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

jobbridge4life

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Enough of the whataboutery, I am not at this point discussing marriage and support for it. I posed a question and you should be able to answer it without my having to provide arguments for other things.

With respect you are. It is not whataboutery it is a legitmate challenge to your flawed and indefensible line of reasoning.

Delirium

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

OK so we all accept the number is two.

What then do we do when same sex couples who marry want to procreate ??

Do we all just accept that the minority has now redefined marriage from 2 to more than 2 ???

there's no requirement to for a married couple to enter a polygamous marriage in order to avail of surrogacy/IVF etc.

floggg

quainy wrote: »

I am not homophobic, nor am I going to become a priest any time soon. I have friends and families that are of all kinds of sexual orientation and put quite simply, I don't give a f*** who they f***.

I have no idea how I'm going to vote, or if I'm even going to vote in the referendum, simply because (pause for hate to be generated) I agree that people of all sexual orientations should have the right to equality in life, however, marriage being a religious thing, I don't believe that homosexual marriage should be approved of. The church has been set in its ways for thousands of years, marrying men to women and only that. I don't feel that they should have to change their approach or outlook on the matter, however, on the flip side I do feel like civil partnership should be granted to those who are of all sexual orientations.

We are talking about civil marriage here, church weddings are unaffected whatsoever.

Think of it in terms of an atheist ceremony - state registrar (HSE official) conducting the ceremony, and its only recognised in the eyes of the State, not God.

Also, there is evidence of same sex marriages within the christian church. The church also did not view marriage as a sacrament or religious ceremony for much of its history. Thus, the church hasn't been as set in its ways as you might think.

shruikan2553

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

If civil partnership already does everything, why are we wasting money on a referendum?

In any case, what is the justification for a single person supporting by their taxes two people in a civil partnership sharing a house who have shared expenses as a consequence.?

This has been gone over before, there are differences between the 2, you just picked one of the things to complain about which is equal.

We are wasting money on a referendum because there is the chance that someone would oppose the new legislation otherwise.

Probably the same as every other couple.

We aren't voting on if they should get the same tax relief and it won't be changing any time soon.

Ave Sodalis

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Ahhh I see so be damned you have an opinion on the redefining of marriage and shut up so the yes agenda can have its way.

Yes I got that message a few times now :rolleyes:

It's none of your business...

quainy wrote: »

To me it is religious, I view marriage as a religious bond whereby you ask God to bless the relationship of you and your partner. I said I don't feel that should change.

It's not going to change. Religious people can still have their religious cermony. What about nonreligious people? They can get married too, is that not the same?

Ctrl Alt Delete

sup_dude wrote: »

No, it doesn't

OK so mr. donor comes along and has a bit of nooky with one or both of the gay females in order to concieve.

What now are the permutations of the above scenario (which another poster has already posted).

There many permutations of this one simple act not least around the definition of marriage.

Can you show me any Irish government plans in how it deals with the eventuality of the above from a simple family law point of view?

Before we go onto the other aspects.

floggg

quainy wrote: »

To me it is religious, I view marriage as a religious bond whereby you ask God to bless the relationship of you and your partner. I said I don't feel that should change.

Again, think of the atheists marrying. They want the state to recognise them only - not any religion.

Same goes for same sex marriages.

jobbridge4life

quainy wrote: »

To me it is religious, I view marriage as a religious bond whereby you ask God to bless the relationship of you and your partner. I said I don't feel that should change.

And it isn't going too... all the referendum proposes to do is allow gay people the same access to the secular, non-religious civil marriage that is currently offered by the state.

Now if you actually believe in what you have stated above then logically you must be for the abolishing of non-religious civil marriage.

Ave Sodalis

There

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

OK so mr. donor comes along and has a bit of nooky with one or both of the gay females in order to concieve.

What now are the permutations of the above scenario (which another poster has already posted).

There many permutations of this one simple act not least around the definition of marriage.

Can you show me any Irish government plans in how it deals with the eventuality of the above from a simple family law point of view?

Before we go onto the other aspects.

He leaves and that's that. End of story.

There's actually a thread on AMA forum, you should read it

Zubeneschamali

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Ahhh I see so be damned you have an opinion on the redefining of marriage and shut up so the yes agenda can have its way.

Do you think it's appropriate when a work colleague announces she's pregnant to inquire who the father is, did the husband he do the deed or did she use a turkey baster, will she be granting the donor access?

I consider it polite to keep my nose out of other people's sex lives.

floggg

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Again being obtuse. IVF is expensive as hell and odds aren't always in the favor of the receiver. Thats medical intervention and I've no issue which is different and I've not argued that (even in regards to gay couples)

I was trying to be polite in how I put it however another gay poster provided an example on this thread of the "easier" option that will be taken.

That easier option then brings in the 3rd party to the marriage

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Ahhh I see so be damned you have an opinion on the redefining of marriage and shut up so the yes agenda can have its way.

Yes I got that message a few times now :rolleyes:

I think you are the one redefining marriage in a bizarre way.

Lots of straight couples have children through the use of third parties. They use sperm donors, egg donors, IVF, surrogates and even adoption.

Nearly all of those are options for gay people.

Are you saying a straight couple who use a sperm donor are bringing that donor into their marriage? Or that a straight couple who adopt bring the child's biological parents in?

Answer honestly please.

If any of those practices should prohibit gay people marrying, then surely there should equally be a ban on married straight couples using them as well.

If they would invalidate a same sex marriage, they must surely also invalidate opposite sex marriage.

Sheldons Brain

sup_dude wrote: »

You cannot answer your question without answering ours... Why are you only concerned about taxes when it concerns gays. Why, when it's the exact same taxes, is it fine with straight couples?

I am happy to support families formed by men and women coming together and having children together. Marriages formed by men and women are supportive of this concept, although they might not have children and so I don't see the need for micromanagement of rules on marriage to try and exclude infertile people etc. Same sex relationships do not have this capacity and are of no value to me, although obviously of great value to the individuals involved, and I do not see why I should contribute financially to them. Explain to me why I should.

Bannasidhe

quainy wrote: »

I am not homophobic, nor am I going to become a priest any time soon. I have friends and families that are of all kinds of sexual orientation and put quite simply, I don't give a f*** who they f***.

I have no idea how I'm going to vote, or if I'm even going to vote in the referendum, simply because (pause for hate to be generated) I agree that people of all sexual orientations should have the right to equality in life, however, marriage being a religious thing, I don't believe that homosexual marriage should be approved of. The church has been set in its ways for thousands of years, marrying men to women and only that. I don't feel that they should have to change their approach or outlook on the matter, however, on the flip side I do feel like civil partnership should be granted to those who are of all sexual orientations.

Marriage is a civil thing. The State allows clergy to act as registrars - they have the same 'powers' as Mrs In The Town Hall or Mr Humanist conducting the same ceremony.

The Church bit is just window dressing with no legal standing whatsoever.

Few posts back I showed how a Pope officiated in the marriage of two men so it seems the church changed it's mind along the way.

Now - what were you saying about equality?

Ctrl Alt Delete

sup_dude wrote: »

There

He leaves and that's that. End of story.

There's actually a thread on AMA forum, you should read it

Oh I see and thats defined in law then ???

So for example I decide to help donate sperm using the "budget" option, there is no legal recourse to me what so ever?

How has this been tested in court and what was the outcome?

Do we see similar cases to this appearing here?

floggg

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

OK so mr. donor comes along and has a bit of nooky with one or both of the gay females in order to concieve.

What now are the permutations of the above scenario (which another poster has already posted).

There many permutations of this one simple act not least around the definition of marriage.

Can you show me any Irish government plans in how it deals with the eventuality of the above from a simple family law point of view?

Before we go onto the other aspects.

Can you show me one that says a marriage is nullified either party has sex with a third party (whether with the parties consent or otherwise)?

If third party involvement prevents gay people marrying, surely it must also automatically invalidate straight couples's marriages. Otherwise there is no logical consistency to your stance and it is just a completely arbitrary and discriminatory distinction.

Zubeneschamali

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

OK so mr. donor comes along and has a bit of nooky with one or both of the gay females in order to concieve.

I can see why you might prefer thinking about this than the topic of the thread, you know, the actual referendum, but we really won't be voting on whether the pizza delivery guy or the pool boy should be the donor.

Ctrl Alt Delete

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Do you think it's appropriate when a work colleague announces she's pregnant to inquire who the father is, did the husband he do the deed or did she use a turkey baster, will she be granting the donor access?

I consider it polite to keep my nose out of other people's sex lives.

It's not the sex lives Im interested in, its the legal ramifications around the children, family law and so on that Id be more concerned about

Ave Sodalis

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

I am happy to support families formed by men and women coming together and having children together. Marriages formed by men and women are supportive of this concept, although they might not have children and so I don't see the need for micromanagement of rules on marriage to try and exclude infertile people etc. Same sex relationships do not have this capacity and are of no value to me, although obviously of great value to the individuals involved, and I do not see why I should contribute financially to them. Explain to me why I should.

Because you're wrong on the value front. If you can explain why they're not of equal value, then do tell.

Ctrl Alt Delete

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I can see why you might prefer thinking about this than the topic of the thread, you know, the actual referendum, but we really won't be voting on whether the pizza delivery guy or the pool boy should be the donor.

Oh I see so the referendum passes wont then start this issue arising next?

Its not just a simple yes or no , its about looking at this going forward also and all of the ramifications (potential or actual) of a yes vote carrying.

If you cannot comprehend that and think yes for marriage for the sake of it then a no vote is actually a necessity until such time as all those possible or actual issues can be addressed.

Penn

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

I am happy to support families formed by men and women coming together and having children together. Marriages formed by men and women are supportive of this concept, although they might not have children and so I don't see the need for micromanagement of rules on marriage to try and exclude infertile people etc. Same sex relationships do not have this capacity and are of no value to me, although obviously of great value to the individuals involved, and I do not see why I should contribute financially to them. Explain to me why I should.

Because despite your views about them, they contribute financially to you. Despite you viewing them as being of no value to you, they're not facilitating the State to continue discriminating against you based on your sexuality.

Ave Sodalis

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Oh I see so the referendum passes wont then start this issue arising next?

Its not just a simple yes or no , its about looking at this going forward also

No, because as you said yourself, it's already happening whether people are married or not and whether people are straight or not

Zubeneschamali

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Its not just a simple yes or no , its about looking at this going forward also

Forwards, and then again in slow-mo, looking at it over and over again.

Perhaps you should get some fresh air.

Ctrl Alt Delete

sup_dude wrote: »

No, because as you said yourself, it's already happening whether people are married or not and whether people are straight or not

So we continue to ignore it then ???

Yes good and responsible reason for voting Yes then :rolleyes:

floggg

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

It's not the sex lives Im interested in, its the legal ramifications around the children, family law and so on that Id be more concerned about

All of which are more pressing issues for heterosexual relationships - since heterosexual couples are by far the largest market for all forms of assisted reproduction, including all forms of donor/surrogate assistance.

Do you want to ban it for married couples or void their marriage if they avail of such services?

In any event, gay people will still be able to avail of those services without marriage - though the resulting children may be disadvantaged by the failure to recognise their relationship to their non-biological parents fully.

It is preferable from a family law perspective that we do recognise the relatinoship as a marriage, and not doing so is likely to cause more issues.

Ave Sodalis

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

So we continue to ignore it then ???

Yes good and responsible reason for voting Yes then :rolleyes:

It's already happening whether this referendum goes through or not, therefore it is not relevant to this referendum.

Kurtosis

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

OK so we all accept the number is two.

What then do we do when same sex couples who marry want to procreate ??

Do we all just accept that the minority has now redefined marriage from 2 to more than 2 ???

So by your bizarre reasoning:

Same-sex couple do not want children = can get married.
Same-sex couple do want children = can't get married.

So then the childless couple are married, the couple with children are not. I thought marriage was all about procreation/family/children?

Sofiztikated

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

OK so we all accept the number is two.

What then do we do when same sex couples who marry want to procreate ??

Do we all just accept that the minority has now redefined marriage from 2 to more than 2 ???

How is this redefining marriage as more than 2?

quainy wrote: »

To me it is religious, I view marriage as a religious bond whereby you ask God to bless the relationship of you and your partner. I said I don't feel that should change.

Getting married in a church is religious. Getting married in the eyes of the law is not. I got married to my wife in the registry office. Am I married? Yes. Does my marriage in a registry office alter other peoples marriage, in the eyes of the law and/or God? Not one bit.

Getting married in the eyes of the church will still remain the same.

And FYI, if you get married in a church, you still have to sign the bit of paper that deems you married in the eyes of the State.

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

OK so mr. donor comes along and has a bit of nooky with one or both of the gay females in order to concieve.

What now are the permutations of the above scenario (which another poster has already posted).

There many permutations of this one simple act not least around the definition of marriage.

Can you show me any Irish government plans in how it deals with the eventuality of the above from a simple family law point of view?

Before we go onto the other aspects.

The permutations mean that one or both females may become pregnant. It does nothing to the legal definition of the marriage, unless they wish to divorce for some reason, in the same way if my wife sleeps with someone else, either with or without my consent, we may wish to part ways.

jobbridge4life

penguin88 wrote: »

So by your bizarre reasoning:

Same-sex couple do not want children = can get married.
Same-sex couple do want children = can't get married.

So then the childless couple are married, the couple with children are not. I thought marriage was all about procreation/family/children?

Only if the parents are gender divergent apparently. Two peens can't make no family.

Zubeneschamali

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

So we continue to ignore it then ???

More seriously, it is the subject of other legislation, the Children and Family Relationships Bill.

Nothing whatsoever to do with the referendum, though, since the same issues arise for opposite sex couples and unmarried people.

Sheldons Brain

Penn wrote: »

Because despite your views about them, they contribute financially to you. Despite you viewing them as being of no value to you, they're not facilitating the State to continue discriminating against you based on your sexuality.

Allusion to me is not a proper answer to my question. What justifies an unmarried person contributing financially through taxation to a single sex relationship? And do not waste time talking about the value of marriage, this is not the same thing.

And as for discrimination, the State promote some things, this is not "discrimination". It funds IT courses, but not hairdressing courses, this is not "discrimination". It funds insulation of of houses, but not getting a new kitchen, this is not "discrimination".