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

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 01-05-2015 12:28PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I've demonstrated how that block of legislation is relevant to marriage. If the referendum is passed, there won't be any such new institution as "same-sex marriage", it will still simply be "the institution of civil marriage". How a couple chooses to conceive within their marriage is now legislated for, and that legislation applies to all married couples.

Ah, I can see the fudge you're making.

Yes, AHR legislation will apply to both SSM and straight marriage. That's fine so far as it goes, even if AHR is a treatment for a medical problem in straight marriage - i.e. something of a different nature.

However, law regarding children that are naturally conceived clearly only relates to straight marriage. That's the block of law that irrelevant to SSM.

And it would be clearly quite silly to equate that to the regulation of AHR, which I now see is what you are trying to do. In particular, your phrase "how a couple chooses to conceive" is about as deep a state of denial as a person can get. Do you seriously envisage that couples would choose AHR if they could safely conceive together?

And in SSM, there's really no choice - the couple are never choosing to conceive together. They are choosing a formula through which one of them conceives.

So, indeed, nothing that you say changes a word that I've said.

ohnonotgmail · 01-05-2015 12:29PM

falan wrote: »

Has this been posted? 5 reasons to vote no.

http://daneohiggins.com/2015/04/24/5-reasons-to-vote-no/

took me a second to cop that it was a pisstake.

not yet · 01-05-2015 12:29PM

Ah sure jaysus you'd have to be votin yes, sure even them quares derserve a bit of misey like the rest of us...

ohnonotgmail · 01-05-2015 12:30PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Ah, I can see the fudge you're making.

Yes, AHR legislation will apply to both SSM and straight marriage. That's fine so far as it goes, even if AHR is a treatment for a medical problem in straight marriage - i.e. something of a different nature.

However, law regarding children that are naturally conceived clearly only relates to straight marriage. That's the block of law that irrelevant to SSM.

And it would be clearly quite silly to equate that to the regulation of AHR, which I now see is what you are trying to do. In particular, your phrase "how a couple chooses to conceive" is about as deep a state of denial as a person can get. Do you seriously envisage that couples would choose AHR if they could safely conceive together?

And in SSM, there's really no choice - the couple are never choosing to conceive together. They are choosing a formula through which one of them conceives.

So, indeed, nothing that you say changes a word that I've said.

and as always, this is totally irrelevant to the referendum

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 01-05-2015 12:33PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and as always, this is totally irrelevant to the referendum

That's actually my point - the fact that SSM and straight marriage are two different things doesn't actually mean that we should vote for or against. It just means that identical laws can't sensibly apply to both.

Because, to recap, there's a block of law to do with children conceived within straight marriage that's irrelevant to SSM but essential for virtually all straight couples, as in SSM the couple are never conceiving a child together.

Sofiztikated · 01-05-2015 12:36PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It's also irrelevant to straight couples who can't/don't have children.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is.

I'm going to guess "Ewww, gay."

Ironé · 01-05-2015 12:40PM

Absolutely voting Yes - I will be gutted if it isn't voted in. I am straight and married so it has absolutely no impact on my life but I just feel it would be a huge injustice if it doesn't get through. I have three small children and want them to grow up in a country where they all have equal rights regardless of their gender or sexuality.

I've talked to a lot of older people lately - my parents both in their 70s - both very religious are a very definite Yes vote. My mother in law also in her 70s and also very religious asked me yesterday how I was voting and explained that she was on the fence. I explained to her how it will have no impact on adoption laws and surrogacy. She was still concerned until I told her that the ispcc was also calling for a Yes vote along with many other charities:

http://www.ispcc.ie/news-media/childrens-issues-in-the-news/ispcc-confirms-its-support-for-a-yes-vote-in-the-marriage-equality-referendum/12761

That kind of sealed the deal for her really. I mean really you don't have a leg to stand on arguing about how this is bad for Children if charities who advocate children's rights are calling for a Yes vote.

That said some people don't want to hear logic - they are just blinded to it. I get it too. For some these Catholic laws and rules gives security and structure to their lives and they will never let that go. They will cling to it blindly.

It just seems so un-christian to want to Stop two people who are in Love to make a lifetime commitment to each other and to be equal to the rest of us. They just want to control society and can never make that leap of faith to lead by example instead.

One eyed Jack · 01-05-2015 12:47PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It's also irrelevant to straight couples who can't/don't have children.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is.

His point is based on the premise that he is using two different definitions of marriage, one for opposite sex couples, and one for same sex couples. The whole point of the referendum is to remove that discriminatory criteria, but GCU is either unwilling to acknowledge, or simply in outright in denial about what is being asked in this referendum, and wants to spin off into a tangent which has nothing to do with a couple who want to avail of the opportunity to enter into a civil marriage with no distinction as to their sex.

onasis · 01-05-2015 12:50PM

I’ll be voting yes on the day. Here’s why:

I have been fortunate enough to have lived my life to date without suffering any type of discrimination. By virtue of fortune I was born white, straight and into a catholic family (I was born in 1964 when these things really mattered in Ireland). My parents whilst Catholics were primarily Christian and had the strength to put family before church. I was raised to be fair and kind and to see beyond social barriers – my mother always hated what she called the “hypocrite Catholics” that would go to mass every day and yet not have a Christian bone in their bodies. Our house had an open door to all our friends and some of them used it as a refuge when times were difficult. We were taught to be accepting and respectful of everyone and everyone’s differences. I just don’t do discrimination. Everyone has the right to be happy, not just those born into the “right conditions”. Surely people can see this.

Ironé · 01-05-2015 12:51PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

And in SSM, there's really no choice - the couple are never choosing to conceive together. They are choosing a formula through which one of them conceives.

How a couple conceives is irrelevant. They all have the same outcome - a child or maybe multiple children. After the child is born comes the tough part and the oh so rewarding part - parenting.

Many kids have single parents, are adopted, two biological parents, or two same sex parents. Once they are loved and cared for by their parent(s) they'll be happy well adjusted kids.

This idea that hetero couples who conceive naturally are somehow having kids for 'unselfish' reasons is a load of rubbish. I have three kids and we decided to have each of them. Why? Because there was some unexplainable urge in both of us to become parents. Becoming a parent was the best thing that I have every done - the hardest but the best. Why should that be denied to SS couples because they have to conceive in a different way to me? Does it make me a better parent because of how I conceived my kids? No.

Anyway I'll just roll out the mantra again ... this has nothing to do with the referendum!!!

Bannasidhe · 01-05-2015 01:00PM

I asked my 82 year old father to vote yes yesterday. This is a man who was so homophobic he refused to attend my son's 21 because it was held in a Loafers in Cork (free venue for the win!) and he wouldn't set foot in a place with all those f*cking queers. Family War erupted.

3 years ago - after an extended period where no one in the family would talk to him and much heated discussion where I explained how his comments made me feel I saw a light go on in his eyes and he actually burst into tears (in a restaurant in Jersey - morto like!) apologizing profusely and saying he never really meant those things it was just the way things were and he was afraid to go against the flow. Now, my Dad is a former boxing champion who has always boasted of never feeling fear and no f*cker will ever tell him want to do...
He suddenly realised that his fear was going to cost him his daughter, his grandson and his great grandchildren (coincidentally the only males in the family to bare his surname, which means a lot to him) because I told him he had to choose. Choose hate or choose love. It was his choice. He choose love.

I was worried when I asked him.. to say the least.. my heart was in my mouth as I said 'Dad, will you vote yes?' 'WHA?!?!?' he roared at me down the phone. Then I remembered he's deaf.. so I asked louder. Without hesitation he said 'Sure what other way would I vote? We need to move past all that s*ite now and let people live their lives in peace, like.'

Big bad butch blubbed.

Thanks Dad. Love ya ya old b*llocks.

Shrap · 01-05-2015 01:12PM

Ironé wrote: »

How a couple conceives is irrelevant.

This +1000

This idea that hetero couples who conceive naturally are somehow having kids for 'unselfish' reasons is a load of rubbish. I have three kids and we decided to have each of them.

This +1,000,000

I have two kids and I can safely say that making the decision to have them was the most selfish thing I've ever done. How remarkably self-centered and self-righteous of ANYONE to consider themselves worthy of doing the most important job on the planet - raising a child? And yet the vast majority of humans do it, with the conviction that they're able to manage the job well.

Same sex parents however, are castigated as having failed before they've ever started by the blinkered and downright dishonest attempts by some who claim that not having one gender present in the parenting is a terrible lack.

The genuine consequences of selfish parenting for so many children comes down to a lack of love, abuse, and neglect. Utterly, utterly disingenuous to say that the gender balance of parents has ANY baring on these real issues.

Ironé · 01-05-2015 01:20PM

Shrap wrote: »

This +1000

This +1,000,000

I have two kids and I can safely say that making the decision to have them was the most selfish thing I've ever done. How remarkably self-centered and self-righteous of ANYONE to consider themselves worthy of doing the most important job on the planet - raising a child? And yet the vast majority of humans do it, with the conviction that they're able to manage the job well.

Same sex parents however, are castigated as having failed before they've ever started by the blinkered and downright dishonest attempts by some who claim that not having one gender present in the parenting is a terrible lack.

The genuine consequences of selfish parenting for so many children comes down to a lack of love, abuse, and neglect. Utterly, utterly disingenuous to say that the gender balance of parents has ANY baring on these real issues.

All of this + a gazillion :-)

Also the focus seems to be on how on earth could two men do the job of a 'mother'. There is nothing I do as a parent that my husband isn't capable of doing - nothing. It is more sexist rubbish that men can't be loving and caring to their kids.

But I get how this is strange for people - especially if you had a mother and father - that were great parents and you love with all your life. It is the foundation of who you are as an individual. The thoughts of a different combination of parents can seem different, abnormal or wrong to some people. But just because it is different to what you had yourself it does not make it less.

Maximus Alexander · 01-05-2015 01:32PM

Ironé wrote: »

There is nothing I do as a parent that my husband isn't capable of doing - nothing. It is more sexist rubbish that men can't be loving and caring to their kids.

From an anecdotal perspective - my father was / is an infinitely better parent than my mother. Neither of them were perfect, but he is the reason that, coming from a troubled family background, I managed to turn into a generally well functioning adult. Without him, I'd be a train wreck.

Gender and parenting ability are unrelated.

B_Wayne · 01-05-2015 01:37PM

Mothers and Fathers have emailed around names and Facebook pages of people they believe to have vandalised posters. They did this instead of going to the Gardaí. Doxxing people who aren't necessarily even guilty is all good and dandy behaviour, eh?

Mitch Connor · 01-05-2015 01:40PM

So much of the argument here is about allowing SS couples to have kids, how they can be great parents and raise well adjusted children etc...

Its all irrelevant isn't it? They can already adopt etc?

Isn't this about their rights AS parents (both becoming legal guardians, inheritance, tax, next of kin etc), not their rights TO BE parents? Or have I misunderstood this vote?

I'm voting yes - that isn't in question for me - but from reading this thread I either don't understand what I am voting for, or don't understand why affording the opportunity to be parents is being discussed.

ohnonotgmail · 01-05-2015 01:42PM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

So much of the argument here is about allowing SS couples to have kids, how they can be great parents and raise well adjusted children etc...

Its all irrelevant isn't it? They can already adopt etc?

Isn't this about their rights AS parents (both becoming legal guardians, inheritance, tax, next of kin etc), not their rights TO BE parents? Or have I misunderstood this vote?

I'm voting yes - that isn't in question for me - but from reading this thread I either don't understand what I am voting for, or don't understand why affording the opportunity to be parents is being discussed.

Its being discussed because the No brigade keep bringing it up to derail the thread.

Maximus Alexander · 01-05-2015 01:43PM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I'm voting yes - that isn't in question for me - but from reading this thread I either don't understand what I am voting for, or don't understand why affording the opportunity to be parents is being discussed.

That's the rub - it means the No campaign have succeeded in muddying the waters by bringing parenting into it.

All you're voting for is literally to insert the following line into the constitution:

Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

Which means that from now on, whatever "marriage" is defined as by legislation will apply to every couple, regardless of gender.

Ironé · 01-05-2015 01:45PM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

So much of the argument here is about allowing SS couples to have kids, how they can be great parents and raise well adjusted children etc...

Its all irrelevant isn't it? They can already adopt etc?

Isn't this about their rights AS parents (both becoming legal guardians, inheritance, tax, next of kin etc), not their rights TO BE parents? Or have I misunderstood this vote?

I'm voting yes - that isn't in question for me - but from reading this thread I either don't understand what I am voting for, or don't understand why affording the opportunity to be parents is being discussed.

Your absolutely right and before now I have abstained from getting into it with people. A Yes or No will have no impact whatsoever on whether or not SS couples married or not can become parents.

However I am sick of the implication that there is something wrong with SS couples becoming parents so wanted to voice my opinion on it.

jobbridge4life · 01-05-2015 01:45PM

B_Wayne wrote: »

Mothers and Fathers have emailed around names and Facebook pages of people they believe to have vandalised posters. They did this instead of going to the Gardaí. Doxxing people who aren't necessarily even guilty is all good and dandy behaviour, eh?

If anyone of those who have been named is innocent then its a fairly obvious example of defamation. Which would be delicious irony.

VinLieger · 01-05-2015 01:47PM

B_Wayne wrote: »

Mothers and Fathers have emailed around names and Facebook pages of people they believe to have vandalised posters. They did this instead of going to the Gardaí. Doxxing people who aren't necessarily even guilty is all good and dandy behaviour, eh?

Where did you hear this?

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 01-05-2015 01:51PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It's also irrelevant to straight couples who can't/don't have children.

The block of law on naturally conceived children isn't irrelevant to straight couples who don't intend to have children. It's still a prudent and necessary thing to have. As for infertile straight couples, there's still a difference in the lived experience - in applying AHR to SSM, we're not providing treatment for a medical condition.

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I'm going to guess "Ewww, gay."

Well, if you read the posts you'll see that's not what's being said.

Ironé wrote: »

How a couple conceives is irrelevant.

No, that's just not true. If it was, we wouldn't need different legal codes to deal with children conceived by AHR and other children.

And, tbh, what that reflects is the couple aren't conceiving. There's a third party who needs to be accounted for.

If what you said was true, we wouldn't have legislation stating that children produced through AHR have a right to know their genetic parents.

Ironé wrote: »

This idea that hetero couples who conceive naturally are somehow having kids for 'unselfish' reasons is a load of rubbish.

And, to be clear, I'm not particularly commenting on that one way or the other.

The distinction is more that conception within SSM will be a regulated activity.

The issue of whether this or that model is best for children is actually also an irrelevance. I can't help noticing that, on both sides of the debate, there seems to be a desire to use legislation of make people good. The law is just there to sort things out in an orderly fashion; so, for the sake of argument, if children are arriving in certain relationships under certain conditions, it should be clear who has legal responsibility towards them.

SSM is just one way of regulating relationships in some families.

B_Wayne · 01-05-2015 01:56PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Where did you hear this?

Here you go, shall update if I find any more on it. https://twitter.com/damienmulley/status/594106436621365248

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 01-05-2015 01:56PM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Its all irrelevant isn't it? They can already adopt etc?

Yes, in principle, but bear in mind that adoption is now really something that happens within families. Adoptions of children by people who aren't near relatives are as rare as hens teeth.

But, of course, the concept could have application where one party to SSM already has a child - such adoptions as take place are actually typically where a married woman has a child from a previous relationship, which she wants to formally adopt with her husband.

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Isn't this about their rights AS parents (both becoming legal guardians, inheritance, tax, next of kin etc), not their rights TO BE parents? Or have I misunderstood this vote?

That's right, yes. That's been lost sight of because the debate is being framed as equality for the couple, as if that was what mattered.

Shrap · 01-05-2015 02:00PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That's been lost sight of because the debate is being framed as equality for the couple, as if that was what mattered.

You've lost me again GCU. Are you saying that equality for same sex couples under the constitution doesn't matter? Because that's what I'm voting on afaik.

One eyed Jack · 01-05-2015 02:00PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The block of law on naturally conceived children isn't irrelevant to straight couples who don't intend to have children. It's still a prudent and necessary thing to have. As for infertile straight couples, there's still a difference in the lived experience - in applying AHR to SSM, we're not providing treatment for a medical condition.Well, if you read the posts you'll see that's not what's being said.No, that's just not true. If it was, we wouldn't need different legal codes to deal with children conceived by AHR and other children.

And, tbh, what that reflects is the couple aren't conceiving. There's a third party who needs to be accounted for.

If what you said was true, we wouldn't have legislation stating that children produced through AHR have a right to know their genetic parents.And, to be clear, I'm not particularly commenting on that one way or the other.

The distinction is more that conception within SSM will be a regulated activity.

The issue of whether this or that model is best for children is actually also an irrelevance. I can't help noticing that, on both sides of the debate, there seems to be a desire to use legislation of make people good. The law is just there to sort things out in an orderly fashion; so, for the sake of argument, if children are arriving in certain relationships under certain conditions, it should be clear who has legal responsibility towards them.

SSM is just one way of regulating relationships in some families.

Christ, that's an awfully long winded way of admitting you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

I did get a chuckle out of your continued linguistic gymnastics though, the part highlighted in bold especially - how do you think children "arrive" in relationships?

Dropped off by the stork, found under a cabbage patch, or are they delivered by courier?

Honestly :rolleyes:

PutDownArtist · 01-05-2015 02:01PM

After much careful thought I've decided to vote YES instead of no.

The following occurrence changed my mind.

Only joking, still voting NO! LOLsie:p

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 01-05-2015 02:05PM

Shrap wrote: »

You've lost me again GCU. Are you saying that equality for same sex couples under the constitution doesn't matter? Because that's what I'm voting on afaik.

But, sure, what does it mean?

I mean, vote however you like. For me, it comes down to concrete things about how things will actually be different afterwards.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

<..> how do you think children "arrive" in relationships?

Dropped off by the stork, found under a cabbage patch, or are they delivered by courier?

Honestly :rolleyes:

Ah, now, this is rubbish. I'm not the one with deep denial, attempting to pretend that the same legal code can be applied to AHR as natural births.

You're avoiding the point.

Shrap · 01-05-2015 02:06PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

For the second time today, I'm reminded of this video

"Over and over and over and over and over
Like a monkey with a miniature cymbal
The joy of repetition really is in you " Hot Chip

One eyed Jack · 01-05-2015 02:07PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That's been lost sight of because the debate is being framed as equality for the couple, as if that was what mattered.

Erm, that's exactly what this referendum is about. You have your own thing going on there and you've already said you're voting against the proposal, but you're still getting your knickers in a twist about issues which have nothing to do with the referendum, issues which have already been dealt with under other legislation.

That has been pointed out to you again and again, and yet you still persist. I have to wonder... why?

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

Comments