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

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.

MrWalsh

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.

I suggest that you read this whole thread, the above has been refuted endlessly.

aloyisious

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.

Can one really put up a coherent argument against any "the slippery slope" argument? Re the marriage and building blocks you wrote about, did you vote NO in the divorce referendum to stop divorce being legalized here?

jobbridge4life

aloyisious wrote: »

Can one really put up a coherent argument against any "the slippery slope" argument?

Yes as plenty have on this thread.

One eyed Jack

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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:

Legend! :pac:

Genuinely had me laugh at that and I wouldn't mind but this thread had me exhausted, brilliant :pac:

BoatMad

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.

so despite the for example constitutional restrictions on divorce, you believe we have a free for all.

Im sorry , you are just making up stuff to suit your argument , its akin to Father Ted " Down with that sort of thing" argument

please explain why a single sex couple should not be allowed to avail of a civil marriage service in simple plain logic as far as you are concerned

BoatMad

aloyisious wrote: »

Can one really put up a coherent argument against any "the slippery slope" argument?

what slippery slope. the constitutional can only be further extended by a further referendum

SireOfSeth

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.

That seems perfectly fair for everyone. Well, except for gay couples of course. Oh, hang on... that's not very equal at all. Maybe we should let couples marry regardless of their gender. I propose that we should have a referendum on that. :rolleyes:

RedPaddyX

BoatMad wrote: »

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

key one as I've just said, further redefinitions



" 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

They do, some just don't want to. Eg some men or women may for example wish to "marry" 3 women but they don't have "equality" to do so. Surely they deserve equality too no?


"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

Please try and see my point: you have no valid argument to propose 1 redefinition and yet oppose another.

Trudiha

lisar816 wrote: »

So the referendum is about equality and marriage, but it also gives gay couples all the rights that goes along with been married, this to include adoption, which is fine.

Adoption isn't a right. It's a long and difficult process and at any point a prospective adopter can be turned down for what can appear to them to be an arbitrary reasons, too old, too heavy, not having a matching religious belief, being a smoker, a dodgy looking dog in the house, engaging in fertility treatment, etc.

Prospective adopters have no rights around adoption. Children in need of new families, correctly in my opinion, have all of the rights.

In the unlikely event of a single person or a couple being approved as adoptive parents (and you spend literally years jumping through hoops), there are very few children available. Fifty four children were placed for adoption in 2012, all but sixteen went to family members or people already known to the children.

As a prospective adopter in Ireland in 2015, if you do the Lotto every week during the approval process, you are more likely to win the jackpot than end up as a parent.

NuMarvel

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.

Re equality: The bar on marriage is clearly unequal as it means gay people, who by their nature are attracted to people of the same sex, are specifically denied the right to marry the person they love. If there's a valid reason people should vote No to maintain this bar, then you're welcome to present it.

Re polygamy: The amendment includes a provision that marriage is between two people. If passed, it will put an explicit, constitutional bar on marriages of more than 2 people, in the same way the Constitution used to have an explicit bar on divorce. And like the divorce clause, the bar on polygamous marriages could only be overturned by another referendum.

jobbridge4life

RedPaddyX wrote: »

Please try and see my point: you have no valid argument to propose 1 redefinition and yet oppose another.

That isn't a point. I mean its complete nonsense.

BoatMad

RedPaddyX wrote: »

Please try and see my point: you have no valid argument to propose 1 redefinition and yet oppose another.

I have asked you to explain your point of view , you have consistently refused to do that

Question

(a) How is " equality " a twist on words.

(b) How will a specific amendment , lead to allowing more then 2 people to marry , when the text is specific

(c) Are you actually saying you are voting No because you would prefer an amendment that support you marrying 8 women !

Ave Sodalis

RedPaddyX wrote: »

Please try and see my point: you have no valid argument to propose 1 redefinition and yet oppose another.

Nobody is opposing another... but we aren't talking about any other. We're talking about a referendum on SSM.

RedPaddyX

NuMarvel wrote: »

Re equality: The bar on marriage is clearly unequal as it means gay people, who by their nature are attracted to people of the same sex, are specifically denied the right to marry the person they love. If there's a valid reason people should vote No to maintain this bar, then you're welcome to present it.

Re polygamy: The amendment includes a provision that marriage is between two people. If passed, it will put an explicit, constitutional bar on marriages of more than 2 people, in the same way the Constitution used to have an explicit bar on divorce. And like the divorce clause, the bar on polygamous marriages could only be overturned by another referendum.

Ok let me rephrase my point: please explain to me why marriage (regardless of this ref) should be limited to 2 people? Is this not discrimination?

MonkeyTennis

Shark Jumped.

SireOfSeth

RedPaddyX wrote: »

Ok let me rephrase my point: please explain to me why marriage (regardless of this ref) should be limited to 2 people? Is this not discrimination?

But this thread is about the referendum. What has your point got to do with it?