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

Hyzepher

gravehold wrote: »

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

So a great reason to vote Yes

eviltwin

gravehold wrote: »

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

What is your problem with gay adoption?

Ave Sodalis

gravehold wrote: »

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

Constitution protection of marriage, not adoption. As said. Already. Countless times. Same as everything else you said has been addressed...

wp_rathead

gravehold wrote: »

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

thank you for showing your true colours

gravehold

Hyzepher wrote: »

"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."

So way below in preference and can't adopt as a couple like I said married couple get preference

Hyzepher

gravehold wrote: »

So way below in preference and can't adopt as a couple like I said married couple get preference

Show where there is preference between eligible groups

Lt J.R. Bell

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

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)

Essentially, the SSM brigade's argument is:

If you are against us, you are a homophobe , ignoring the whole point of marriage and it's purpose in this country

I want it, I don't really need it, but I want it, It's my party , nah ,nah nah nah

"I'm a second class citizen", despite the fact they can vote, earn money , protect their good name, right to services etc (well most of them that don't fall from Exclusion in the Equality Act), and now important rights from the Civil Partnership Bill

And the best one, comparing themselves to the Civil Rights Group in America in the 1960's (many of whom, possibly would have oppose gay marriage, look at Georgia right now)

One eyed Jack

gravehold wrote: »

Where can the gay couple adopt

I've already pointed out to you the fact that it's not because they are gay that they are not eligible to apply to adopt a child. A heterosexual unmarried couple also were not eligible to apply as a couple to adopt a child. This does not mean that married couples were given preference over unmarried couples. It simply means that unmarried couples weren't eligible, at all, to adopt a child, under any circumstances.

The new Children and Family Relationship Act changes this, and so now couples, regardless of their sex, regardless of their marital status, are eligible to apply to adopt children. This still doesn't mean they would automatically be considered suitable to adopt children as there are other criteria which must be met and other factors which are considered in whether the couple are suitable for adoption and whether they as a couple, meet the needs of the child or children in question.

smash

gravehold wrote: »

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

Well this isn't true. But if it was, why would you vote for a clause that would allow a reversal?

gravehold

Hyzepher wrote: »

So a great reason to vote Yes

Yes if you wan't protection you need the yes vote to win.

aloyisious

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You've demonstrated a point I was trying to make with that statement. Your now discriminating against people while trying to create equality and your using hurtful language to do it.

1. Discriminating against people who are homophobes hiding behind the average committed No voter to ply their wares is NOT discrimination, it is pointing out the liar in the crowd.

2. I don't know if you know that the Civil Partnership act being used by LGBT couples here can be seen as discriminating against straight couples here. Straight people here are NOT allowed use it to make partnership contracts with other straight peopkle here. It is specifically worded to ensure that only LGBT couples can use it to make partnership contracts.

Maximus Alexander

gravehold wrote: »

Yes if you wan't protection you need the yes vote to win.

So, nothing, no? We're just going to dodge these?

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

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)

Hyzepher wrote: »

yeah why is gay adoption such a problem?

MrWalsh wrote: »

Thats the same regardless of marriage equality.

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

eviltwin wrote: »

What is your problem with gay adoption?

eviltwin

gravehold wrote: »

So way below in preference and can't adopt as a couple like I said married couple get preference

People might take you more seriously if you told us what your concern over gay adoption is. Why should a child be denied a loving, caring, responsible parent just because they are gay?

Zubeneschamali

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

why are you against gay adoption? (Come on, just say it)

Gravehold is a Yes voter, remember? We are just arguing amongst ourselves at this stage.

Lt J.R. Bell

Hyzepher wrote: »

So a great reason to vote Yes

Yep, unmarried father's would really totally dig that if their rights (what ever they still have or maintained) will be shoved to one side

Hyzepher

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Yep, unmarried father's would really totally dig that if their rights (what ever they still have or maintained) will be shoved to one side

Untrue.

smash

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Gravehold is a Yes voter, remember? We are just arguing amongst ourselves at this stage.

I'm not sure sure I believe that claim. This isn't devil's advocate any more... it's spouting lies

Maximus Alexander

smash wrote: »

I'm not sure sure I believe that claim. This isn't devil's advocate any more... it's spouting lies

It never was, the devil would come up with much more logically consistent arguments.

Lt J.R. Bell

eviltwin wrote: »

People might take you more seriously if you told us what your concern over gay adoption is. Why should a child be denied a loving, caring, responsible parent just because they are gay?

Why should a should be denied the opportunity of a married "mother and father", should they be available ? Why should they be skipped in favour of any other group?

Oh, wait, let's deny everything, shout out homophobe because it doesn't suit the agenda

gravehold

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

So, nothing, no? We're just going to dodge these?

I am not, I have the problem of the yes side being dishonest. The yes side should be fight to show why they need these constitutional protection and what a yes vote will really mean for them and their family.

When no say this will effect adoption they should be saying yes it does and here is why and gay couples should get the same constitunal protection.

Ave Sodalis

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Why should a should be denied the opportunity of a married "mother and father", should they be available ? Why should they be skipped in favour of any other group?

People are skipped for more suitable people...

jimdublin15

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Yep, unmarried father's would really totally dig that if their rights (what ever they still have or maintained) will be shoved to one side

So true they would be upset if that happened, but a yes vote to SSM is not going to cause that despite what the No side think or believe. The rights of the children and best interest of the children is primary that will not change.

Not a NSA agent

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Yep, unmarried father's would really totally dig that if their rights (what ever they still have or maintained) will be shoved to one side

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Why should a should be denied the opportunity of a married "mother and father", should they be available ? Why should they be skipped in favour of any other group?

You dont appear to understand what this referendum is about. Fathers rights and adoption priority will no be changing.

Ave Sodalis

gravehold wrote: »

I am not, I have the problem of the yes side being dishonest. The yes side should be fight to show why they need these constitutional protection and what a yes vote will really mean for them and their family.

When no say this will effect adoption they should be saying yes it does and here is why and gay couples should get the same constitunal protection.

Over and over and over it has been shown to you exactly why you're wrong here and yet over and over and over you state this as if you've just ignored absolutely everything everyone has said.

Zubeneschamali

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

It never was, the devil would come up with much more logically consistent arguments.

Nah, if you're just arguing for the sake of argument, you don't need to be consistent, you are just challenging everything.

Bannasidhe

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. ?

Can anyone from the No side please answer this???

smash

gravehold wrote: »

I am not, I have the problem of the yes side being dishonest. The yes side should be fight to show why they need these constitutional protection and what a yes vote will really mean for them and their family.

It will in no way affect anyone's family unless they have a gay child or sibling, in which case it will grand them more rights. Equal rights.

Hyzepher

gravehold wrote: »

I am not, I have the problem of the yes side being dishonest. The yes side should be fight to show why they need these constitutional protection and what a yes vote will really mean for them and their family.

When no say this will effect adoption they should be saying yes it does and here is why and gay couples should get the same constitunal protection.

How does this referendum affect adoption when that legislation is controlled by other means.

aloyisious

Wulfie wrote: »

I will be voting no.
The more you normalise homosexuality, the more normal it will become.
As a parent of a gay son, who despises me. What looks like a woman , might or might not be female.
I think , society has given lots of rights since decriminalisation .

This debate should take place in 50 years time.

It's all a devisionary tactic by the civil service .

Ffs ........,. VOTE NO.

Probably not a good idea now, but I'll ask you....given what you've written above, do you see your son as un-normal?

This is personal now, AND IT'S NOT REQUIRED OF YOU THAT YOU ANSWER IT:--- If you do see your son as un-normal/not normal, is it linked to what you wrote in your sentence about woman/might or might not be female?

Zubeneschamali

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Can anyone from the No side please answer this???

I think they've left the building, and there's only Yes voters left, with some of them arguing No for the crack.