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

ohnonotgmail · 01-05-2015 02:35PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Well there will, but only to the same extent that there is currently.

yes but legally both are treated equally. so they are effectively the same.

Links234 · 01-05-2015 02:37PM

Where are the folks who're constantly commenting about how the YES side are hysterical/aggressive, and why aren't they calling out such blatant sh*tposting like this?

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

One eyed Jack · 01-05-2015 02:40PM

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?

Do you understand what the "in accordance with law" part of the question means?

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

You're talking nonsense about some "legal code" and you're ignoring the question actually being asked.

jay93 · 01-05-2015 02:40PM

I'll be voting yes on this no reason to vote no.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 01-05-2015 02:42PM

Shrap wrote: »

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.

I haven't said there is - you are deliberately looking at the issue through the wrong end of the telescope.

You've actually said something quite silly. Because the fact that some straight couples are infertile doesn't mean you can legislate as if no straight couples are fertile. As I said 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.

It's Pythonesque for you to say No it doesn't! to that. You most certainly do have to provide for the fact that most straight couples have children without AHR.

Ironé wrote: »

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

I am, and I'm suspecting you are deliberately avoiding that.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Perhaps 'marriages naturally capable of producing children' and 'marriages not naturally capable of producing children' would be a more meaningful way of defining the two situations?

It would, if we wanted to hide the fact that all SSMs are in the second group because we find it inconvenient to acknowledge that only straight marriages need legislation dealing with the natural production of children. (EDIT: more strictly, with the rights and obligations that arise when children naturally arrive within a straight marriage.)

I know there's a few other posters saying similar stuff to the three above; can ye take that as applying to your posts too as I'm getting a pain in my hole from all this?

JCX BXC · 01-05-2015 02:43PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

as I'm getting a pain in my hole from all this?

Careful now, we don't want to add another reason for people to vote no.

osarusan · 01-05-2015 02:45PM

Another poster dancing round the edge of a phantom argument, seemingly baffled by other posters' inability to decipher what they insist is clear, but which they have deliberately ensured remains obscure.

ohnonotgmail · 01-05-2015 02:47PM

osarusan wrote: »

Another poster dancing round the edge of a phantom argument, seemingly baffled by other posters' inability to decipher what they have insist is clear deliberately ensured remains obscure.

seems to be a lot of that going on.

ohnonotgmail · 01-05-2015 02:48PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

... As I said 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.
...

Provide in what way?

Ironé · 01-05-2015 02:50PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I am, and I'm suspecting you are deliberately avoiding that.

So you can't answer the question I asked you. That's ok - I really didn't think you were capable of answering it anyway.

You just can't explain yourself properly - your views do not stand up to any sort of scrutiny.

I'm still waiting for an argument for No that makes any sense or that can stand up to any sort of questioning. I won't hold my breath.

Ironé · 01-05-2015 02:51PM

osarusan wrote: »

Another poster dancing round the edge of a phantom argument, seemingly baffled by other posters' inability to decipher what they insist is clear, but which they have deliberately ensured remains obscure.

Beautifully put. No point continuing a discussion with someone like that.

seamus · 01-05-2015 02:53PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

As I said 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.

OK. So what the's relevance to this referendum?

If this need exists, it sounds like it needs to exist regardless of whether a yes or no vote comes out.

noway12345 · 01-05-2015 02:55PM

Links234 wrote: »

Where are the folks who're constantly commenting about how the YES side are hysterical/aggressive, and why aren't they calling out such blatant sh*tposting like this?

That post was hilarious in fairness. Nothing hysterical or aggressive about it.

smash · 01-05-2015 02:56PM

There really should be laws about what you can say and show on a poster which could influence a referendum.

I saw this poster in Sandyford yesterday and it's not only misleading because it's not what the referendum is about. It's also pretty cruel for multiple groups of people to see, including:

Those who use surrogacy to have a child.
Those who were conceived through surrogacy.
Those who have lost a mother.

Are the no side completely anti surrogacy disregarding the sexuality of the parent? Because it's how the poster looks...

frostyjacks · 01-05-2015 02:56PM

Ironé wrote: »

So you can't answer the question I asked you. That's ok - I really didn't think you were capable of answering it anyway.

You just can't explain yourself properly - your views do not stand up to any sort of scrutiny.

I'm still waiting for an argument for No that makes any sense or that can stand up to any sort of questioning. I won't hold my breath.

Maybe you should be more open minded. There are plenty of opinion pieces in the print media putting across the no argument better than anything on social media.

smash · 01-05-2015 03:00PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Maybe you should be more open minded. There are plenty of opinion pieces in the print media putting across the no argument better than anything on social media.

Maybe you should be clearer in your arguments in favour of a no vote instead of telling people to go and look for info which either isn't there, or is just non sense..

MrWalsh · 01-05-2015 03:09PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Maybe you should be more open minded. There are plenty of opinion pieces in the print media putting across the no argument better than anything on social media.

Where are they? Links?

ohnonotgmail · 01-05-2015 03:12PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Maybe you should be more open minded. There are plenty of opinion pieces in the print media putting across the no argument better than anything on social media.

written by messrs Waters and Quinn no doubt

Links234 · 01-05-2015 03:14PM

Links?

Why do people keep asking for me, I'm right here?

One eyed Jack · 01-05-2015 03:15PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

As I said 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.

That's the way the laws are already written - on the understanding that children are conceived within marriage (it's caused far more issues than it was intended to address), and that's why the CFR Act was introduced to address some of those issues.

Neither the CFR Act, nor the C&CP Act go far enough to provide for the protection of families where the parties are of the same sex, and they don't provide protection on their own to any children of those people who are parents in a civil partnership.

You have exactly what you're looking for at the moment. You have it. The legislation already discriminates between same-sex couples and their children, and opposite sex couples and their children.

You're voting against the referendum, with the effect that the discrimination will remain in place.

Other than that, I don't see what you're waffling about tbh.

ohnonotgmail · 01-05-2015 03:16PM

Links234 wrote: »

Links?

Why do people keep asking for me, I'm right here?

for which we are eternally grateful

noway12345 · 01-05-2015 03:17PM

I'm all for equality!

Except for young people, travellers, religious people, unemployed people...............................................................

It's all a farce!

frostyjacks · 01-05-2015 03:21PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

written by messrs Waters and Quinn no doubt

Of course. Because nobody else in the world thinks gay marriage shouldn't be equal to heterosexual marriage.

Trudiha · 01-05-2015 03:22PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Maybe you should be more open minded. There are plenty of opinion pieces in the print media putting across the no argument better than anything on social media.

No, Frosty, all we are exposed to is the distasteful sight of the privileged trying to justify their advantage. You are in no way more worthy of anything than a gay person.

Cuban Pete · 01-05-2015 03:23PM

noway12345 wrote: »

I'm all for equality!
Except for young people, travellers, religious people, unemployed people...............................................................

It's all a farce!

If you actually have a point to make, why don't you just come out and say it?

VinLieger · 01-05-2015 03:23PM

noway12345 wrote: »

I'm all for equality!
Except for young people, travellers, religious people, unemployed people...............................................................

It's all a farce!

So the gays are all middle class now too?

ohnonotgmail · 01-05-2015 03:24PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Of course. Because nobody else in the world thinks gay marriage shouldn't be equal to heterosexual marriage.

well post the links then if they exist (i mean URLs not the poster called Links234. they might upset if you tried to post them )

noway12345 · 01-05-2015 03:25PM

Cuban Pete wrote: »

If you actually have a point to make, why don't you just come out and say it?

It's all a farce.

noway12345 · 01-05-2015 03:26PM

VinLieger wrote: »

So the gays are all middle class now too?

People going on and on about equality when they don't really mean it. It's madness.

TheChizler · 01-05-2015 03:26PM

noway12345 wrote: »

It's all a farce.

Maybe to you, but an awful lot of people are taking this very seriously.

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

Comments