Same Sex Marriage Referendum Mega Thread - MOD WARNING IN FIRST POST

humanji

As the other thread has reach 10k posts, I'm setting up this second one.

This thread is about the Same Sex Marriage Referendum, so keep the discussion to this subject. Dragging the thread off topic will result in deleted posts, warnings, infractions or bans.

Also be aware that for many it's an emotive subject. As such, tempers will flare. Please make an effort to post in a civil manner.

Not a NSA agent

Anyone wish to discuss the referendum this time or will we go back to parenting?

kunst nugget

From the last thread…

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Is this like the way the Suffragettes and the African-American Civil Rights Movement couldn't be said to have been looking for equality, because they didn't resolve every single legal issue, for everyone, ever?

Great reasoning sir!

I always thought Martin Luther King was a hypocrite for not looking for equality for Pygmies or not campaigning for bigger dress sizes to be available in high street shops.

Hyzepher

If those in favour of polygamy wanted to get married they'd be in favour of ssm

I suspect polygamists aren't interested in marriage - ties them down too much

Ave Sodalis

Maybe we should start this thread with what the referendum is about. It's about adding "without distinction of sex" to the end of the current Constitution article on marriage. The referendum is to decide whether or not two people of the same gender can get married.

It does not affect adoption or children. See the Children and Family Relationship Bill.

Polygamy is a seperate issue and not relevant.

There's 160 differences between Civil Partnership and Civil Marriage.

The church will not be forced to perform same sex marriages, it's a civil matter and seperate.

By equality, it is known that it will not cover every equality issue on the planet however, that doesn't mean it's not an equality issue itself. Baby steps need to be taken to overcome inequality or we'd get no-where.

Am I missing anything?

kunst nugget

sup_dude wrote: »

Maybe we should start this thread with what the referendum is about. It's about adding "without distinction of sex" to the end of the current Constitution article on marriage. The referendum is to decide whether or not two people of the same gender can get married.

It does not affect adoption or children. See the Children and Family Relationship Bill.

Polygamy is a seperate issue and not relevant.

There's 160 differences between Civil Partnership and Civil Marriage.

The church will not be forced to perform same sex marriages, it's a civil matter and seperate.

By equality, it is known that it will not cover every equality issue on the planet however, that doesn't mean it's not an equality issue itself. Baby steps need to be taken to overcome inequality or we'd get no-where.

Am I missing anything?

Can we not just make shít up and crib about that instead?

PopePalpatine

You forgot posts like, "I'm not a homophobe, but..."

RedPaddyX

Alright guys, Gotta for now but to those of you who engaged in some good discussion thanks.

Regardless of how ye vote we are still all fellow countrymen so let's respect eachothers opinions and right to disagree with eachother.

frostyjacks

Can I start again with a clean slate? I'm not really a bigot, sorry for the stuff in the last thread.

SireOfSeth

sup_dude wrote: »

Maybe we should start this thread with what the referendum is about. It's about adding "without distinction of sex" to the end of the current Constitution article on marriage. The referendum is to decide whether or not two people of the same gender can get married.

It does not affect adoption or children. See the Children and Family Relationship Bill.

Polygamy is a seperate issue and not relevant.

There's 160 differences between Civil Partnership and Civil Marriage.

The church will not be forced to perform same sex marriages, it's a civil matter and seperate.

By equality, it is known that it will not cover every equality issue on the planet however, that doesn't mean it's not an equality issue itself. Baby steps need to be taken to overcome inequality or we'd get no-where.

Am I missing anything?

+10000

kunst nugget

PopePalpatine wrote: »

You forgot posts like, "I'm not a homophobe, but..."

And the obligatory 'Stop bullying me!' posts.

Zubeneschamali

RedPaddyX wrote: »

let's respect eachothers opinions

If we all did that, nobody would vote No.

jobbridge4life

RedPaddyX wrote: »

Alright guys, Gotta for now but to those of you who engaged in some good discussion thanks.

Regardless of how ye vote we are still all fellow countrymen so let's respect eachothers opinions and right to disagree with eachother.

When you respect my right to get married as your fellow countryman and taxpayer and when you stop bringing nonsense such as polygamy into a debate on a referendum that expressly forbids it.

iDave

I want gays to get married. I want everyone to feel the annoyance of invitation politics when it comes to planning a wedding.

Lt J.R. Bell

sup_dude wrote: »

Maybe we should start this thread with what the referendum is about. It's about adding "without distinction of sex" to the end of the current Constitution article on marriage. The referendum is to decide whether or not two people of the same gender can get married.

It does not affect adoption or children. See the Children and Family Relationship Bill.

Polygamy is a seperate issue and not relevant.

There's 160 differences between Civil Partnership and Civil Marriage.

The church will not be forced to perform same sex marriages, it's a civil matter and seperate.

By equality, it is known that it will not cover every equality issue on the planet however, that doesn't mean it's not an equality issue itself. Baby steps need to be taken to overcome inequality or we'd get no-where.

Am I missing anything?

The 160 differences between Civil Partnership and Civil Marriage are?

RedPaddyX

sup_dude wrote: »

Maybe we should start this thread with what the referendum is about. It's about adding "without distinction of sex" to the end of the current Constitution article on marriage. The referendum is to decide whether or not two people of the same gender can get married.

It does not affect adoption or children. See the Children and Family Relationship Bill.

Polygamy is a seperate issue and not relevant.

There's 160 differences between Civil Partnership and Civil Marriage.

The church will not be forced to perform same sex marriages, it's a civil matter and seperate.

By equality, it is known that it will not cover every equality issue on the planet however, that doesn't mean it's not an equality issue itself. Baby steps need to be taken to overcome inequality or we'd get no-where.

Am I missing anything?

Ok couldn't resist - I would argue the referendum is about redefining an institution that has been in place for millennia. Therefore I would make the case that we need to examine the fundamentals of how we define marriage in the first place.

Is it base on love? Is it based sex? Is it based on procreation? Or child rearing? Why 1 man, 1 woman? Why 2 people?

folamh

The gays should be able to get married.

Ave Sodalis

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

The 160 differences between Civil Partnership and Civil Marriage are?

http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/marriage/faqs.html

kunst nugget

RedPaddyX wrote: »

Therefore I would make the case that we need to examine the fundamentals of how we define marriage in the first place.

Is it base on love? Is it based sex? Is it based on procreation? Or child rearing?

I find it's usually based on varying degrees of passive aggressiveness.

Ave Sodalis

RedPaddyX wrote: »

Ok couldn't resist - I would argue the referendum is about redefining an institution that has been in place for millennia. Therefore I would make the case that we need to examine the fundamentals of how we define marriage in the first place.

Is it base on love? Is it based sex? Is it based on procreation? Or child rearing? Why 1 man, 1 woman? Why 2 people?

It's been about for millennia and it wasn't always heterosexual in that time. What's it based on now? It depends on the person. Some people do it for love, some for the legality and rights granted by it. If I was to make a personal guess, I'd say most do it for both. It's not about procreation because that's not needed to get married. Similarly, you don't need to rear a child to have a valid marriage. As for the last two, why indeed.

jobbridge4life

RedPaddyX wrote: »

Ok couldn't resist - I would argue the referendum is about redefining an institution that has been in place for millennia. Therefore I would make the case that we need to examine the fundamentals of how we define marriage in the first place.

Is it base on love? Is it based sex? Is it based on procreation? Or child rearing? Why 1 man, 1 woman? Why 2 people?

The referendum is about extending the institution of marriage which has existed and been redefined over thousands of centuries to same-sex couples. That is it.

It is...

NOT about surrogacy
NOT about adoption
NOT about AHR
NOT about parenting

and most certainly NOT about a slippery slope to polygamy especially since the wording of the referendum itself would introduce a constitutional bar on polygamy.

marienbad

RedPaddyX wrote: »

Ok couldn't resist - I would argue the referendum is about redefining an institution that has been in place for millennia. Therefore I would make the case that we need to examine the fundamentals of how we define marriage in the first place.

Is it base on love? Is it based sex? Is it based on procreation? Or child rearing? Why 1 man, 1 woman? Why 2 people?

Marriage as currently known and subject to change in this referendum has not been around for millennia . Even Christian Matrimony has not been around that long .

MrWalsh

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

The 160 differences between Civil Partnership and Civil Marriage are?

Its been linked to endlessly in the last thread, in other threads, ask google etc.....

Peregrine

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

The 160 differences between Civil Partnership and Civil Marriage are?

Frankly, it doesn't matter what they are. There shouldn't be any legal differences between the rights afforded to a straight relationship and a gay relationship.

RedPaddyX

jobbridge4life wrote: »

When you respect my right to get married as your fellow countryman and taxpayer and when you stop bringing nonsense such as polygamy into a debate on a referendum that expressly forbids it.

Mate I do understand from your point of view and respect your view but I do disagree with you. Would much more happily have the debate with you in person. Peace

jobbridge4life

RedPaddyX wrote: »

Mate I do understand from your point of view and respect your view but I do disagree with you. Would much more happily have the debate with you in person. Peace

No you don't. You've openly stated your intention to use the power of the state to keep me a second class citizen. And you are not debating anyone you are engaged in obfuscation thats it.

Hyzepher

Hyzepher wrote: »

If those in favour of polygamy wanted to get married they'd be in favour of ssm I suspect polygamists aren't interested in marriage - ties them down too much

I fear you are mixing polygamy up with open relationships where people sleep around. In polygamy you are as dedicated to the relationship as any couple - the only difference is the number of people IN that relationship.

So you will find people in polygamy type relationships - like myself - are no more - or less - worried about being tied down than any other married couple you know.

But as I view it this thread - topic - and referendum is not about polygamy at all. It is about marriage as a contract between two people - and a changing to the wording of the constitution that essentially does not change that definition of marriage - but the definition of who is eligible to apply for that two person contract.

frostyjacks wrote: »

Can I start again with a clean slate? I'm not really a bigot, sorry for the stuff in the last thread.

By all means. On After Hours you are only as good as your last post anyway We are a strident - vocal - but generally forgiving bunch around here

seamus

RedPaddyX wrote: »

Ok couldn't resist - I would argue the referendum is about redefining an institution that has been in place for millennia. Therefore I would make the case that we need to examine the fundamentals of how we define marriage in the first place.

Is it base on love? Is it based sex? Is it based on procreation? Or child rearing? Why 1 man, 1 woman? Why 2 people?

Well I guess this is the funny thing - we don't really define what marriage is, and we never really have.

The argument about "redefinition" is somewhat toothless since marriage has never had a solid definition, and the nature and purpose of marriage changes and has changed countless times over the millenia. The reason I got married likely differs from the reason my neighbour got married, but nobody asked me why I got married, simply whether I wanted to.

So in reality the only thing which should "define" marriage is the fact that those involved consent to it. And little else.

It seems to me going back to basics and trying to fundamentally define marriage in the first instance is doomed to failure because the whys and the hows and the whats of marriage will change.

Personally I would have preferred “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by persons without distinction as to their sex.” as that's beautifully generic and functionally futureproof.

But it introduces ambiguity, whereas the proposed wording doesn't. And the proposed wording improves personal rights and freedoms without removing any, so it's the best option.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

What thread would be complete without Fergus Ryan's excellent article?

http://fergryan.blogspot.ie/2015/04/civil-partnership-v-marriage-some.html

sup_dude wrote: »

Polygamy is a seperate issue and not relevant.

Well, it's a similar issue. We're just spontaneously deciding that it's alright to discriminate against Muslims.

sup_dude wrote: »

http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/marriage/faqs.html

I think I'm up to speed on all that, but I can't remember why this one is so important

"Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 15 1, 3 (1) A "sexual act", unless rape, aggravated sexual assault, with a person under the age of 17 is an offence, except when the parties to the Act are married."

As we know, no-one can get married under age 18 without a Court Exemption Order. Only 11 people aged under 17 got married in 2013, which most of us would say is 11 too many. But, apparently, it actually wasn't enough.

I just can remember why, but I've every confidence that each of those 160 differences is a basic denial of human rights.

With this new thread, I'm getting right on board with the popular people.

kylith

marienbad wrote: »

Marriage as currently known and subject to change in this referendum has not been around for millennia . Even Christian Matrimony has not been around that long .

Which is kind of a point, isn't it. People go on about 'redefining marriage' and totally forget that marriage as it currently is is a redefinition of what went before.

Trudiha

RedPaddyX wrote: »

Ok couldn't resist - I would argue the referendum is about redefining an institution that has been in place for millennia. Therefore I would make the case that we need to examine the fundamentals of how we define marriage in the first place.

Marriage isn't being redefined. You and Mrs PaddyX will still enjoy the same rights and responsiblilties towards each others on 23rd May, no matter the outcome of the referendum. No matter what Iona tell you, you still won't have any right to adopt or procreate and your kids still won't have the right to a mother and a father, if one of you die a replacement won't be found by the State and you won't be raised up by a holy man. Your tax burden will be identical and it will still rain a lot. You will still not have to marry anyone of the same sex.

The RCC will still get to decide who they do and don't marry, I understand they aren't softening on the divorce issue and they are in no hurry to hire women priests. No one has successfully sued them for discrimination and this won't change.

MrWalsh

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

We're just spontaneously deciding that it's alright to discriminate against Muslims.

Absolutely not, religious marriage is not affected by this referendum.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

MrWalsh wrote: »

Absolutely not, religious marriage is not affected by this referendum.

Which means the discrimination against Islamic marriages continues.

I don't know why. Maybe they're not popular.

Ave Sodalis

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Which means the discrimination against Islamic marriages continues.

I don't know why. Maybe they're not popular.

Again, this referendum doesn't deal with it. It's irrelevant to this referendum. If polygamy relationship want to be recognised through marriage, they can start a campaign. However, it won't affect or by affected by this referendum.

engineerbrah

I just feel so sorry for all those kids adopted into a gay marriage who are going to be bullied beyond belief for having two dads

I guess it is more important to be politically correct these days than to think of consequences of actions.

jobbridge4life

engineerbrah wrote: »

I just feel so sorry for all those kids adopted into a gay marriage who are going to be bullied beyond belief for having two dads

I guess it is more important to be politically correct these days than to think of consequences of actions.

Can you not see the obscene absurdity of this post?

frostyjacks

I want everyone to experience the joy if using a Le Creuset grill pan for the first time as a married couple.

Enamelled cast iron...hand made in France since 1925...lifetime guarantee...this is what married life is all about.

Zubeneschamali

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Is this thread just going to be another 10,000 posts of the same people disagreeing with each other?

No, I am going to vary it by disagreeing with myself.

No, I amn't...

Duggy747

engineerbrah wrote: »

I just feel so sorry for all those kids adopted into a gay marriage who are going to be bullied beyond belief for having two dads

I guess it is more important to be politically correct these days than to think of consequences of actions.

Yea, how about tackling the problem of bullying rather than using this bullshít excuse to sweep it under the carpet?

PopePalpatine

I don't think you're going to be able to reason with that guy.

MrWalsh

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Which means the discrimination against Islamic marriages continues.

I don't know why. Maybe they're not popular.

If you wish to campaign to implement Sharia Law here in Ireland then go ahead.

Cuban Pete

engineerbrah wrote: »

I just feel so sorry for all those kids adopted into a gay marriage who are going to be bullied beyond belief for having two dads

I guess it is more important to be politically correct these days than to think of consequences of actions.

engineerbrah wrote: »

Great news!! And once animals get person status we can start legalising bestiality. #Equality

engineerbrah wrote: »

Sadly the whole Western World is in end times. Every time a civilisation in history became hyper-sexual, multiracial & gender neutral, it decayed and eventually fell apart - Rome & Babylon are the best examples. And history is about to repeat itself again. When a nation is no longer bound by blood, language or creed it cannot sustain itself because there is no common goal shared by the inhabitants. There is no natural order in this modern age & nature will punish us to restore the balance needed for the Earth to survive.

The tragedy is that people today, liberals especially, think we are moving towards some utopian society but in reality they are just embracing their demise. The 'Diversity is strength' slogan mirrors the doublethink analogy Orwell warned us about in 1984.

engineerbrah wrote: »

Society may be ok now but it's just gonna get more absurd & politically correct. Things never stay the same, it will continue to change and things you wouldn't dream of will become legal, I guarentee it.

Before any more time is wasted on this individual.

seamus

engineerbrah wrote: »

I just feel so sorry for all those kids adopted into a gay marriage who are going to be bullied beyond belief for having two dads

I guess it is more important to be politically correct these days than to think of consequences of actions.

Yeah, I know what you mean.
I mean, if we just had the gumption to ban women from being in public without a man and ban above-ankle dresses, then we could prevent rape. But, no, the PC-lobby say that we have to respect women as "equals" and criminalise ordinary, decent, hardworking men who just can't control their sexual urges. *Pshaw*

MrWalsh

engineerbrah wrote: »

I just feel so sorry for all those kids adopted into a gay marriage who are going to be bullied beyond belief for having two dads

I guess it is more important to be politically correct these days than to think of consequences of actions.

This is exactly why we need to make same sex marriage legal, to help change bigoted attitudes in society.

padd b1975

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If we all did that, nobody would vote No.

.....or yes for that matter.

SireOfSeth

engineerbrah wrote: »

I just feel so sorry for all those kids adopted into a gay marriage who are going to be bullied beyond belief for having two dads

I guess it is more important to be politically correct these days than to think of consequences of actions.

Well it seems we are moving into a new Ireland that is trying, step-by-step, to leave the past behind and have real empathy for everyone. This Ref is a step in the right direction for sure.

SireOfSeth

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I just can remember why, but I've every confidence that each of those 160 differences is a basic denial of human rights.

With this new thread, I'm getting right on board with the popular people.

Just need one for it to be unjust.

PopePalpatine

Cuban Pete wrote: »

Before any more time is wasted on this individual.

I'd say he's still coming to terms with interracial marriage.

MrWalsh

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'd say he's still coming to terms with interracial marriage.

I dont remember having a referendum on that!

gravehold

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'd say he's still coming to terms with interracial marriage.

Lets all pick on the minority viewpoints from our privileged high horses.

kylith

engineerbrah wrote: »

I just feel so sorry for all those kids adopted into a gay marriage who are going to be bullied beyond belief for having two dads

I guess it is more important to be politically correct these days than to think of consequences of actions.

1) I was bullied unmercifully for liking books. Should reading be banned? Wearing glasses? Being ginger? Being tall? Being short?

2) The problem lies with the families in which the bullies are being reared, not with the families with SS parents.

3) Gay people already have biological and adopted children.