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

gravehold

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Good point there. With no male/female bias re parenting and incomes, such disputes would be interesting to watch.

It's the one thing I am really looking forward too.

aloyisious

kunst nugget wrote: »

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/05/08/in-their-iona-words/

Now if only we could have those images and quotes on poles around the country....

Bannasidhe

gravehold wrote: »

Lesbians would never use patriarchal pink

Mine is in earth tones - all sanded varnished floors, frosted glass, wooden cladding an terracotta tiles. Vah cuntempoarrry doncherknow.

I am not familiar with this 'patriarchal pink'? Can't seen to find it on any paint catalogue... do you have a link?

upinthesky

Are gay couples allowed to adopt children that have no relations to either of themselves? Just wondering because i know they are allowed adopt but under what circumstances, if any.

jobbridge4life

lisar816 wrote: »

Are gay couples allowed to adopt children that have no relations to either of themselves? Just wondering because i know they are allowed adopt but under what circumstances if any.

Under the same circumstances and conditions as straight couples.

aloyisious

DanDublin1982 wrote: »

How did they have .5 of a sexual partner?

The penguin way

humanji

gravehold wrote: »

Are they in a polygamous relationship but not allowed to be married to all the men they want too? Pity marraige equality won't cover their relationship and allow them to marry.

MOD: It's been said before that if you want to campaign for polygamous marriage, then off you go. This thread is about SSM, and dragging in pedantry as a reason to vote no is not going to cut it, so stick to the topic.

gravehold

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Under the same circumstances and conditions as straight couples.

Not true yet they still cannot adopt the same as a married couple yet.

One eyed Jack

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

no **** sherlock , get away

From what I recall their children were born from a previous hetrosexual relationship.

Nice way to try and cause diversions. "mother and father" clearly meant as one unit

Don't think Tom and Harry could be considered "mother and father"

Your recollection really isn't much to go on. I'd sooner just look at the facts -

4,042 same sex couples were living together in 2011. Of these 230 were couples with children, with the vast majority of these being female couples

I beg your pardon, you are right about "class action". What I should have said was a group of affected individuals (affected by decisions) pooling together resources and initiating a case together , fighting for their own "rights".

Again, you really have nothing to base this on, and you know as well as I do that the determinations in any case would still be made on an individual basis.

You're really just scaremongering there, which is as you say - a nice way to try and cause diversions.

Hey doesn't stop them classing themselves as Second Class Citizens :rolleyes:No doubt someone would try it

Your point being what exactly? How would it make a difference anyone classing themselves as a second class citizen? Is "second class citizen" a recognised legal term now that curries any favour in the judicial process? I don't think it is. Anyone can claim they are a second class citizen, it doesn't make any difference legally speaking.

And, what are the results so far, which class of families are getting better results ?

I'm fcuked if I know? I don't do house calls! Do you do house calls?

DanDublin1982

gravehold wrote: »

Are they in a polygamous relationship but not allowed to be married to all the men they want too? Pity marraige equality won't cover their relationship and allow them to marry.

Polygamy is not legal and won't be legal if the vote in question passes. Marriage will be equal without polygamy if this vote passes because all people will have access to the same level of marriage. Once we've achieved that those who wish to campaign for polygamy should do so but otherwise it's just another hijacking of the issue in question by something that has nothing to do with it. I'll gladly back a vote for polygamy if that day ever comes.

my friend

As David Norris said:

'If you don't know, vote No'

Ave Sodalis

my friend wrote: »

As David Norris said:

'If you don't know, vote No'

I've a better one:

"If you don't know, go find out"

jobbridge4life

my friend wrote: »

As David Norris said:

'If you don't know, vote No'

Or you could do your duty as a citizen and inform yourself.

gravehold

my friend wrote: »

As David Norris said:

'If you don't know, vote No'

Very big of him, most yes side are saying if you don't know or agree don't vote. Much respect to come out and say that.

Ave Sodalis

gravehold wrote: »

most yes side are saying if you don't know or agree don't vote

Au contraire, the Yes side is trying to get as many people to vote as possible...

gravehold

sup_dude wrote: »

Au contraire, the Yes side is trying to get as many people to vote as possible...

For their side, they have said to people if you don't agree with it don't vote there is no reason to vote no if you disagree

Bannasidhe

gravehold wrote: »

Not true yet they still cannot adopt the same as a married couple yet.

If a same-sex couple applied to be considered as an adoptive couple today the legislation will be in force before the first batch of paperwork is completed so stop it.

It's law.
It will be in force before the Referendum.
It has nothing to do with the Referendum.

jimdublin15

gravehold wrote: »

My gay friends pretty much have sex with a different guy each weekend.

gravehold wrote: »

You should tell the husbands but this is why you are foolish to marry in this day in age, they can say goodbye to half their stuff soon enough and end up paying maintance.

Although once gays start to get divorce courts might actually have to think for once rather then give it all to the women even if she is the cheating one.

I would not tell the husbands about the cheating wifes I know of. I mean it's simply not my marriage so none of my business so why get involved. What they do to each other is up to them.

Anyhow still not sure what your trying to say or what the point is your making about the gay friends you have or my cheating wifes club in relation to SSM referendum

SireOfSeth

lisar816 wrote: »

Are gay couples allowed to adopt children that have no relations to either of themselves? Just wondering because i know they are allowed adopt but under what circumstances, if any.

Yes (after the Children and Family Relationships Bill is enacted this month).

Ave Sodalis

gravehold wrote: »

For their side, they have said to people if you don't agree with it don't vote there is no reason to vote no if you disagree

Well obviously preferably for their side but the downfall of this referendum will be due to a lack of voters so the Yes side are encouraging as many people as possible to vote

Bob24

my friend wrote: »

As David Norris said:

'If you don't know, vote No'

That is how I do it for most referendums. If I don't feel like I can understand the full implications of my vote I assume I am being taken for a ride.

But then of course, you can only apply that logic after having made reasonable efforts to understand. And if someone never understands any referendum, well it might have to do with them :-)

gravehold

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If a same-sex couple applied to be considered as an adoptive couple today the legislation will be in force before the first batch of paperwork is completed so stop it.

It's law.
It will be in force before the Referendum.
It has nothing to do with the Referendum.

Not in force yet so gay couples havn't got the same chance to adpot yet as married couples and the legislation can change on a whim once it comes into force. Referendum needs to pass so gay couples can be married then get the same constitutional protection for adoption as straights

Ave Sodalis

gravehold wrote: »

Referendum needs to pass so gay couples can be married then get the same constitutional protection for adoption as straights

No, it doesn't. The Constitution doesn't deal with adoption. As you've been told.

Maximus Alexander

gravehold wrote: »

the same constitutional protection for adoption as straights

There's no such thing. The 'same constitutional protection for adoption' would be none at all.

SireOfSeth

gravehold wrote: »

Not in force yet so gay couples havn't got the same chance to adpot yet as married couples and the legislation can change on a whim once it comes into force. Referendum needs to pass so gay couples can be married then get the same constitutional protection for adoption as straights

If you look-up the word 'pedantic'... you'll see a picture of gravehold.

smokingman

Ah g'wan, have a listen, it's the Nualas fer fek sake

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytulLaJx6Rk

gravehold

sup_dude wrote: »

No, it doesn't. The Constitution doesn't deal with adoption. As you've been told.

It deals with the family in relation to married couples. Being a married couple will bring way more protections then just getting married.

gravehold

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

There's no such thing. The 'same constitutional protection for adoption' would be none at all.

It's the married couple protection

Maximus Alexander

gravehold wrote: »

Being a married couple will bring way more protections then just getting married.

This makes no sense.

smash

gravehold wrote: »

Being a married couple will bring way more protections then just getting married.

ummm, what?