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

Zen65 · 09-02-2015 07:09PM

jivedude wrote: »

I'm a married man and also a parent so I know what i'm talking about.

The former attributes do not automatically qualify you for the latter.

You do not seem to recognise the importance of civil marriage; it is the mechanism by which rights of inheritance, guardianship, taxation and medical representation are granted. If all of these were packaged and bestowed upon two individuals we would call it marriage. The state does not purport to confer any religious status upon a married couple, so the use of the word 'marriage' is either appropriate for a couple or it is not, and since it is used for heterosexual couples it should be used for same-sex couples also.

reprise · 09-02-2015 07:18PM

floggg wrote: »

But we can't do it on equal terms to you and your wife - that's what we are trying to change.

There are circa 150 differences between marriage and civil partnership. We would prefer to just be viewed and treated as the same as you and your wife.

Can you provide a few examples of these differences, starting with the most discriminatory in your opinion.

Zen65 · 09-02-2015 07:23PM

jivedude wrote: »

Believe it or not, the state is not involved in my marriage and there are many more out there who are married without the state involvement.
The benefits of my marriage are a loving home, healthy children and a wonderful life and not tax exempt and all that. it doesn't come into marriage.

That sounds lovely. But if the state (or some other state) is not involved in your marriage then you are not in fact married. Not legally anyway. You may have celebrated your love for your partner in some sort of ceremony, and you may call that 'married' because you like the sound of it, but you are no more married in legal terms than any two random strangers on a bus.

You are, however, free to use the term 'married' to describe your relationship in every way except in the legal sense. Should your partner fall ill, and be unable to communicate, then you do not have automatic guardianship rights to permit a doctor operate on them. You could lie of course, and get away with it 99% of the time, but their parents or legal guardians could take issue with that.

In short then, your circumstances, which are the consequences of your own actions, are irrelevant to the debate. The 'yes' campaigners wish to have those rights which are conferred by marriage for precisely the reason that they are in loving relationships and wish to be treated with the same rights as other loving couples. They do not wish to find themselves in the precarious position that you seem to have put yourself and your partner in.

floggg · 09-02-2015 07:24PM

reprise wrote: »

Can you provide a few examples of these differences, starting with the most discriminatory in your opinion.

See here - http://www.marriagequality.ie/marriageaudit/full-list

aloyisious · 09-02-2015 07:24PM

jivedude wrote: »

I believe you can if you truly get where I am coming from. I am not legally married according to the state, which is fine by me cos I know I got married in the church and in the presence of my loved ones. My family knows i'm married, my friends know and thats all that matters to me...I'm happily married, it's not about what others have or the way they got married.

I'm assuming that your marriage is to an opposite-sex partner; it's a straight marriage you're in. Correct me if I'm wrong because it will lead to wrong understanding of your situation and where you're coming from on marriage.

If I'm right, you have accessed part 1 of the marriage available here to heterosexual couples, the church/religious part and not part 2 which is also open to heterosexual couples. The thing is that same-sex couples cannot get married here at all. Neither church nor state will perform a marriage of a same-sex couple here, so that is the distinct difference between what seem's to be your marriage (one performed before a (religious?) minister and not registered with the state.

If you don't register/are prevented legally from registering your marriage with the state, then you will lose out on legal benefits , not just financial ones, that come with state recognition of a marriage. That includes recognition as Next Of Kin to your wife and any children (should your marriage include them).

Annasopra · 09-02-2015 07:24PM

jaja321 wrote: »

Does anyone know if you are registered to vote in Ireland, but expect to be out of the country with work on the day of the vote, if you can post your vote in?

Only certain types of employees

An Irish diplomat or his/her spouse posted abroad
A member of the Garda Síochána
A whole-time member of the Defence Forces.

Annasopra · 09-02-2015 07:25PM

david75 wrote: »

We dont do postal votes i dont think, no.

We do. But only certain types.

reprise · 09-02-2015 07:28PM

floggg wrote: »

See here - http://www.marriagequality.ie/marriageaudit/full-list

Any chance you would save me the trawl through every hair splitting difference and say, give me a top ten?

You guys being so helpful and all to those a little unclear...

Not2Good · 09-02-2015 07:39PM

Seems like not only are Irish laws not up-to-date yet supporting same sex couples but the 'Oxford Dictionary' [Eleventh Edition (Revised) 2006] says for 'Marriage' n.1. " … the formal union of a man and a women, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife …" I wonder if a subsequent edition has changed the wording? Maybe another Dictionary has an alternative definition …

bodice ripper · 09-02-2015 07:52PM

Not2Good wrote: »

Seems like not only are Irish laws not up-to-date yet supporting same sex couples but the 'Oxford Dictionary' [Eleventh Edition (Revised) 2006] says for 'Marriage' n.1. " … the formal union of a man and a women, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife …" I wonder if a subsequent edition has changed the wording? Maybe another Dictionary has an alternative definition …

Cute point. Revised 2006.

The online version includes ssm.

Not2Good · 09-02-2015 08:06PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

Cute point. Revised 2006.

The online version includes ssm.

Cool... shows how thing progress after nearly 10 years,

david75 · 10-02-2015 01:53PM

Somewhere a few pages ago I posted that a yes vote is important for investment from international corporations as well as attracting new ones. Well Microsoft just said as much.
http://m.independent.ie/business/technology/tech-giants-say-yes-to-samesex-marriage-here-30978668.html

http://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2015/02/06/business-case-marriage-equality/

Flem31 · 10-02-2015 03:16PM

david75 wrote: »

Somewhere a few pages ago I posted that a yes vote is important for investment from international corporations as well as attracting new ones. Well Microsoft just said as much.
http://m.independent.ie/business/technology/tech-giants-say-yes-to-samesex-marriage-here-30978668.html

http://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2015/02/06/business-case-marriage-equality/

Looked at the article and it's very interesting that Germany has been included on the list for also getting this "competitive advantage". Is SSM recognised there ?

Personally, I think this importance is overstated as multi nationals are usually in favour of anything that doesn't cost the company money. Having worked in one for nearly a decade, employee welfare is low down on their list of priorities.

david75 · 10-02-2015 03:27PM

There is a huge shift in corporate culture though, probably lead by Google..happy emplooyees are more productive employees and all that

jobbridge4life · 10-02-2015 03:29PM

david75 wrote: »

There is a huge shift in corporate culture though, probably lead by Google..happy emplooyees are more productive employees and all that

Google... who cooperate with Chinese censorship laws? Companies exist to make profits, that is the beginning and ending of their moral compass.

liam24 · 10-02-2015 03:29PM

david75 wrote: »

There is a huge shift in corporate culture though, probably lead by Google..happy emplooyees are more productive employees and all that

led

Flem31 · 10-02-2015 03:35PM

david75 wrote: »

There is a huge shift in corporate culture though, probably lead by Google..happy emplooyees are more productive employees and all that

Productive employees may also the ones who consider their jobs under threat and are unlikely to be happy.

Mountainsandh · 10-02-2015 04:02PM

I can't vote being foreign, but I would vote yes of course, and really hope that comes through. I have a son and a daughter and I'm hoping they will get to marry whoever they love, proper official marriage.

david75 · 10-02-2015 04:04PM

liam24 wrote: »

led

ive some potholes on my road if you wanna fill them in....better use of your time

floggg · 10-02-2015 04:55PM

Flem31 wrote: »

Looked at the article and it's very interesting that Germany has been included on the list for also getting this "competitive advantage". Is SSM recognised there ?

Personally, I think this importance is overstated as multi nationals are usually in favour of anything that doesn't cost the company money. Having worked in one for nearly a decade, employee welfare is low down on their list of priorities.

Funny, then why do tech companies put so much emphasis on employee welfare.

I don't know what you do, but in less skilled or competitive job markets, employee welfare may not be as highly prized, but given the tech companies are constantly striving to attract the brightest and best employees it is something they very much value.

Flem31 · 10-02-2015 05:13PM

floggg wrote: »

Funny, then why do tech companies put so much emphasis on employee welfare.

I don't know what you do, but in less skilled or competitive job markets, employee welfare may not be as highly prized, but given the tech companies are constantly striving to attract the brightest and best employees it is something they very much value.

I worked in a hi tech multi national and am highly skilled.
I also sat in meeting rooms when who was to be made redundant (compulsory) was decided upon. Employees are only highly prized when it suits the company.

These companies like to pretend they care for the welfare of their employees, but actions speak louder than words.
For example, the high tech multi national I was in, made people redundant in early 2000's, not because the employee's skillset was out of date or wasn't in demand. It was done because the older employee cost too much to employ, and hiring in a cheaper contractor saved them money in an already highly profitable business.

Multi nationals caring about their employees is a myth. Making money is the only goal

Sonics2k · 10-02-2015 05:44PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Google... who cooperate with Chinese censorship laws? Companies exist to make profits, that is the beginning and ending of their moral compass.

And if they didn't follow the censorship laws in China they'd have no business there at all. All companies make a lot of sacrifices to do business in China, even Microsoft and Apple do.

It's also got little to do with the referendum. In fact it's got nothing to do with it.

Sonics2k · 10-02-2015 05:48PM

jivedude wrote: »

No mate

Then you're not married at all. You may have gotten married in a Church, but you still would have signed the marriage certificate, which a legal document recognised by the state.

The funny part is that your Church wedding was nothing but decoration and show, you weren't actually married until that document was signed.

floggg · 10-02-2015 06:10PM

Flem31 wrote: »

I worked in a hi tech multi national and am highly skilled.
I also sat in meeting rooms when who was to be made redundant (compulsory) was decided upon. Employees are only highly prized when it suits the company.

These companies like to pretend they care for the welfare of their employees, but actions speak louder than words.
For example, the high tech multi national I was in, made people redundant in early 2000's, not because the employee's skillset was out of date or wasn't in demand. It was done because the older employee cost too much to employ, and hiring in a cheaper contractor saved them money in an already highly profitable business.

Multi nationals caring about their employees is a myth. Making money is the only goal

I never said they cared about employee welfare for altruistic reasons. It's because they want to employee the best so they can make more money.

So employee welfare is valued because it increases profitability over all. If it doesn't do so on any particular occasion, profitability will usually win out, but that doesn't mean take away from its importance as a means of giving them a competitive edge.

Why else would the likes of facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple, Microsoft etc insert themselves into potentially divisive debates on social issues.

reprise · 10-02-2015 07:43PM

floggg wrote: »

I never said they cared about employee welfare for altruistic reasons. It's because they want to employee the best so they can make more money.

So employee welfare is valued because it increases profitability over all. If it doesn't do so on any particular occasion, profitability will usually win out, but that doesn't mean take away from its importance as a means of giving them a competitive edge.

Why else would the likes of facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple, Microsoft etc insert themselves into potentially divisive debates on social issues.

But of course, and naturally, that's why they are already here, they knew, they just knew, it's destiny........

I mean, what other reason could there possibly be?

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/scalped-on-the-altar-of-tolerance-great-work-gay-lobby-30157989.html

efb · 10-02-2015 07:46PM

reprise wrote: »

But of course, and naturally, that's why they are already here, they knew, they just knew, it's destiny........

I mean, what other reason could there possibly be?

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/ian-odoherty/scalped-on-the-altar-of-tolerance-great-work-gay-lobby-30157989.html

Using the professional troll Ian O'Doherty as a reference? He was targeted because he artist tried to DENY rights

reprise · 10-02-2015 07:48PM

efb wrote: »

Using the professional troll Ian O'Doherty as a reference? He was targeted because he artist tried to DENY rights

It seems to be a boards staple to attack the messenger. Have you ever heard of google? Does everything have to be filtered through tintin o foole?

Flem31 · 10-02-2015 07:58PM

floggg wrote: »

I never said they cared about employee welfare for altruistic reasons. It's because they want to employee the best so they can make more money.

So employee welfare is valued because it increases profitability over all. If it doesn't do so on any particular occasion, profitability will usually win out, but that doesn't mean take away from its importance as a means of giving them a competitive edge.

Why else would the likes of facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple, Microsoft etc insert themselves into potentially divisive debates on social issues.

Have you worked in a multi national ?

Employee welfare is only considered if it makes more money. Employee happiness is not something that bothers them.
A happy workforce does not give a company a competitive edge.

Why Facebook etc getting involved,
- firstly I disagree that it is a divisive issue. If it was, the polls would be running a lot closer to 50 50.
- and secondly because it doesn't cost them a cent to say nice things and support something that wont impact the bottom line.

If there was a cost to them re SSM or any other social policy they would be more reluctant to say anything. I remember when the number of maternity weeks was increased about a decade ago. My employer the multi national weren't that impressed and even did some calculations to see what the impact was. Now, if the state had said at the time that Ireland Inc. would pick up the full cost of that change, they would have been happy with that and would have openly supported it

Zubeneschamali · 10-02-2015 09:53PM

Flem31 wrote: »

Have you worked in a multi national ?

Yes, and staff retention, especially of the best staff, is very important. They spend a lot of effort on recruiting the best people, and do not want to lose them.

Of course they are not genuinely concerned for anyone's happiness because they are so lovely, they are concerned because unhappy staff leave, and then bitch to their techie friends and put other people off.

reprise · 10-02-2015 09:55PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, and staff retention, especially of the best staff, is very important. They spend a lot of effort on recruiting the best people, and do not want to lose them.

Of course they are not genuinely concerned for anyone's happiness because they are so lovely, they are concerned because unhappy staff leave, and then bitch to their techie friends and put other people off.

Do you know of anyone who has ever left a job in Ireland over same sex marriage and pinned it on their employer?

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

Comments