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

Sofiztikated · 01-05-2015 02:08PM

PutDownArtist wrote: »

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

I doubt any careful thought has entered your mind.

Shrap · 01-05-2015 02:10PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

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.

Equality means....ah fcuk it. Why bother.

How things will be different....NOT AT ALL except equality. Heterosexual and homosexual people will still be availing of AHR for the entirely selfish purposes of making children, and the ratio of hetero to homo will more than likely not change very much. It all stays the same, except SS couples will be given equal opportunity to marry.

Sigh.

Kermit.de.frog · 01-05-2015 02:11PM

I'm sorry. I just, I have to ask...

http://media.central.ie/media/images/z/zzzWomenKissProtestorDublin_large.jpg

Is that Roy Keane holding the placard?

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 01-05-2015 02:12PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Erm, that's exactly what this referendum is about.

Yawn, yeah, equality.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Well, I'm more finding what I would have expected.

All you need to say is "it's perfectly normal for children to be conceived within straight marriages", and you'll find you'll have a discussion on your hands.

Some day, but not any time soon, we may have a political culture that isn't about covering up.

ohnonotgmail · 01-05-2015 02:13PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Yawn, yeah, equality.Well, I'm more finding what I would have expected.

All you need to say is "it's perfectly normal for children to be conceived within straight marriages", and you'll find you'll have a discussion on your hands.

Some day, but not any time soon, we may have a political culture that isn't about covering up.

equality. how terrible tedious that is.

tigger123 · 01-05-2015 02:14PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I'm sorry. I just, I have to ask...

http://media.central.ie/media/images/z/zzzWomenKissProtestorDublin_large.jpg

Is that Roy Keane holding the placard?

I was thinking that earlier myself! Can't imagine Keano being against SSM though.

It's an amazing photo.

PeteFalk78 · 01-05-2015 02:15PM

Such a tiny minority, such a big fuss.

Maximus Alexander · 01-05-2015 02:16PM

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Such a tiny minority, such a big fuss.

First they came for the Socialists...

Hyzepher · 01-05-2015 02:16PM

The following scenarios in society seem to be acceptable to No voters (those that use family/children as a reason for voting)

Married couples with kids
Unmarried single mothers with kids
Unmarried single dads with kids
Unmarried heterosexual couple with kids
Widowed single parents
Divorced single parents
Unmarried heterosexuals who adopt kids
Married couples who adopt
Heterosexual couples who surrogate
Heterosexual singles who surrogate

They're against
Homosexual unmarried couples who adopt kids
Homosexual singles who adopt kids
Homosexual married couples who adopt kids
Homosexual singles who surrogate
Homosexual couples who surrogate

Points to note;
1. There are as many scenarios on each side where adults either raise kids alone or without biological parents
2. Worrying commonality within the against column
3. Only one scenario (married gays who adopt) will be affected by a No vote.

jobbridge4life · 01-05-2015 02:17PM

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Such a tiny minority, such a big fuss.

Don't rights apply on the individual level?

Even so all the more reason to vote yes and let us live our lives as equal citizens. Otherwise tax me less.

One eyed Jack · 01-05-2015 02:17PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

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.

I'm actually doing quite the opposite, and it's worse because the point you're attempting to make has nothing to do with the referendum, notwithstanding the fact that you can't seem to point to the legal disparity you're talking about.

You understand how an amendment works, right?

The Irish Constitution is littered with contradictions which are open to all manner of interpretation (not least undefined terms like 'marriage' or 'the family'), and I'm guessing you're not all that well up on what you're talking about, so I don't see much point in entertaining you any further here really.

frostyjacks · 01-05-2015 02:18PM

Shrap wrote: »

Equality means....ah fcuk it. Why bother.

How things will be different....NOT AT ALL except equality. Heterosexual and homosexual people will still be availing of AHR for the entirely selfish purposes of making children, and the ratio of hetero to homo will more than likely not change very much. It all stays the same, except SS couples will be given equal opportunity to marry.

Sigh.

But it won't be equal to a heterosexual marriage, will it? I'm not sure the yes camp really know the meaning of equality.

jobbridge4life · 01-05-2015 02:20PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

But it won't be equal to a heterosexual marriage, will it? I'm not sure the yes camp really know the meaning of equality.

Under the law it will.

ohnonotgmail · 01-05-2015 02:20PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

But it won't be equal to a heterosexual marriage, will it? I'm not sure the yes camp really know the meaning of equality.

they will be equal in the eyes of the law. thats the best kind of equal.

jobbridge4life · 01-05-2015 02:21PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Yeah I get what you mean. Remember that time society decided people of all colours were equal, and then we all became the same colour?

So thats where freckles come from.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 01-05-2015 02:21PM

Shrap wrote: »

Equality means....ah fcuk it. Why bother.

How things will be different....NOT AT ALL except equality. Heterosexual and homosexual people will still be availing of AHR for the entirely selfish purposes of making children, and the ratio of hetero to homo will more than likely not change very much. It all stays the same, except SS couples will be given equal opportunity to marry.

Sigh.

Yes, which totally avoids the point that SSM and straight marriage can't be subject to an identical legal code, as the law on straight marriage needs to provide for the fact that it's perfectly normal for straight couples to conceive children without external intervention.

Or would you see the law being changed to require straight couples to give formal consent to their gametes being used for reproduction before conceiving children, and then applying to the District Court for a declaration of parentage which will only be granted if its in the best interest of the child? I'd love to see Enda Kenny selling that on the doorsteps in Mayo.

Ironé · 01-05-2015 02:21PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

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.

How is this only an issue for Same Sex parents? There are more hetero couples who avail of AHR than SS. How is this suddenly an issue when the parents are the same sex? And why is allowing SS couples to get married have any impact on this?

ohnonotgmail · 01-05-2015 02:23PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Yes, which totally avoids the point that SSM and straight marriage can't be subject to an identical legal code, as the law on straight marriage needs to provide for the fact that it's perfectly normal for straight couples to conceive children without external intervention.

Or would you see the law being changed to require straight couples to give formal consent to their gametes being used for reproduction before conceiving children, and then applying to the District Court for a declaration of parentage which will only be granted if its in the best interest of the child? I'd love to see Enda Kenny selling that on the doorsteps in Mayo.

you keep saying SSM and straight marriage. their is only marriage

smash · 01-05-2015 02:24PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

But it won't be equal to a heterosexual marriage, will it?

Yes, it will.

frostyjacks wrote: »

I'm not sure the yes camp really know the meaning of equality.

I'm not sure the no camp know the meaning of marriage... considering they think it has something to do with surrogacy. Which is just bizarre.

ohnonotgmail · 01-05-2015 02:24PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Yes, which totally avoids the point that SSM and straight marriage can't be subject to an identical legal code, as the law on straight marriage needs to provide for the fact that it's perfectly normal for straight couples to conceive children without external intervention.

Or would you see the law being changed to require straight couples to give formal consent to their gametes being used for reproduction before conceiving children, and then applying to the District Court for a declaration of parentage which will only be granted if its in the best interest of the child? I'd love to see Enda Kenny selling that on the doorsteps in Mayo.

you seem obsessed that the passing of this referendum will somehow change anything for straight couples. it wont.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 01-05-2015 02:25PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm actually doing quite the opposite, and it's worse because the point you're attempting to make has nothing to do with the referendum, notwithstanding the fact that you can't seem to point to the legal disparity you're talking about.

This is surreal.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Can you explain what this has to do with the referendum? Preferably without resorting to slippery slope arguments about what might happen in the future.

I'm pointing out that the "equality" meme is spin, when it tries to pretend (as some posters have) that there's no substantial difference in regulating SSM and straight marriage.

Ironé · 01-05-2015 02:26PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Yes, which totally avoids the point that SSM and straight marriage can't be subject to an identical legal code, as the law on straight marriage needs to provide for the fact that it's perfectly normal for straight couples to conceive children without external intervention.

Or would you see the law being changed to require straight couples to give formal consent to their gametes being used for reproduction before conceiving children, and then applying to the District Court for a declaration of parentage which will only be granted if its in the best interest of the child? I'd love to see Enda Kenny selling that on the doorsteps in Mayo.

I'm sorry but you aren't making any sense at all.

Let's try this: why does the law on 'straight marriage' need to provide for the fact that it's perfectly normal for straight couples to conceive children???

And just to remind you of a few things:

- you can get married without having kids.
- you can have kids without getting married.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 01-05-2015 02:28PM

Ironé wrote: »

How is this only an issue for Same Sex parents? There are more hetero couples who avail of AHR than SS. How is this suddenly an issue when the parents are the same sex? And why is allowing SS couples to get married have any impact on this?

I'll try to make it as simple as I can.

How does the legal code on children conceived naturally within marriage apply to SSM?

Do you think that you could disapply the legal code on children conceived naturally within marriage to a straight couple having fertility problems?

Shrap · 01-05-2015 02:28PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

as the law on straight marriage needs to provide for the fact that it's perfectly normal for straight couples to conceive children without external intervention.

No it doesn't! We've gone over this again and again. There is nothing in the legislation around marriage that either requires a couple to be fertile or provides for the normality of couples to conceive naturally. Nor should there be.

Ironé · 01-05-2015 02:29PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm pointing out that the "equality" meme is spin, when it tries to pretend (as some posters have) that there's no substantial difference in regulating SSM and straight marriage.

So basically you can't show what this has to do with the referendum.

Shocker :eek:

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 01-05-2015 02:30PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you seem obsessed that the passing of this referendum will somehow change anything for straight couples. it wont.

Well, if it doesn't change things it will because you are wrong when you say

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you keep saying SSM and straight marriage. their is only marriage

It's impossible to discuss the amendment without having terms to identify two situations.

noway12345 · 01-05-2015 02:30PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm pointing out that the "equality" meme is spin

It's all a load of nonsense, these people don't want equality at all. Just equality for some.

Ironé · 01-05-2015 02:32PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'll try to make it as simple as I can.

How does the legal code on children conceived naturally within marriage apply to SSM?

Do you think that you could disapply the legal code on children conceived naturally within marriage to a straight couple having fertility problems?

Not talking about how children are conceived naturally. Read my post again.

Talking about AHR and these 'legal codes' you are talking about. How do these 'legal codes' apply in a different way for a SS couple who have used AHR compared to a hetero couple who have used AHR?

I am genuinely interested to hear how you feel there is a legal difference.

seamus · 01-05-2015 02:33PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

This is surreal.I'm pointing out that the "equality" meme is spin, when it tries to pretend (as some posters have) that there's no substantial difference in regulating SSM and straight marriage.

The only marriage "regulation" is in relation to who may and may not get married.

My marriage is not subject to any kind of regulation.

There are other regulations in which my being married is a factor, but the act of being married is not in itself subject to any regulation except for those regulations which control who gets married and how they get married.

I see you're still trying to justify a No vote here on the basis that it may cause some legal uncertainties in fringe and inconsequential scenarios?

ohnonotgmail · 01-05-2015 02:34PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, if it doesn't change things it will because you are wrong when you sayIt's impossible to discuss the amendment without having terms to identify two situations.

there wont be two situations. there will just be married couples. some will be able to conceive naturally. some wont. the law will treat both equally.

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

Comments