Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…4445474950…325

Comments

  • #1382
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    spikeS wrote: »
    Common logical sense, married couples get priority in adoption, if the referendum fails gay couples are not married and are a lower priority but if it passes anti discrimination law makes it so gay and straight married couples are equal and adoption is far easier.

    Where is your source for the claims you are making?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #1383
    spikeS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 179 ✭✭spikeS


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Where is your source for the claims you are making?

    Can you show that the referendum passing won't make it easier to adopt as a married couple, why do you think it's a bad thing there will no discrimination if the referendum passes, it's another reason to vote yes equal adoption chances


  • #1384
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    spikeS wrote: »
    Can you show that the referendum passing won't make it easier to adopt as a married couple, why do you think it's a bad thing there will no discrimination if the referendum passes, it's another reason to vote yes equal adoption chances

    You're making claims. Provide sources for them.

    Otherwise we can just assume they are absolute nonsense.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #1385
    spikeS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 179 ✭✭spikeS


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    You're making claims. Provide sources for them.

    Otherwise we can just assume they are absolute nonsense.



    aai.gov.ie/index.php/domestic-adoption/faq-domestic-adoption.html

    Here you go, married people are first only after will others be considered, when lgbt people can finally marry they can apply for equal adoption, if it fails adoption will be extremely harder.

    People need to know this as if the referendum fails it will be very hard for gay couples to adopt

    Edit: Also I don't like being dog piled on this, I am trying to help so people know how voting no will hurt equality and yes side are the ones attacking


  • #1386
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Speaking of which I'd really like to hear your response to me. An apology would suffice.

    And why do I owe you an apology for how society at large as made you feel :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #1387
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    It really is entirely hypocritical of Breda O'Brien to argue against SSM on the basis of protecting the rights of the child by ensuring they have a mother and a father, while at the same time she would then prevent that very same child from having the right to marry their same sex partner as an adult. So the very child she is trying to ensure has the right to a mother and father, she will, depending on their sexual orientation, some day possibly argue they either should or should not have an equal right to marry.
    How anyone can say these people are not hiding behind latent homophobia is beyond me.


  • #1388
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    spikeS wrote: »
    aai.gov.ie/index.php/domestic-adoption/faq-domestic-adoption.html

    Here you go, married people are first only after will others be considered, when lgbt people can finally marry can they apply for equal adoption, if it fails adoption will be extremely harder.

    People need to know this as if the referendum fails it will be very hard for gay couples to adopt

    Yes a,b,c,d is a list

    It is not a then b then c then d so your claims are nonsense.

    Basically everything you've been saying about adoption in this thread is wrong.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #1389
    spikeS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 179 ✭✭spikeS


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Yes a,b,c,d is a list

    It is not a then b then c then d so your claims are nonsense.

    Married couples have priority it says it in the faq, until the referendum passes it's extremely hard for a gay couple to adopt, once it passes and they are a married couple it becomes as easy a straight married couple.

    The referendum needs to pass or otherwise it will be next to impossible to start a gay family with adoption. The referendum isn't needed for adoption but is needed for any chance of gay families getting a chance to adopt


  • #1390
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    spikeS wrote: »
    Married couples have priority it says it in the faq, until the referendum passes it's extremely hard for a gay couple to adopt, once it passes and they are a married couple it becomes as easy a straight married couple.

    The referendum needs to pass or otherwise it will be next to impossible to start a gay family with adoption. The referendum isn't needed for adoption but is needed for any chance of gay families getting a chance to adopt

    Again No. You are making completely false statements. The FAQ doesnt say what you are saying at all. Plus the Children and family bill will change a lot of this.

    You are talking complete and utter nonsense.

    What you are saying is not true. You are spreading misinformation.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #1391
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    spikeS wrote: »
    Common logical sense, married couples get priority in adoption, if the referendum fails gay couples are not married and are a lower priority but if it passes anti discrimination law makes it so gay and straight married couples are equal and adoption is far easier.

    Here is #77 of the the Heads of the CHILDREN AND FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
    BILL 2014 http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/General%20Scheme%20of%20a%20Children%20and%20Family%20Relationships%20Bill.pdf/Files/General%20Scheme%20of%20a%20Children%20and%20Family%20Relationships%20Bill.pdf

    It is quite clear that if enacted - as it should be before the Referendum - the phrase 'or a couple who are civil partners of each other' {bold emphasis mine} will be inserted after the reference to married couples.
    This means that a couple who are married or a couple who are in a civil partnership may adopt as a couple. At no point does it state a married couple will be given preference.
    Head 77: Amendment of section 20, Authority’s power to make adoption order
    or recognise intercountry adoption effected outside the State
    Provide along the following lines:
    Section 20 of the Adoption Act 2010 is amended –
    (a) in subsection (1), by the insertion after “married couple” of “or a
    couple who are civil partners of each other”; and
    (b) in subsection (3), by the insertion after “married couple” of “or a
    couple who are civil partners of each other”.


    Now please stop spreading misinformation.

    The Referendum on Same-Sex Marriage will decide if couples of the same gender can get married. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Legislation will already have been enacted to allow couples in a Civil Partnership to adopt as a couple under the exact same criteria as applied to married couples.


  • Advertisement
  • #1392
    spikeS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 179 ✭✭spikeS


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Here is #77 of the the Heads of the CHILDREN AND FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
    BILL 2014 justice.ie/en/JELR/General%20Scheme%20of%20a%20Children%20and%20Family%20Relationships%20Bill.pdf/Files/General%20Scheme%20of%20a%20Children%20and%20Family%20Relationships%20Bill.pdf

    It is quite clear that if enacted - as it should be before the Referendum - the phrase 'or a couple who are civil partners of each other' {bold emphasis mine} will be inserted after the reference to married couples.
    This means that a couple who are married or a couple who are in a civil partnership may adopt as a couple. At no point does it state a married couple will be given preference.




    Now please stop spreading misinformation.

    The Referendum on Same-Sex Marriage will decide if couples of the same gender can get married. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Legislation will already have been enacted to allow couples in a Civil Partnership to adopt as a couple under the exact same criteria as applied to married couples.

    The wording uses married cp is not married, until the referendum passes they are behind married couples for adoption.

    The Marriage equality referendum is not about adoption but it passing will have an effect on gay people being allowed to adopt easier and that's a good thing.


  • #1393
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    spikeS wrote: »
    The wording uses married cp is not married, until the referendum passes they are behind married couples for adoption.

    The Marriage equality referendum is not about adoption but it passing will have an effect on gay people being allowed to adopt easier and that's a good thing.

    Sweetest divine!

    It clearly says 'Married OR in a civil partnership' - I even highlighted the OR. This puts Married and Civil Partnered on an equal basis.

    They have to write it that way as it will be enacted before the effin referendum is held!


  • #1394
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    spikeS wrote: »
    The wording uses married cp is not married, until the referendum passes they are behind married couples for adoption.

    The Marriage equality referendum is not about adoption but it passing will have an effect on gay people being allowed to adopt easier and that's a good thing.

    No.

    You are spreading misinformation.

    There is no priority list.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #1395
    Ozymandius2011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,175 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    Some links to surveys which find no damage to children from being raised by same-sex couples.

    American Psychological Association.

    Boston University, and the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study here.


  • #1396
    spikeS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 179 ✭✭spikeS


    Ozymandius2011 wrote: »
    Some links to surveys which find no damage to children from being raised by same-sex couples.

    These studies usually have a degree of bias there are ones that show the reverse, be careful posting studies as fact as research bias a very real thing


  • #1397
    Ozymandius2011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,175 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    spikeS wrote: »
    These studies usually have a degree of bias there are ones that show the reverse, be careful posting studies as fact as research bias a very real thing
    Like what? The Regenerus study which was funded by US Christian Fundamentalists?
    NY Times wrote:
    Some criticism of Dr. Regnerus was well deserved; for example, he included in the same category the children of stable same-sex couples and children whose parents’ marriage dissolved after a gay affair. And it is understandable that he is still gun-shy (he refused to be interviewed for this column). But even if he won’t talk about his research, we should. It raises important questions about family structure, and — just as interesting — asks whether religious beliefs can shape scholarship...Dr. Regnerus’s critics have made much of the conservative institutions, the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation, that financed his study. But it’s actually pretty easy to ignore sponsors, once their check has been cashed. It is harder to ignore one’s deepest convictions. Although he does not discuss it now, Dr. Regnerus has a long history as an outspoken Christian who once said his faith and his scholarship were intertwined. So it is fair to ask what he meant.


  • #1398
    spikeS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 179 ✭✭spikeS


    Ozymandius2011 wrote: »
    Like what? The Regenerus which was funded by Christian Fundamentalists in Texas?

    And there are funded by liberal gays, just be weary of taking them as fact they all have bias


  • #1399
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    spikeS wrote: »
    These studies usually have a degree of bias there are ones that show the reverse, be careful posting studies as fact as research bias a very real thing

    I've yet to come across a study that shows the reverse that isn't clearly heavily biased, heavily funded by interest groups, discredited and heavily criticised.


  • #1400
    spikeS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 179 ✭✭spikeS


    WoolyJumper wrote: »
    I've yet to come across a study that shows the reverse that isn't clearly heavily biased, heavily funded by interest groups, discredited and heavily criticised.

    I can say the same for both sides


  • #1401
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    spikeS wrote: »
    I can say the same for both sides

    You can say it but you'd be wrong though. Demonstrably so just google.


  • Advertisement
  • #1402
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    spikeS wrote: »
    I can say the same for both sides

    You can say it. Any examples would be great.


  • #1403
    spikeS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 179 ✭✭spikeS


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    You can say it but you'd be wrong though. Demonstrably so just google.

    Most of the ones posted here are from liberal pro gay academia are they not biased


  • #1404
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    spikeS wrote: »
    And there are funded by liberal gays, just be weary of taking them as fact they all have bias

    When these studies are done they are published in scientific journals, where other scientists/researchers can read and critique them. Often certain groups with their own agenda will heavily scrutinise these studies to try and find some flaw in their research and prove them wrong. When they can't do this, they do the next best thing. Come out with their own heavily biased, poorly done research which will give them the answer they are looking for.

    Just in case you are wondering in this case the heavily biased research was carried out by the Christian fundamentalist when they couldn't poke holes in the research carried out by the "liberal gays" (ie the APA + Many others)


  • #1405
    spikeS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 179 ✭✭spikeS


    WoolyJumper wrote: »
    When these studies are done they are published in scientific journals, where other scientists/researchers can read and critique them. Often certain groups with their own agenda will heavily scrutinise these studies to try and find some flaw in their research and prove them wrong. When they can't do this, they do the next best thing. Come out with their own heavily biased, poorly done research which will give them the answer they are looking for.

    Just in case you are wondering in this case the heavily biased research was carried out by the Christian fundamentalist when they couldn't poke holes in the research carried out by the "liberal gays" (ie the APA + Many others)

    Regenerus was an academic peer reviewed study it's as valid as the others


  • #1406
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    spikeS wrote: »
    Most of the ones posted here are from liberal pro gay academia are they not biased

    The American psychological association are liberal pro gay academia? Maybe they are pro gay due to all the research they have done and ultimately found no reason to be anti gay? Certainly the APA couldnt always be called pro gay. But with new research and knowledge they changed their position. That's how good science works.
    spikeS wrote: »
    Regenerus was an academic peer reviewed study it's as valid as the others

    Peer reviewed and criticised, as someone pointed out above.


  • #1407
    COYVB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,660 ✭✭✭COYVB


    Daith wrote: »
    It's the BAI code for broadcasting.

    BAI is not law


  • #1408
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    spikeS wrote: »
    These studies usually have a degree of bias there are ones that show the reverse, be careful posting studies as fact as research bias a very real thing

    You made stuff up about adoption in this thread. We can hardly take you seriously now.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #1409
    ToddyDoody
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,417 ✭✭✭ToddyDoody


    I'm voting no... For the children.


  • #1410
    Zen65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    reprise wrote: »
    I found this persuasive:

    http://goo.gl/U27D7W

    http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/files/networkcommentaryfinal_en.pdf

    So to summarise: MrPudding made the point "that being unable to have children naturally is not a valid argument against ssm". You dismissed his point as a non-sequitur, and now you have done some research to show that he was right!


  • Advertisement
  • #1411
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Flem31 wrote: »
    It would have helped if you had read my entire post and read that I had called them two extreme examples.

    In Ireland today, neither are applicable but if (and I am quoting you)
    "The constitution should be drafted in such a way so as to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority."

    No matter how that is phrased in any constitution someone will use it as a justifiable reason to look for their own particular brand of what they think is acceptable.

    I am not making any reference to LBGT or this referendum, just merely pointing out that when the Constitution is changed to reflect minority views, then it leaves it open to all different interpretations.

    I never said it was a good thing, just that it leaves the Constitution more open to the "law of unintended consequences" that it already is.

    I read the post in full, it just doesn't really make an effective argument.

    Nobody is saying you change the Constitution(!) or legislation on a whim to appease every demand of a minority. That is not what minority protection is about.

    What we are saying is that a Constitution should be drafted from the outset which provides sufficient guarantees of equality and equal protection to all citizens, provides them with appropriate means to protect and vindicate their rights and which prevents the majority from arbitrarily and unjustifiably attacking those in minority positions.

    If that is done, minority rights can be protected by the checks imposed on the legislature when enacting new laws and vindicated in the courts against unfair attack.

    And neither will that allow minorities demand anything they wish. Muslims in Ireland would not be able to demand we introduce sharia law - but they would be able to ensure that the majority could not seek to prohibit the construction of mosques, or the teaching of islamic beliefs.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement