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

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?

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.