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

gravehold

sup_dude wrote: »

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.

Yes wins constitunal protection very strong if a conservative government wins, marraige, adoption the family very strongly protected.

NO wins atm you can still adopt, family is there but a conservative government comes they can easily rip it all away.

Yes are not showing why being married is important for adoption and family they are scared and are saying no you can't talk about it won't effect it which is untrue. Be honest what effects being married will have on other aspects of irish life

Lt J.R. Bell

Hyzepher wrote: »

Untrue.

Really? Sure about that?

If they allowed a gay person have a big say in the welfare of a child born to their gay partner and , a bloody sperm donor..... imagine what happens if it involves a proper biological father. Sure, they will have some rights, but why on earth should they be answerable to the gay non biological " parent"


http://www.supremecourt.ie/Judgments.nsf/60f9f366f10958d1802572ba003d3f45/a6dc1f1e70fed713802576880031aacb?OpenDocument

You have no basis for saying that is untrue. Unmarried father's rights are extremely week as it is. Another group skipping the que

Maximus Alexander

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.

Anyone with an understanding of the proposed change will never say this. The amendment will have no effect on adoption, which is dealt with in legislation. You're presenting a false premise - that if the government for some inconceivable reason wanted to restrict gay adoption, they would no longer be able to - and using it to brand people who disagree as dishonest. They're not dishonest, you're just wrong about this.

gravehold

Hyzepher wrote: »

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

Being a married couple gives constitutnal protection which they won't have if Conservative government decides to change that legislation

smash

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Really? Sure about that?

If they allowed a gay person have a big say in the welfare of a child born to their gay partner and , a bloody sperm donor..... imagine what happens if it involves a proper biological father. Sure, they will have some rights, but why on earth should they be answerable to the gay non biological " parent"


http://www.supremecourt.ie/Judgments.nsf/60f9f366f10958d1802572ba003d3f45/a6dc1f1e70fed713802576880031aacb?OpenDocument

You have no basis for saying that is untrue. Unmarried father's rights are extremely week as it is. Another group skipping the que

Go lobby for the cause in a different place. This referendum is not about that.

Hyzepher

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Really? Sure about that?

If they allowed a gay person have a big say in the welfare of a child born to their gay partner and , a bloody sperm donor..... imagine what happens if it involves a proper biological father. Sure, they will have some rights, but why on earth should they be answerable to the gay non biological " parent"


http://www.supremecourt.ie/Judgments.nsf/60f9f366f10958d1802572ba003d3f45/a6dc1f1e70fed713802576880031aacb?OpenDocument

You have no basis for saying that is untrue. Unmarried father's rights are extremely week as it is. Another group skipping the que

But it's not another group - it's just an extension of an existing group that already have preference over unmarried fathers. mothers marrying another man has the same affect.

Lt J.R. Bell

sup_dude wrote: »

People are skipped for more suitable people...

Gays more suitable than mother and fathers now? Right, cute .


Looking forward to the class actions the gays will bring , if there seems a "disproportionate" amount of adoptions favouring married hetrosexual couples. I am sure the argument about "more suitable people" will be ignored then.

BizzyC

gravehold wrote: »

They don't get preference a married couple does.

Ok, assuming that's true, then that would mean that the fact that gay people are adopting children as an individual at all indicates that either a) straight couples applying are not suitable or b) there are more children in need of parents than couples applying.

So either way, married gay couples being able to apply togethor wont impact adoption rates for straight couples.

MrWalsh

gravehold wrote: »

Yes wins constitunal protection very strong if a conservative government wins, marraige, adoption the family very strongly protected.

NO wins atm you can still adopt, family is there but a conservative government comes they can easily rip it all away.

Yes are not showing why being married is important for adoption and family they are scared and are saying no you can't talk about it won't effect it which is untrue. Be honest what effects being married will have on other aspects of irish life

So essentially your argument boils down to - if you vote no and if a conservative government decides, there might be a change to a completely different act?

Youre talking in if's and maybe's. Fairytales. Pie in the sky.

If my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle you know?

Hyzepher

gravehold wrote: »

Being a married couple gives constitutnal protection which they won't have if Conservative government decides to change that legislation

if the referendum is passed then any legislation that affects adoption will jointly affect all married couples equally.

Maximus Alexander

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Looking forward to the class actions the gays will bring , if there seems a "disproportionate" amount of adoptions favouring married hetrosexual couples. I am sure the argument about "more suitable people" will be ignored then.

This will probably never need to happen because the AAI work off facts and junk, instead of preconceived ideas about classes of people.

Not a NSA agent

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Gays more suitable than mother and fathers now? Right, cute .


Looking forward to the class actions the gays will bring , if there seems a "disproportionate" amount of adoptions favouring married hetrosexual couples. I am sure the argument about "more suitable people" will be ignored then.

Now you are just making stuff up.

Where are same sex couples being given priority in adopting children?
How is this or fathers rights relevant to the upcoming referendum? Might as well start complaining about abortion.

BizzyC

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Gays more suitable than mother and fathers now? Right, cute.

It depends on the people.

Just because you have a certain set of genitalia doesn't mean you're a better parent.

gravehold

Hyzepher wrote: »

if the referendum is passed then any legislation that affects adoption will jointly affect all married couples equally.

Excatly hence if you don't wan't gay adoption a no vote and voting for a government to change the legislation is your best chance

Hyzepher

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Gays more suitable than mother and fathers now? Right, cute .

The fact that these kids are up for adoption means that they no longer have a mother or father.

If you really mean male and female then would you be on favour of a gay man and a gay woman adopting as a couple?

Lt J.R. Bell

Hyzepher wrote: »

But it's not another group - it's just an extension of an existing group that already have preference over unmarried fathers. mothers marrying another man has the same affect.

Yes, true, and how on earth does this extension in anyway improve the position of unmarried fathers? It means more people in the group to contend with. Not every mother is reasonable and can use the child as a weapon (same can be said about the fathers, some of whom go fighting for custody etc but haven't the remotest interest of really taking the parental duties seriously, just causing trouble for the mother)

So, not only did society say, that in an ideal world, it's best if there is a mother and father, whether married or not, but preferably married; now we will be saying, ah, sure, even though there is still a mother and father, father take a hike, Mary is more "suitable" to take up responsibilities with the mother, Ann

Oh of course, daddy will still have to play a role in paying the bills.

MrWalsh

gravehold wrote: »

Excatly hence if you don't wan't gay adoption a no vote and voting for a government to change the legislation is your best chance

Again, why are you against gay adoption?

Hyzepher

gravehold wrote: »

Excatly hence if you don't wan't gay adoption a no vote and voting for a government to change the legislation is your best chance

So if you want to be a bigot, vote no?

Hyzepher

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Yes, true, and how on earth does this extension in anyway improve the position of unmarried fathers? It means more people in the group to contend with. Not every mother is reasonable and can use the child as a weapon (same can be said about the fathers, some of whom go fighting for custody etc but haven't the remotest interest of really taking the parental duties seriously, just causing trouble for the mother)

So, not only did society say, that in an ideal world, it's best if there is a mother and father, whether married or not, but preferably married; now we will be saying, ah, sure, even though there is still a mother and father, father take a hike, Mary is more "suitable" to take up responsibilities with the mother, Ann

Oh of course, daddy will still have to play a role in paying the bills.

Your issue has more to do with the spouse of a woman who has had a child with a man than it has to do whether that spouse is gay or not

Ave Sodalis

gravehold wrote: »

Yes wins constitunal protection very strong if a conservative government wins, marraige, adoption the family very strongly protected.

NO wins atm you can still adopt, family is there but a conservative government comes they can easily rip it all away.

Yes are not showing why being married is important for adoption and family they are scared and are saying no you can't talk about it won't effect it which is untrue. Be honest what effects being married will have on other aspects of irish life

Being married isn't important for adoption, or the procedure of adoption at least. Please read the posts.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Gays more suitable than mother and fathers now? Right, cute .


Looking forward to the class actions the gays will bring , if there seems a "disproportionate" amount of adoptions favouring married hetrosexual couples. I am sure the argument about "more suitable people" will be ignored then.

That's not what I said. I said people will be skipped over for more suitable people. Gender and sexuality don't play a part in it.

gravehold

MrWalsh wrote: »

Again, why are you against gay adoption?

I am not

Hyzepher wrote: »

So if you want to be a bigot, vote no?

If they wan't no gay adoption then yes they should vote No but not everyone thatd oesn't want gay adoption is a bigot

Hyzepher

gravehold wrote: »

If they wan't no gay adoption then yes they should vote No but not everyone thatd oesn't want gay adoption is a bigot

What other reason would there be. If the AAI deem a gay couple as being suitable to adopt an orphan then what would the issue be?

gravehold

sup_dude wrote: »

Being married isn't important for adoption, or the procedure of adoption at least. Please read the posts.

But it really is

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

smash

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Gays more suitable than mother and fathers now? Right, cute .

You're displaying extreme prejudice and your posts are becoming more and more aggressive. You have no credibility!

Bannasidhe

The Round and Round the Garden is making thread dizzy.

Yet - despite the whole blah blah gays can adopts and poor baby with no biological mammy and daddy not one poster who claims it's baaaad if gays adopt has cared to explain why... Since repeating ourselves is apparently the way to go:



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. ?

What is it ye are all skirting around but don't have the guts to say?

Ave Sodalis

gravehold wrote: »

But it really is

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

Read the posts already on the thread.

Lt J.R. Bell

smash wrote: »

Go lobby for the cause in a different place. This referendum is not about that.

Article 41 is sought for amendment. Article 41 and Article 42 should always be read in full. Articles 41 and 42 solely concern Children and the Family. The Family is one defined and acknowledged (for over decades) as that based on marriage. You are seeking to change the definition of marriage to include same sex couples; an institution that was once exclusively the remit of the hetrosexual couples


Some of the issues may not affect childless couples, but do affect those that do have children, the majority.

So, there are links, no matter how much you deny it.

MrWalsh

gravehold wrote: »

If they wan't no gay adoption then yes they should vote No but not everyone thatd oesn't want gay adoption is a bigot

What other reason is there?

You are being completely disingenuous btw, dont think people dont see through it. You should at least have the balls to come out and state your real intentions.

gravehold

Hyzepher wrote: »

What other reason would there be. If the AAI deem a gay couple as being suitable to adopt an orphan then what would the issue be?

Religious freedom?

MrWalsh

gravehold wrote: »

But it really is

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

OUT OF DATE.