Homosexual Adoption referendum

Electric Boobs

What if the marriage equality referendum was called this? Do you think it would change the outcome? It's something I never understood. What's wrong with the word homosexual? It is after all the correct term. But when someone uses it this way, it in this way, it's considered bad!!

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

Or "Queer Child Ownership Multiple Choice Quiz"

rawn

That would make no sense. They can already legally adopt. How about "Homosexual Marriage Referendum".

pmasterson95

I sense a lock

iDave

How about a 'Do we have enough gay threads already referendum'?

Electric Boobs

rawn wrote: »

How about "Homosexual Marriage Referendum".

Ya, but my point is that would never happen

MJohnston

Because not everyone who wants same-sex marriage for them is specifically homosexual?

rawn

Electric Boobs wrote: »

Ya, but my point is that would never happen

Using the term homosexual? There's no need because the term "equality" encompasses it to include homosexual/lesbian/transgender/heterosexual.

MrWalsh

This referendum has nothing to do with adoption?

Ghekko

This has to be a wind up given the referendum has nothing to do with having children. So sick of the ridiculous posters suggesting otherwise too.

Eta, 'posters' meaning those hung up around the contryside, not people posting comments.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Electric Boobs wrote: »

What if the marriage equality referendum was called this? Do you think it would change the outcome? It's something I never understood. What's wrong with the word homosexual? It is after all the correct term. But when someone uses it this way, it in this way, it's considered bad!!

Nothing is wrong with the word homosexual - even the no camp would argue this - it would be the word "adoption" theyd have a problem with. Why that is, is somthing only they could argue.

Cushie Butterfield

Electric Boobs wrote: »

Ya, but my point is that would never happen

Just as you'd never have a referendum with the label heterosexual. Go figure!

Wait? I can adopt a gay person? Fabulous!

RobertKK

It is the marriage referendum, not the marriage equality referendum as per refcom.ie

MonkeyTennis

Deleted User wrote: »

Wait? I can adopt a gay person? Fabulous!

One of each so.

galljga1

Thread disappearing in three, two, one......

The Hill Billy

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Nothing is wrong with the word homosexual - even the no camp would argue this - it would be the word "adoption" theyd have a problem with. Why that is, is somthing only they could argue.

I just realised that the 'No Camp' is exactly that - not in the slightest bit camp. Geddit?


I'll get my coat...

galljga1

The Hill Billy wrote: »

I just realised that the 'No Camp' is exactly that - not in the slightest bit camp. Geddit?


I'll get my coat...

Billy, I had the exact same thought....

uch

The Hill Billy wrote: »

I just realised that the 'No Camp' is exactly that - not in the slightest bit camp. Geddit?
...

Maybe they're from Glasgow

Trudiha

My name is Trudiha, I am a 43 year old lady homosexual and I'm keen to meet prospective parent/s willing to dog sit with a view to leaving me some folding money in the longer term.

I already have a dad but, apparently, I also deserve a mammy.

galljga1

Trudiha wrote: »

My name is Trudiha, I am a 43 year old lady homosexual and I'm keen to meet prospective parent/s willing to dog sit with a view to leaving me some folding money in the longer term.

I already have a dad but, apparently, I also deserve a mammy.

You poor thing. Now, was it just having a dad that made you gay or was it a lifestyle choice? My kids are in the same boat and I am worried that they might catch the gay as there is too much testosterone in the house.

Why don't the no side have "Vote No for Equality" on their posters?

They may as well just come out and say it like (no pun intended).

I may lock this thread soon. But right now I'm drinking coffee and tea (yes, both). So get yer jokes in while you can.

galljga1

Deleted User wrote: »

Why don't the no side have "Vote No for Equality" on their posters?

They may as well just come out and say it like (no pun intended).

I may lock this thread soon. But right now I'm drinking coffee and tea (yes, both). So get yer jokes in while you can.

Yes, that would be as truthful as their other posters.

dont bother

well it was started by a poster who has already shown their true colours on other threads....

dont bother

dont bother wrote: »

well it was started by a poster who has already shown their true colours on other threads....

COS THAT'S WHY I LOOOOVE YOU

Turtwig

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But right now I'm drinking coffee and tea (yes, both).

You can't have both coffee and tea. That's...unnatural!

Children, might be so ever confused.

Turtwig

Turtwig wrote: »

You can't have both coffee and tea. That's...unnatural!

Children, might be so ever confused.

Children should not be having coffee.

It's a bloody disgrace.

gk5000

Ghekko wrote: »

This has to be a wind up given the referendum has nothing to do with having children. So sick of the ridiculous posters suggesting otherwise too.

And I am sick of people dismissing the impact and consequences on subsequent children to a gay marriage, in that then legally they will have either 2 mothers or 2 fathers which is impossible.

Trudiha

galljga1 wrote: »

You poor thing. Now, was it just having a dad that made you gay or was it a lifestyle choice? My kids are in the same boat and I am worried that they might catch the gay as there is too much testosterone in the house.

Like a normal teenager, I took no notice, whatsoever, of my dad, Debbie Harry made me gay.

StewartGriffin

Trudiha wrote: »

Debbie Harry made me gay.

Sounds like a SUN headline.

efb

RobertKK wrote: »

It is the marriage referendum, not the marriage equality referendum as per refcom.ie

Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015



An Bille um an gCeathrú Leasú is Tríocha ar an mBunreacht (Comhionannas
Pósta), 2015

ohnonotgmail

gk5000 wrote: »

And I am sick of people dismissing the impact and consequences on subsequent children to a gay marriage, in that then legally they will have either 2 mothers or 2 fathers which is impossible.

because it is nothing to do with the referendum. that will happens no matter what the outcome of the referendum

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Why don't the no side have "Vote No for Equality" on their posters?

They may as well just come out and say it like (no pun intended).

I may lock this thread soon. But right now I'm drinking coffee and tea (yes, both). So get yer jokes in while you can.

In the same cup?

Now that's hardcore.

gk5000

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

because it is nothing to do with the referendum. that will happens no matter what the outcome of the referendum

No. Currently only a man and woman can be legal parents, wheras a yes vote shall allow 2 men or 2 women to be legal parents (though not sure the men will manage it no matter what).

So the child of 2 married gay women would have 2 women as "legal" parents, i.e. on their birthcert.

ohnonotgmail

gk5000 wrote: »

No. Currently only a man and woman can be legal parents, wheras a yes vote shall allow 2 men or 2 women to be legal parents (though not sure the men will manage it no matter what).

So the child of 2 married gay women would have 2 women as "legal" parents, i.e. on their birthcert.

NO NO NO NO NO. There is separate legislation that covers that has already made its way through the dail. or is the verge of doing so at least. this referendum will have no effect on that at all.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

NO NO NO NO NO.

I think you mean YES :cool:

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

I think you mean YES :cool:

well yes to the referendum obviously. but no to the idea that this referendum is concerned with parenthood.

gk5000

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

NO NO NO NO NO. There is separate legislation that covers that has already made its way through the dail. or is the verge of doing so at least. this referendum will have no effect on that at all.

The new legislation does not change parentage for married people - only for surrogacy etc..

gk5000

You shall not be able to discriminate against married people just because they are two women say.

gk5000

gk5000 wrote: »

You shall not be able to discriminate against married people just because they are two women say.

Oh no
That's absolutely awful.

OK. That's it. I'm voting NO so that I can discriminate against people.

ohnonotgmail

gk5000 wrote: »

The new legislation does not change parentage for married people - only for surrogacy etc..

you need to educate yourself as to what you are voting on my friend.

Guy:Incognito

Deleted User wrote: »

Wait? I can adopt a gay person? Fabulous!

Dont, you cant even get out of getting lumbered with paying for a wedding anymore.

Trudiha

gk5000 wrote: »

The new legislation does not change parentage for married people - only for surrogacy etc..

You seem to be barking up the wrong tree, gay folks have been able to adopt for years and will be able to adopt as couples from May, no matter what the outcome of the referendum.

Hans Bricks

I still don't fully understand what's on the table in this referendum. Is it strictly related to marriage equality rights in terms tax credits, recognition etc. ?

Guy:Incognito

Hans Bricks wrote: »

I still don't fully understand what's on the table in this referendum. Is it strictly related to marriage equality rights in terms tax credits, recognition etc. ?

What happens when a man and a woman get married? Thats what the referendum is about only it doesn't just have to be a man and a woman anymore.

gk5000

Trudiha wrote: »

You seem to be barking up the wrong tree, gay folks have been able to adopt for years and will be able to adopt as couples from May, no matter what the outcome of the referendum.

Nothing to do with adoption.
The child of a married women is automatically considered to be the legal child of her husband.
So the child of two married women shall be confused, but you cannot discriminate, so both married people shall go on the birth cert - so two women.

Hazys

What about the "Orphans catching the ghey Referendum"?

Guy:Incognito

gk5000 wrote: »

So the child of two married women shall be confused,

What will they be confused about?

gk5000

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What will they be confused about?

legally confused.

gk5000

Legally confused to have two women on birth cert - so their legal origin shall be confused

May not seem much difference to between this and a child of a single mother who does not name the father, but that is absense of a father, as opposed to having a women as a father which is impossible.

So it is not a good idea to allow something legally which is physically impossible.

So I wish for:
a. for people to acknowledge the consequent impact on children
b. for this to be debated openely and honestly
and since this has not happened for:
c. Vote NO to send it back to the drawing board

Trudiha

gk5000 wrote: »

Nothing to do with adoption.
The child of a married women is automatically considered to be the legal child of her husband.
So the child of two married women shall be confused, but you cannot discriminate, so both married people shall go on the birth cert - so two women.

No, that's misleading.

Hopefully this link will de-muddy the point for you:

http://http://familylawirelandhq.com/

Incidentally, there are loads of kids in this country who have same sex parents, allowing both parents on to their child's birth cert will give the child more security.