

That arguement is so onesided it's unbelievable!
What about kittens?
Or gay couples who don't like pets?
Or aren't allowed have pets in their rented property?
Or where one of the couple is allergic to cat hair?
And don't get me started on the damaged done to puppies who have to grow up in a gay household with the potential for gay divorce!

Stop bullying meeeeeeeee.........

gravehold

Hyzepher wrote: »

Never had preference over any of the other groups that were allowed to adopt - including single gay people

aai.gov.ie/index.php/domestic-adoption/faq-domestic-adoption.html

So wrong this is why I have a problem with the yes side saying it won't effect adoption

mickydoomsux

I find it hilarious that the no campaign are using the buzzword "bullying" so much.

Children of same sex couples will be bullied, they themselves are being bullied for having an unpopular opinion, etc.

They basically picked something that they know people can't support in our modern PC society (bullyingt) to try to justify their own backwards, minority viewpoint.

Maximus Alexander

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If you don't want to answer the question as asked that's fine.

If I ever pose a question which contains the phrase ' please critique the phrasing of this question' the above answer will be acceptable.

I was watching some of the UK election coverage last night. There was a bit where Paxman was interviewing Cameron. Paxman asked Cameron a question he didn't want to answer, so he says "That's not the question, the question is [rambling about something unrelated]".

Paxman, naturally, interjects and says "It's the question I asked!"

I laughed. This reminded me of that.

aloyisious

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Are we going to end up in a situation when marriage comes up in school that we say that's it's just as good for 2 guys to marry and create there own kid using their own genes than it is for a opposite sex couple to marry and create a child naturally, or do we say forget about marriage and just go steady and cross your fingers.
I'm not convinced excluding LBGT couples from marriage is negative discrimination, it's discrimination but not something to be offended by. It's not saying society hates you which seem to be the message coming across, you either give this to us or you hate us. That's simply not true.

There is one negative effect that's happened right now and that's the conservatives have been outcast buy the Yes side. There now the ones name calling when people hold a different view. The quest for equality is causing huge discrimination to what appears to be minority but could actually be the majority.

The idea that marriage may be brought up in a sex education lesson for kids in school can be shut down by the teacher/lecturer by telling the pupils that that is not part of sex education. It is a different topic. I reckon that you, as a parent, would be quite within your rights to ensure sex education lessons stay within it's bounds and marriage NOT be included in it, as marriage is about contracts, not how sexual congress.

Lt J.R. Bell

seamus wrote: »

The law can give preference to heterosexual couples, if that's your issue.

Nothing to say that they cannot change the adoption laws to prefer hetero couples.

You're right in that using "married" as a euphemism for "no homo" will have to end in the event of a "Yes" vote, but you're wrong if you believe that the law will not be allowed to discriminate if necessary.

It will be extremely difficult to discriminate between married gays and married straights , if gays are allowed to marry. At least there might be some basis (and their is barely, especially when looking at the child's interest)) between married people and non married people

seamus

gravehold wrote: »

aai.gov.ie/index.php/domestic-adoption/faq-domestic-adoption.html

So wrong this is why I have a problem with the yes side saying it won't effect adoption

Well for a start, that's not a list of priority. It's just a list. A married couple is not given "preference" over a single person.

And secondly, as has been pointed out to you a number of times, that's the old rules, which will cease to be in effect on 19th May.

This referendum will not affect the new rules which come into force on 19th May.

Anyone who claims this referendum will affect adoption is either ignorant or outright lying.

Hyzepher

gravehold wrote: »

Your missing the point yes side said it won't effect adoption at all and gave out to the no side for bringing it up. But a yes vote a very stong ramification to adoption not directly but secondarly so NO have a point in bring up adoption

I can't actually understand your reply