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

eviltwin · 12-04-2015 11:43PM

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

Dont believe in marriage so voting no

Really dickish way to use a vote tbh.

PopePalpatine · 12-04-2015 11:45PM

VinLieger wrote: »

I failed to read the part that a no vote will lead to marriage being abolished, can you point out where it says this?

I believe this is the bit that reads "YOU CAN'T HAVE IT, IT'S MINE!"

diddley · 13-04-2015 12:17AM

Bobby Jones wrote: »

Are you for real? Two fellas who want to roger the bejaysus out of each other?

Lmao

diddley · 13-04-2015 12:18AM

Ricardo Jealous Mimicry wrote: »

You can't legislate for a biological parent not wanting to be known. In situation where a child is borne from a heterosexual copulation, you can legislate for financial responsibility, but that's it. I was born of such a situation and my father doesn't want to know who I am or what I look like, never mind sharing any details of himself or his medical history. If people are donating eggs or sperm to an anonymous clinic, they've already made the choice to have it be anonymous.

I would support a system where the donor could later add their details should they change their mind, in case the child wanted to look them up, but there really isn't a 'right' to know your biological parent or medical history in children of heterosexual couples as it stands either.

Speaking more to my father I learned that this is actually more his issue, rather than anything else. I guess it's a legitimate concern. But as people are saying it's a different debate/referendum.

Canis Lupus · 13-04-2015 12:30AM

VinLieger wrote: »

I failed to read the part that a no vote will lead to marriage being abolished, can you point out where it says this?

sup_dude wrote: »

Or you could just vote yes, or not vote which is a lot easier than someone having to fly the whole way out to Vegas.

I mean, if you don't agree with marriage, fair enough. Why go out of your way to stop others getting married?

Looks like you're having your legs pulled.

sdanseo · 13-04-2015 12:33AM

Ricardo Jealous Mimicry wrote: »

You can't legislate for a biological parent not wanting to be known. In situation where a child is borne from a heterosexual copulation, you can legislate for financial responsibility, but that's it. I was born of such a situation and my father doesn't want to know who I am or what I look like, never mind sharing any details of himself or his medical history. If people are donating eggs or sperm to an anonymous clinic, they've already made the choice to have it be anonymous.

I would support a system where the donor could later add their details should they change their mind, in case the child wanted to look them up, but there really isn't a 'right' to know your biological parent or medical history in children of heterosexual couples as it stands either.

You can certainly legislate that they can be contacted though:

Children and Family Relationships Bill, 2015 wrote:

(1) A person consents under this section to the use in a DAHR procedure of a gamete
provided by him or her where he or she...
(skipped a few lines)
ii) understands that the child may, in accordance with section 33, access the
information referred to in subparagraph (i) and seek to contact him or her.

To me, that nullifies the whole reason anyone would become an "anonymous" donor.

Link to Bill

pl4ichjgy17zwd · 13-04-2015 12:43AM

sdanseo wrote: »

You can certainly legislate that they can be contacted though:

To me, that nullifies the whole reason anyone would become an "anonymous" donor.

Link to Bill

Yes, I agree (although I don't agree with that part of the bill and support anonymous donations - I know they won't be the case in this country any longer). [And in reference to my own post, I support my biological father's right to privacy and not to have to share information with me]

My point was that they can 'contact' them all they like - if they don't want a relationship or to share previously unknown information, you can't force it.

EDIT: This obviously applies to adoption situations, unplanned pregnancies, even planned ones where the father backs out, or either parent after the child is born. There's no situation where anyone has 'the right' to a biological parent that doesn't want to be involved. If anything with this bill, donor kids have more rights than ones with parents who just run off.

And apologies for going off topic, because of course, the referendum still has zilch to do with any of this.

sdanseo · 13-04-2015 01:11AM

Ricardo Jealous Mimicry wrote: »

And apologies for going off topic, because of course, the referendum still has zilch to do with any of this.

And a lot of people lose sight of that. People don't read. It's the only reason I'm voting yes.

I agree with the principle that every child should have a mother and father, which is a fundamentally different issue to that of same sex marriage. There's no legal basis whatsoever for me to vote no here even with that reservation that I have (and can't explain) - the bill will pass and be signed regardless of the outcome because it's not going to be repugnant to the constitution either way.

pwurple · 13-04-2015 07:21AM

sup_dude wrote: »

None of this is any way affected by the results of the referendum though. Gay people can adopt as a couple now. If that's going to be an issue, then it's going to be an issue whether the couple is married or not. Plus, the referendum is not denying people their rights to know their biological parents.

I'm not talking about adoption. Adoption ground to a halt in Ireland years ago. No-one, straight or gay, adopts anymore, due to some other crap the govt has not bothered sorting out. Children sit in foreign orphanages, irish couples are approved to adopt, but never the twain shall meet. Adoption is a farce here.

I'm mainly talking about surrogates, donor eggs, donor sperm etc.

Daith · 13-04-2015 07:23AM

pwurple wrote: »

I'm mainly talking about surrogates, donor eggs, donor sperm etc.

What does that have to do with two people marrying?

sasta le · 13-04-2015 07:27AM

I wonder will all the people tweeting and making Facebook profile photos actually vote

pwurple · 13-04-2015 07:33AM

Ricardo Jealous Mimicry wrote: »

Yes, I agree (although I don't agree with that part of the bill and support anonymous donations - I know they won't be the case in this country any longer). [And in reference to my own post, I support my biological father's right to privacy and not to have to share information with me]

My point was that they can 'contact' them all they like - if they don't want a relationship or to share previously unknown information, you can't force it.

EDIT: This obviously applies to adoption situations, unplanned pregnancies, even planned ones where the father backs out, or either parent after the child is born. There's no situation where anyone has 'the right' to a biological parent that doesn't want to be involved. If anything with this bill, donor kids have more rights than ones with parents who just run off.

And apologies for going off topic, because of course, the referendum still has zilch to do with any of this.

Here is our ideological difference then i guess... I truely believe it is wrong to knowingly create a child, and then refuse to have anything to do with them. i can't agree that it is the right thing to do. I've seen how much pain it can cause.

And of course the referendum has something to do with parenting. You can't just wave away the bits of the legislation that don't suit you. It's all in there.

Becoming the automatic guardian of a child is part of the legal set of rights in marriage. It's one of many parts, certainly. But in a gay marriage, both parents obviously cannot physically both be the biological parents, so assisted reproduction, and the loss of the other parent, comes into it.

pwurple · 13-04-2015 07:34AM

Daith wrote: »

What does that have to do with two people marrying?

See above reply.

Daith · 13-04-2015 08:38AM

pwurple wrote: »

See above reply.

Yes, it didn't answer anything.

1) Couple do not need to procreate to remain married.
2) Couples raise children without being married
3) Same sex couples are raising children and can adopt/foster children.

pwurple wrote: »

Becoming the automatic guardian of a child is part of the legal set of rights in marriage. It's one of many parts, certainly. But in a gay marriage, both parents obviously cannot physically both be the biological parents, so assisted reproduction, and the loss of the other parent, comes into it.

This equally applies to straight couples who go use assisted reproduction. Should they not be allowed to marry?

padd b1975 · 13-04-2015 09:00AM

sasta le wrote: »

I wonder will all the people tweeting and making Facebook profile photos actually vote

They probably think they already have....

PopePalpatine · 13-04-2015 09:04AM

If that's the case, I'd wonder how No voters have managed to learn how to breathe.

haveringchick · 13-04-2015 09:19AM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

If that's the case, I'd wonder how No voters have managed to learn how to breathe.

This type of comment so full of contempt and bitterness just driving the fence sitters on to the No side.
What makes you say these things? What do you think is to be gained?

OldNotWIse · 13-04-2015 09:23AM

A God bothering neighbour had the cheek to call to the house yesterday with No campaign propaganda material. Bullshít about protecting the marriage etc. I left them back at her door later with a note kindly requesting that she desist from forcing her beliefs on others and informing her that I will be voting yes for equality. Who the fúck does she think she is to sit in judgment of others. Bible bashing idiot.

OldNotWIse · 13-04-2015 09:25AM

I notice a lot of recent concern for the welfare of the child. Far be it for me to be a cynic but it seems odd in a country that has made it it's business to relocate and protect paedophile priests who rape children to suddenly be up in arms about the "welfare of the child" - smokescreen anyone?

shruikan2553 · 13-04-2015 09:27AM

haveringchick wrote: »

This type of comment so full of contempt and bitterness just driving the fence sitters on to the No side.
What makes you say these things? What do you think is to be gained?

Funny how this was nowhere to be seen when someone was claiming children should be taken away from their parents if they are gay.

rainbow kirby · 13-04-2015 09:30AM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

A God bothering neighbour had the cheek to call to the house yesterday with No campaign propaganda material. Bullshít about protecting the marriage etc. I left them back at her door later with a note kindly requesting that she desist from forcing her beliefs on others and informing her that I will be voting yes for equality. Who the fúck does she think she is to sit in judgment of others. Bible bashing idiot.

I'm so glad I'm not in Ireland for the vast majority of the referendum buildup, I'd probably end up going through a load of No campaigners for the shortcut.

In the meantime, anyone in blue who comes to my door here is in for a tough time of it. :pac:

OldNotWIse · 13-04-2015 09:37AM

rainbow kirby wrote: »

I'm so glad I'm not in Ireland for the vast majority of the referendum buildup, I'd probably end up going through a load of No campaigners for the shortcut.

In the meantime, anyone in blue who comes to my door here is in for a tough time of it. :pac:

This idiot has been trying to convert me and my family to Gods way since we moved there. She's constantly dropping up leaflets about retreat weekends and finding Jesus and God and the tooth fairy. Drives at 100 mph without a seatbelt saying "God will keep her safe" - what about the poor fúcker driving towards her??

Likes to eat elderberry jam and homemade soda bread and knit her own clothing. Her children are equally indoctrinated to the point that her daughter who is "living in sin" can no longer cross her door. Charming family really.

13-04-2015 09:49AM

'I am going to vote No because I am concerned about pizzas and death threats at gay weddings, or something.'

I think in future we need to address the idea that both sides in the "debate" about equal rights deserve equal air time and media access.

I'm sorry but the campaign is now at an advanced stage, and all that has been offered from the No side is obscure arguments about mothers marrying their daughters and something something pizza at a wedding.

Opposition to gay marriage has slipped from cryptic warnings about the meaning of marriage, into full-blown farce, and the Roman Catholic Bishops threatening to quit administering marriage certificates "in a huff", as one priest described it.

Such startling idiocy is no contribution to a mature debate, and I question the need for every referendum amendment to achieve a 50-50 balance.

I'm not just saying this because I'm a yes voter in the marriage equality referendum. Equally preposterous is the requirement to give 50-50 air-time to the people opposed to the removal of the age discrimination barrier to Presidential candidacy.

Stop giving crackpots oxygen.

haveringchick · 13-04-2015 09:58AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

'I am going to vote No because I am concerned about pizzas and death threats at gay weddings, or something.'

I think in future we need to address the idea that both sides in the "debate" about equal rights deserve equal air time and media access.

I'm sorry but the campaign is now at an advanced stage, and all that has been offered from the No side is obscure arguments about mothers marrying their daughters and something something pizza at a wedding.

Opposition to gay marriage has slipped from cryptic warnings about the meaning of marriage, into full-blown farce, and the Roman Catholic Bishops threatening to quit administering marriage certificates "in a huff", as one priest described it.

Such startling idiocy is no contribution to a mature debate, and I question the need for every referendum amendment to achieve a 50-50 balance.

I'm not just saying this because I'm a yes voter in the marriage equality referendum. Equally preposterous is the requirement to give 50-50 air-time to the people opposed to the removal of the age discrimination barrier to Presidential candidacy.

Stop giving crackpots oxygen.

So all debate on any contentious issue should be prohibited, or only in cases where your position is threatened?

13-04-2015 10:08AM

haveringchick wrote: »

So all debate on any contentious issue should be prohibited

Where on earth did you get this out of my post?

I don't believe in fining a broadcaster simply for failing to divide air-time on a 50-50 basis. It should be the prerogative of the individual broadcaster or media outlet to determine who gets the most airtime. If both sides can advance credible arguments, then by all means, give both sides equal air time.

We had the same problem during the Children's Referendum, where the only opponents to it were cuckoo.

Rules like this give a voice to people like Mina Bean Uí Chroibín.

There is nothing democratic about giving 50% of air time to a person whose views are shared by a tiny minority of the public.

Let a free exchange of ideas prevail over a prescriptive debate.

kylith · 13-04-2015 10:18AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Opposition to gay marriage has slipped from cryptic warnings about the meaning of marriage, into full-blown farce, and the Roman Catholic Bishops threatening to quit administering marriage certificates "in a huff", as one priest described it.

So, they're going to penalise heterosexuals getting married by their rules because gay people will be able to get married. Even though they won't have to have anything to do with gay weddings?

What a bunch of petty babies.

Flem31 · 13-04-2015 10:29AM

kylith wrote: »

So, they're going to penalise heterosexuals getting married by their rules because gay people will be able to get married. Even though they won't have to have anything to do with gay weddings?

What a bunch of petty babies.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to split the two aspects out, the civil process and the religious aspect.
As a society we have been moving away from the religion for a while now so to avoid confusion perhaps a clear line between the two is now needed. It may delay the wedding reception by an hour but it will provide a requirement for more jobs as the current numbers in registry offices wont be enough to cater for this demand.

seenitall · 13-04-2015 10:35AM

kylith wrote: »

So, they're going to penalise heterosexuals getting married by their rules because gay people will be able to get married. Even though they won't have to have anything to do with gay weddings?

What a bunch of petty babies.

Well, if it's come to such a pretty pass that even all those sodomising abominations can avail of it, surely it's not worth bothering with any more?

seenitall · 13-04-2015 10:37AM

Flem31 wrote: »

Perhaps it would be a good idea to split the two aspects out, the civil process and the religious aspect.
As a society we have been moving away from the religion for a while now so to avoid confusion perhaps a clear line between the two is now needed. It may delay the wedding reception by an hour but it will provide a requirement for more jobs as the current numbers in registry offices wont be enough to cater for this demand.

The two aspects are already split just grand. I got married in a registry office, church had naught to do with it.

What are you talking about?

P_1 · 13-04-2015 10:40AM

kylith wrote: »

So, they're going to penalise heterosexuals getting married by their rules because gay people will be able to get married. Even though they won't have to have anything to do with gay weddings?

What a bunch of petty babies.

Time to meet their bluff then, we still have an unemployment crisis, time to start training folk in solemising marriages. Remove one of their cash cows from them

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

Comments