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

jimdublin15

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

It will be extremely difficult to discriminate between married gays and married straights , if gays are allowed to marry.

If this was not a serious topic I would laugh ... wait I've printed the line out on A3 sized paper for at my desk with a note saying "Need I say more: Vote Yes"

eviltwin

gravehold wrote: »

Where can the gay couple adopt

They couldn't when that was printed, that now can.

Not a NSA agent

Put couples made up of man and woman as the top priority.

Tada. I just fixed the issue. No mention of marriage so you can discriminate away. Why you would want to is another question. It wasnt exactly difficult to work it out.

gravehold

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

The premise of your post is [justice.ie/en/JELR/Children%20and%20Family%20Relationships%20Act%202015.pdf/Files/Children%20and%20Family%20Relationships%20Act%202015.pdf"]out of date[/URL].

point is that is easily reverted if you vote no, if you vote yes you are stuck with gay marriage adoption

MrWalsh

gravehold wrote: »

Where can the gay couple adopt

Under the Children and Family Relationships Act.

Honestly, will you ever get a grip and stop posting nonsense.

Maximus Alexander

gravehold wrote: »

Where can the gay couple adopt

Here.

gravehold

eviltwin wrote: »

They couldn't when that was printed, that now can.

Still can't not in force yet, and czn be reverted back easily by the next government if you vote no now.

smash

gravehold wrote: »

point is that is easily reverted if you vote no, if you vote yes you are stuck with gay marriage adoption

So what's the issue?

Hyzepher

gravehold wrote: »

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


(a) a married couple living together; this is the only circumstance where the law permits the adoption of a child by more than one person;


(b) a married person alone; in this circumstance the spouse’s consent to adopt must be obtained unless they are living apart and are separated under (i) a court decree or (ii) deed of separation or (iii) the spouse has deserted the prospective adopter or (iv) conduct on the part of the spouse results in the prospective adopter with just cause leaving the spouse and living apart;


(c) the mother, father or relative of the child (relative meaning a grandparent, brother, sister, uncle or aunt of the child and /or the spouse of any such person, the relationship to the child being traced through the mother or the father);


(d) a widow or widower

Only way a gay can adopt in from there is as sibling and he cannot do it as a couple his his bf.

Married couples get preference

This is untrue (bit bolded)

Maximus Alexander

gravehold wrote: »

point is that is easily reverted if you vote no, if you vote yes you are stuck with gay marriage adoption

a) Why would you want it reversed? Do you hate children?

b) You're wrong. The legislation can still be changed.

Zubeneschamali

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

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?

Here are the seven key issues identified by the All-Party Oireachteas Committee on the Constitution in their 10th progress report, back in 2006, looking at this section of the Constitution. This referendum only addresses one:

The family: how to define it

The most important issue – the strategic one – relates to the definition of the family. It is clear from the submissions to the committee that there is no unanimity as to what comprises a family. Definitions include the family based on the Catholic sacrament of matrimony, families formed subsequent to divorce and remarriage, as well as families not based on marriage.

Cohabiting heterosexual couples

A second issue is whether in view of the considerable and growing
incidence of cohabitation the state can adequately deal with the problems that may arise in relationships if constitutional recognition is limited to relationships based on marriage.

Same-sex couples

A third issue is whether or not the definition of family in the Constitution should be extended to allow for same-sex marriage.

Children

A fourth issue is whether or not explicit protection for children should be written into Article 41 of the Constitution.

The natural or birth father

A fifth issue concerns the extent to which the Constitution should recognise the role of men, both their rights and responsibilities, in relation to their children born outside of marriage.

Lone parents

A sixth issue arises from the need to ameliorate the difficult position in which lone parents typically find themselves. Should the definition of the family be extended to provide protection for lone parents?

Woman in the home

A seventh issue concerns the extent to which it is exclusively the work of the ‘woman in the home’ which deserves recognition in the Constitution. Although the numbers of both men and women who work full time in the home have declined, men and women contribute to the life of the home, as well as to the workplace. As the thrust of policy is to move women out of the home and into the workforce, and as men are already predominantly engaged in the workforce, there is a possibility that children may be deprived of parental care in their most vulnerable years. Should the work of both men and women in the home receive constitutional protection?

gravehold

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Put couples made up of man and woman as the top priority.

Tada. I just fixed the issue. No mention of marriage so you can discriminate away. Why you would want to is another question. It wasnt exactly difficult to work it out.

This would fall under discrimination by the hrc

MrWalsh

gravehold wrote: »

Still can't not in force yet, and czn be reverted back easily by the next government if you vote no now.

Why would it be reverted?

It was brought in to reflect changes in modern society. There is nothing in the pipeline to have it reverted.

gravehold

smash wrote: »

So what's the issue?

Vote no if you are against gay adoption, the yes side saying the referendum has no effecton adoption is a lie

MrWalsh

gravehold wrote: »

Vote no if you are against gay adoption, the yes side saying the referendum has no effecton adoption is a lie

Youre totally wrong.

smash

gravehold wrote: »

Vote no if you are against gay adoption, the yes side saying the referendum has no effecton adoption is a lie

What you're saying is a lie. Gay couples will be allowed to adopt disregarding this referendum.

MrWalsh

gravehold wrote: »

Vote no if you are against gay adoption, the yes side saying the referendum has no effecton adoption is a lie

Anyway, Id like an answer to the most pertinent question this raises.

Why are you so vehemently against gay adoption?

Maximus Alexander

gravehold wrote: »

Vote no if you are against gay adoption, the yes side saying the referendum has no effecton adoption is a lie

Cool, so we'll pretend you're not wrong and just accept this for a minute.

Now, the meat of it - why are you against gay adoption? (Come on, just say it)

Lt J.R. Bell

jimdublin15 wrote: »

If this was not a serious topic I would laugh ... wait I've printed the line out on A3 sized paper for at my desk with a note saying "Need I say more: Vote Yes"

And, as usual , the context of what was said goes over your head.

Hyzepher

yeah why is gay adoption such a problem?

gravehold

Hyzepher wrote: »

This is untrue (bit bolded)

A) he is not married
he is not married
D) he is not married so not a widower

C) he can adopt his bother/sister relative that's it his bf doesn't get to adopt with him

Ave Sodalis

gravehold wrote: »

Vote no if you are against gay adoption, the yes side saying the referendum has no effecton adoption is a lie

http://thetelevixen.com/wp-content/uploads/banging_table_animation_by_caracoracira-d4jla3v.gif

Hyzepher

gravehold wrote: »

A) he is not married
he is not married
D) he is not married so not a widower

C) he can adopt his bother/sister relative that's it his bf doesn't get to adopt with him

"A sole applicant who does not come within the classes of person defined under (c) and (d) above may only adopt where the Adoption Authority is satisfied that, in the particular circumstances of the case, it is desirable to grant an order. It is not possible for two unmarried persons to adopt jointly."

Not a NSA agent

I like how the whole argument of vote no so we can revert the legislation that allows same sex couples to adopt highlights that civil partnership isnt enough as it could just as easily be reverted.

gravehold

MrWalsh wrote: »

Why would it be reverted?

It was brought in to reflect changes in modern society. There is nothing in the pipeline to have it reverted.

Future changes in socity more conservative governments

smash

sup_dude wrote: »

http://thetelevixen.com/wp-content/uploads/banging_table_animation_by_caracoracira-d4jla3v.gif

Isn't this it in a nutshell? The thread is becoming so mentally draining that I feel like I'm getting dumber just being here.

Hermy

gravehold wrote: »

...if you vote yes you are stuck with gay marriage adoption

Definitely voting no in that case.
What's the question again?

jimdublin15

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

And, as usual , the context of what was said goes over your head.

Details, details the context less printable. It's a common thing going on with printed posters so I'm in good company apparently.

gravehold

smash wrote: »

What you're saying is a lie. Gay couples will be allowed to adopt disregarding this referendum.

But if you vote yes it will give constitutional protection so changes the way they can adopt. Vote no and a conservative government can make it so they cannot adopt again

MrWalsh

gravehold wrote: »

Future changes in socity more conservative governments

Thats the same regardless of marriage equality.

So come on, why are you so against gay adoption?