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

Ave Sodalis

gravehold wrote: »

In 8 days and the right can be removed unless you vote yes for ssm

The referendum will not protect it.

G_R

Mod

gravehold, your contributions to this thread are little more than trolling at this point. Please change your posting style, or you'll end up thread banned.

Maximus Alexander

gravehold wrote: »

This right can easily be removed by the next goverment unless ssm passes then gay married couples get the same protection to adopt as straights

You said that already. You were refuted already.

MrWalsh

gravehold wrote: »

This right can easily be removed by the next goverment unless ssm passes then gay married couples get the same protection to adopt as straights

The right can be removed regardless of the referendum on same sex marriage.

I genuinely do not understand your constant blatting on the same thing over and over despite being PROVEN wrong each time.

gravehold

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You said a married couple gets preference.

They don't.

They get a preference of being the only couple with can adopt for 8 more days and if the ssm fails and the next goverment revert the children act

Ave Sodalis

gravehold wrote: »

They get a preference of being the only couple with can adopt for 8 more days and if the ssm fails and the next goverment revert the children act

The referendum will not protect it.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Adoption isn't a general issue, in any event. There are very few adoptions these days, and most are within families. Typically, the "adoptive" parents include the child's mother.

http://www.treoir.ie/policy-statistics.php#3

gravehold

sup_dude wrote: »

The referendum will not protect it.

It will make the gay couple a married couple and have the same rights as the straight married couple. That's the protection yes will give

One eyed Jack

gravehold wrote: »

Currently married couple are the ones considered preferential for domestic adoption, once ssm comes in the staright and married couple will be equal and discrimination law will stop the adoption board preferring a straight couple. Have constitutional protection will bring way more then justnbeing married it has ramifications on other things

So it has absolutely nothing to do with whether a couple are gay or straight then?

It has to do with the fact that they are either married or unmarried, and married couples aren't given any preference, they are simply eligible to apply to adopt children, whereas unmarried couples are not.

It doesn't matter if an unmarried couple are heterosexual or homosexual, the simple fact of the matter is that they are currently ineligible as a couple to apply to adopt children.

The Children and Family Relationship Act which will be written into law before this referendum, completely separate from the outcome of this referendum, means that unmarried couples will then be eligible to apply to adopt children, the same way as a married couple were always eligible, the same way as individuals were always eligible, and no one criteria will outweigh the other as there is no hierarchy exists that you're trying to make out.

Why are you doing that?

After it has been explained to you by numerous posters now?

jobbridge4life

gravehold wrote: »

They get a preference of being the only couple with can adopt for 8 more days and if the ssm fails and the next goverment revert the children act

You are talking nonsense. You have been talking nonsense. In spite of being corrected on numerous occasions you continue to offer up the same disproven nonsense. It is ridiculous.

upinthesky

So in a few days married gay and straight couples will all be recognised as the same for adoption?

Maximus Alexander

gravehold wrote: »

It will make the gay couple a married couple and have the same rights as the straight married couple. That's the protection yes will give

Thanks for explaining the purpose of the referendum.

MrWalsh

gravehold wrote: »

It will make the gay couple a married couple and have the same rights as the straight married couple. That's the protection yes will give

That has nothing to do with adoption.

jobbridge4life

lisar816 wrote: »

So in a few days married gay and straight couples will all be recognised as the same for adoption?

Yes.

upinthesky

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The Children and Family Relationship Act which will be written into law before this referendum, completely separate from the outcome of this referendum, means that unmarried couples will then be eligible to apply to adopt children, the same way as a married couple were always eligible, the same way as individuals were always eligible, and no one criteria will outweigh the other as there is no hierarchy exists that you're trying to make out.

Thanks for clearing this up, so the referendum has absolutely nothing to do with adopting as it's been brought in already for unmarried couples, as said above.

Maximus Alexander

lisar816 wrote: »

So in a few days married gay and straight couples will all be recognised as the same for adoption?

Well yes, sort of, but adoption doesn't work like that.

When a child is being adopted the relevant authorities seek to find the most suitable environment in which to place the child. It's not about the couple, it's about the child. The child's welfare is prioritized.

The new act allows cohabiting couples and and civil partners to be considered for adoption. But a child will, of course, only be placed in their care if they are deemed the best option.

What this act does, is broaden the pool of available options and so improves the chances of finding the best possible environment for the adoptee.

This is unrelated to the referendum on same sex marriage, but is being used as a tool to derail the discourse by those who would seek to keep gay couples on the fringes of society.

Bannasidhe

lisar816 wrote: »

Thanks for clearing this up, so the referendum has absolutely nothing to do with adopting as it's been brought in already for unmarried couples, as said above.

Correct.
But unmarried couples can also be considered.

gravehold

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Thanks for explaining the purpose of the referendum.

Your welcome

Vote YES if you want to make gays equal in the constitution as straight married couples
Vote NO if you don't want them to have constitutional protection as a married couple

Look up what protections married couples get in our constitution for the ramifications of of the yes and no vote (it's more then just getting married) them make up your mind on how you will vote.

What ever you do vote be it yes or no, don't let anyone quilt you into not voting.

Ave Sodalis

gravehold wrote: »

Look up what protections married couples get in our constitution

Hmmm

One eyed Jack

gravehold wrote: »

I have never said unmarried couples, married couples have the preference.

Exactly. You haven't once acknowledged that it is because a couple are unmarried that they aren't eligible to apply to adopt children. It is because they aren't married. Married couples do not get preference among people who are eligible to adopt children.

Individuals may still apply to adopt children, regardless of their sexual orientation or relationship status and they are viewed equally as suitable as a married couple on the basis of eligibility alone.

smash

gravehold wrote: »

What ever you do vote be it yes or no, don't let anyone quilt you into not voting.

Jesus, that's rich coming from you after the lies you've been peddling.

gravehold

smash wrote: »

Jesus, that's rich coming from you after the lies you've been peddling.

I never told someone not to vote, voting is one of most important freedoms in a democracy.

RedPaddyX

Hi guys - will be voting no. I'm very concerned about redefining marriage and its implications.

Not sure if we are allowed post links but I think the elephant in the room is all the talk of "equality". Clearly this is a twist on words. All citizens already have the right to marry. However there is a definition for marriage - ie 1 woman, 1 man. I know many shoot down the argument that if you redefine for 2 of same sex you cannot possibly argue against increasing number of people in a marriage also - but I've yet to hear a coherent argument on this.

Sofiztikated

gravehold wrote: »

I never told someone not to vote, voting is one of most important freedoms in a democracy.

How many sticks do you have at this stage?

Because every one of them has been lifted by the wrong end.

Zubeneschamali

RedPaddyX wrote: »

Hi guys - will be voting no. I'm very concerned about redefining marriage and its implications..

I'm a married man, and as far as I can tell, the implications in full for my marriage of this redefinition of marriage are as follows:

BoatMad

RedPaddyX wrote: »

Hi guys - will be voting no. I'm very concerned about redefining marriage and its implications.

Not sure if we are allowed post links but I think the elephant in the room is all the talk of "equality". Clearly this is a twist on words. All citizens already have the right to marry. However there is a definition for marriage - ie 1 woman, 1 man. I know many shoot down the argument that if you redefine for 2 of same sex you cannot possibly argue against increasing number of people in a marriage also - but I've yet to hear a coherent argument on this.

Could you list the implications you see occurring if this amendment was passed.


" equality" is a twist on words, how so. perhaps you could enlighten us ?

"All citizens already have the right to marry.". err no they do not , that the point of this


"However there is a definition for marriage - ie 1 woman, 1 man. I know many shoot down the argument that if you redefine for 2 of same sex you cannot possibly argue against increasing number of people in a marriage "

This is the nonsense argument, akin, to " cats should be allowed to marry dogs" . The constitutional change is limited to 2 people, thats all, No argument on any side has suggested their is any demand for any further change. if you are campaigning to have 8 wives, please start your own referendum

RedPaddyX

RedPaddyX wrote: »

Hi guys - will be voting no. I'm very concerned about redefining marriage and its implications.

Not sure if we are allowed post links but I think the elephant in the room is all the talk of "equality". Clearly this is a twist on words. All citizens already have the right to marry. However there is a definition for marriage - ie 1 woman, 1 man. I know many shoot down the argument that if you redefine for 2 of same sex you cannot possibly argue against increasing number of people in a marriage also - but I've yet to hear a coherent argument on this.

So apparently can't post links as I'm a newbie - it was a link to ongoing discussions in the US Supreme Court re SSM where this very issue of setting legal precedence for other redefinitions in the future is a real concern.

"Once you redefine one boundary, all other boundaries are open to redefinition."

I think it is a tricky debate that needs careful thought. I'm totally in favour of people free to live and believe as they choose but redefining such a key building block of society is foolish and shortsighted.

Not a NSA agent

RedPaddyX wrote: »

So apparently can't post links as I'm a newbie - it was a link to ongoing discussions in the US Supreme Court re SSM where this very issue of setting legal precedence for other redefinitions in the future is a real concern.

"Once you redefine one boundary, all other boundaries are open to redefinition."

I think it is a tricky debate that needs careful thought. I'm totally in favour of people free to live and believe as they choose but redefining such a key building block of society is foolish and shortsighted.

What will happen from this redefinition?

Not a NSA agent

RedPaddyX wrote: »

So apparently can't post links as I'm a newbie - it was a link to ongoing discussions in the US Supreme Court re SSM where this very issue of setting legal precedence for other redefinitions in the future is a real concern.

"Once you redefine one boundary, all other boundaries are open to redefinition."

I think it is a tricky debate that needs careful thought. I'm totally in favour of people free to live and believe as they choose but redefining such a key building block of society is foolish and shortsighted.

What will happen from this redefinition? Must be pretty major if youre willing to go against people being free to live and believe as they choose.

jobbridge4life

RedPaddyX wrote: »

So apparently can't post links as I'm a newbie - it was a link to ongoing discussions in the US Supreme Court re SSM where this very issue of setting legal precedence for other redefinitions in the future is a real concern.

"Once you redefine one boundary, all other boundaries are open to redefinition."

No it isn't. It is an utterly nonsensical concern raised by those who oppose marriage equality period.

RedPaddyX wrote: »

I think it is a tricky debate that needs careful thought. I'm totally in favour of people free to live and believe as they choose but redefining such a key building block of society is foolish and shortsighted.

double speak. You clearly are not 'totally in favour of people free to live and believe as they choose' because you don't think I should be able to marry my partner as my beliefs say I ought.