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

ohnonotgmail · 01-05-2015 05:30PM

smash wrote: »

Just want to point out to frostyjacks that homosexuality was normal practice among the Greek and Roman Empires. You only think it's unnatural because of an old book of fables which if people were actually to obey in full, instead of being selective, we'd have an extremely fcuked up society.

this is not the place for it so i will just say that this is an over-simplification. particularly in regards to the romans.

smash · 01-05-2015 05:31PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

And look what happened to them. Defend society from the new dark ages Vote No!

The point is that it wasn't seen as unnatural. No doubt someone one will now mention that blood sports were the norm back then too in an effort to discredit the statement.

jobbridge4life · 01-05-2015 05:32PM

smash wrote: »

The point is that it wasn't seen as unnatural. No doubt someone one will now mention that blood sports were the norm back then too in an effort to discredit the statement.

MMA?:eek:

ScumLord · 01-05-2015 05:33PM

smash wrote: »

Just want to point out to frostyjacks that homosexuality was normal practice among the Greek and Roman Empires.

I wonder was that strictly homosexuality though? That's why I compared them to bonobos. Many men went through a phase of homosexual behaviour as young boys but still went onto have families. Although having children was an obligation to your community, so gay straight or uninterested you had to get married and have children almost by law.

Homosexual behaviour was certainly practiced more freely and probably by men that weren't strictly gay. It almost seems like sex with other men was for fun and sex with women was a chore they had to do for their community.

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

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Provide in what way?

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.

seamus wrote: »

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.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

marienbad wrote: »

I am finding it really difficult to understand your point , and can you answer me this time please .

Am I correct in saying that the concerns you have will exist whether or not we never had this referendum or if it was defeated ?

With the new legislation coming into effect in May and civil partnerships already a fact you concerns on adoption, surrogacy, etc, have already been over-ruled so to speak , is that correct ?

I'll try again.

As I've said several times, the fact that SSM cannot generate children without external assistance is neither an argument in favour or against legislating for SSM.

As I've said several times, I'm not trying to make an argument for anyone to change their vote from whatever they've decided. I'm stating plainly how I vote to reduce (but not eliminate) the amount of "what's your angle" posts that I'd expect to receive.

What I am saying is your vote can't create uniformity where it doesn't exist.

The amendment wording expresses a pious aspiration to no distinction being made on grounds of sex. That's simply unattainable. Even with AHR, its simply not possible to have legislation without distinguishing between SSM between two women and SSM between two men.

Its perfectly normal for straight marriages to produce children without external assistance, and legislation needs to provide for that. That legislation is irrelevant to SSM - its a necessary distinction based on the sex of the parties to the marriage. Can I point out we actually had a Yes poster rejecting that banal statement. That's the degree of delusion surrounding this referendum campaign.

smash · 01-05-2015 05:38PM

ScumLord wrote: »

I wonder was that strictly homosexuality though? That's why I compared them to bonobos. Many men went through a phase of homosexual behaviour as young boys but still went onto have families. Although having children was an obligation to your community, so gay straight or uninterested you had to get married and have children almost by law.

Homosexual behaviour was certainly practiced more freely and probably by men that weren't strictly gay. It almost seems like sex with other men was for fun and sex with women was a chore they had to do for their community.

Sex was seen as a pleasurable past time disregarding gender. The man made bible then declared it a sin in order to control populations.

aloyisious · 01-05-2015 05:40PM

Matty McGrath on DriveTime now on why he's voting NO, the gya community has bee brutalizing gays who vote NO. His constituents are having their say. One of them think's there's church marriage involved.

smash · 01-05-2015 05:42PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Its perfectly normal for straight marriages to produce children without external assistance, and legislation needs to provide for that. That legislation is irrelevant to SSM - its a necessary distinction based on the sex of the parties to the marriage. Can I point out we actually had a Yes poster rejecting that banal statement. That's the degree of delusion surrounding this referendum campaign.

It's perfectly normal for unmarried men and women to produce children too. I don't know what marriage has to do with legislation for children.

marienbad · 01-05-2015 05:42PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'll try again.

As I've said several times, the fact that SSM cannot generate children without external assistance is neither an argument in favour or against legislating for SSM.

As I've said several times, I'm not trying to make an argument for anyone to change their vote from whatever they've decided. I'm stating plainly how I vote to reduce (but not eliminate) the amount of "what's your angle" posts that I'd expect to receive.

What I am saying is your vote can't create uniformity where it doesn't exist.

The amendment wording expresses a pious aspiration to no distinction being made on grounds of sex. That's simply unattainable. Even with AHR, its simply not possible to have legislation without distinguishing between SSM between two women and SSM between two men.

Its perfectly normal for straight marriages to produce children without external assistance, and legislation needs to provide for that. That legislation is irrelevant to SSM - its a necessary distinction based on the sex of the parties to the marriage. Can I point out we actually had a Yes poster rejecting that banal statement. That's the degree of delusion surrounding this referendum campaign.

You are still not answering my question , I will try again -

1 am I correct in saying that all the concerns and issues you have outlined would still exist if this referendum never took place ?

Ironé · 01-05-2015 05:45PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'll try again.

As I've said several times, the fact that SSM cannot generate children without external assistance is neither an argument in favour or against legislating for SSM.

As I've said several times, I'm not trying to make an argument for anyone to change their vote from whatever they've decided. I'm stating plainly how I vote to reduce (but not eliminate) the amount of "what's your angle" posts that I'd expect to receive.

What I am saying is your vote can't create uniformity where it doesn't exist.

The amendment wording expresses a pious aspiration to no distinction being made on grounds of sex.

No distinction with regard to two individuals being allowed to get married. That's where state involvement in marriage ends. Once you pass the criteria to get married according to our constitution you are good to go. It is none of the states business if we choose to have children before, after or even during the wedding. Or even choose not to have children at all. Not a requirement.

That's simply unattainable. Even with AHR, its simply not possible to have legislation without distinguishing between SSM between two women and SSM between two men.

Even if this was an issue. It has nothing to do with marriage. People do not have to be married to use AHR.

Its perfectly normal for straight marriages to produce children without external assistance, and legislation needs to provide for that.

Why does legislation need to provide for that? If SSM is allowed it will have no impact on a straight couple having kids. Also people do not have to be married to have kids using any technique so how is allowing SS couples to get married impact any of this?

Bannasidhe · 01-05-2015 05:45PM

smash wrote: »

Just want to point out to frostyjacks that homosexuality was normal practice among the Greek and Roman Empires. You only think it's unnatural because of an old book of fables which if people were actually to obey in full, instead of being selective, we'd have an extremely fcuked up society.

The Brehon Laws mention homosexuality.

They say if a man can't sexually satisfy his wife because he was homosexual (remember marriages were first and foremost arranged political alliances but no one had any issue with any one seeking sexual satisfaction where they wanted to) she could divorce him - if he knew he couldn't 'do it' with a woman at all at all prior to the marriage she could divorce him and keep the Keep as it were.

That's it.

No mention of icky or unnatural or baaad or sinful - just if you are homosexual you better be able to satisfy the wife in bed should she require it or don't fecking marry her.
No mention of lesbians but possibly it's easier to fake it if your female...

Ironé · 01-05-2015 05:46PM

smash wrote: »

It's perfectly normal for unmarried men and women to produce children too. I don't know what marriage has to do with legislation for children.

This is such an important point. You don't have to be married to have children and vice versa.

seamus · 01-05-2015 06:00PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The amendment wording expresses a pious aspiration to no distinction being made on grounds of sex. That's simply unattainable.

Well, no it's not. The amendment expresses a requirement that marriage may be contracted without distinction as to the gender of those involved.

How is that unattainable? Two women sign a marriage contract, bingo-bango, aspiration achieved.

endacl · 01-05-2015 06:02PM

seamus wrote: »

Well, no it's not. The amendment expresses a requirement that marriage may be contracted without distinction as to the gender of those involved.

How is that unattainable? Two women sign a marriage contract, bingo-bango, aspiration achieved.

It's actually a little more complicated than you put it.

*ahem*

bingo-bango-bongo, I think you'll find.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 01-05-2015 06:06PM

Ironé wrote: »

No distinction with regard to two individuals being allowed to get married. That's where state involvement in marriage ends.

No, the State also has to have a legal framework dealing with what happens to children if they arrive. You'll understand, it's perfectly normal and very common for straight married people to have children. Hence, it's not at all strange that the law provides rules around the rights and responsibilities that apply.

Ironé wrote: »

Even if this was an issue. It has nothing to do with marriage. People do not have to be married to use AHR.

I'm obviously not suggesting that people do need to be married to use AHR. I'm dealing with the assertions of others, to the effect that no distinction needs to be made on grounds of sex. That's just wrong.

Ironé wrote: »

Why does legislation need to provide for that? If SSM is allowed it will have no impact on a straight couple having kids. Also people do not have to be married to have kids using any technique so how is allowing SS couples to get married impact any of this?

What are you asking? I think you need to slow down and reflect a little.

Straight people who are married expect that they can rely on the presumption of paternity. Its what they signed up for. It's also a concept that's completely irrelevant to SSM.

You seem to be getting confused around thinking these things have to be compulsory, or something.

My point is very simple, and very clear. If you see nothing wrong with the statement "It is perfectly normal for straight married couples to have children without external assistance, and to date the law reflects this", then you've no need to post at all.

That statement doesn't mean anyone else is especially required or excluded from having children - although obviously same sex couples can't without external assistance.

If I've an alterior motive in this, its in pointing out how uncomfortable people seem with such a banal statement.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 01-05-2015 06:06PM

smash wrote: »

It's perfectly normal for unmarried men and women to produce children too. I don't know what marriage has to do with legislation for children.

On the first point, absolutely. Legislation also needs to deal with the fact that unmarried people will conceive children together. It just never needs to deal with people of the same sex having children together.

In terms of the relevance to marriage, there's a presumption of paternity in our law and in many other jurisdictions. So, yes, marriage law very commonly deals with the very common situation of married straight couples having children together without external assistance. It would be very strange if it didn't.

marienbad wrote: »

You are still not answering my question , I will try again -

1 am I correct in saying that all the concerns and issues you have outlined would still exist if this referendum never took place ?

I'm sorry if you're under the impression that something has been avoided, because as far as I'm concerned I've just addressed that point. (I'd give a direct answer again, only I'm not encouraging multiple posters to say basically the same fecking thing as I'm getting bored typing out stuff l)

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 01-05-2015 06:09PM

seamus wrote: »

Well, no it's not. The amendment expresses a requirement that marriage may be contracted without distinction as to the gender of those involved.

How is that unattainable? Two women sign a marriage contract, bingo-bango, aspiration achieved.

They can sign a marriage contract. But it won't entail the same things as a straight couple or, indeed, as a contract between two men.

One eyed Jack · 01-05-2015 06:13PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The amendment wording expresses a pious aspiration to no distinction being made on grounds of sex. That's simply unattainable. Even with AHR, its simply not possible to have legislation without distinguishing between SSM between two women and SSM between two men.

What has reproduction got to do with whether a person meets the criteria for being able to avail of civil marriage?

I see the current position is that couples are prohibited from entering into civil marriage if they are of the same sex. I see criteria with regard to either person's capacity to reproduce.

Its perfectly normal for straight marriages to produce children without external assistance, and legislation needs to provide for that. That legislation is irrelevant to SSM - its a necessary distinction based on the sex of the parties to the marriage. Can I point out we actually had a Yes poster rejecting that banal statement. That's the degree of delusion surrounding this referendum campaign.

Your statement isn't banal. It's just purposely misleading.

You're suggesting that legislation needs to be introduced to acknowledge the fact that heterosexual parties within a marriage can reproduce with each other, and homosexual parties to a marriage cannot reproduce with each other?

Well-woop-dee-fcuking-do! Would you like a medal for that observation?

That has less to do with who is qualified to enter into marriage in accordance with law, and more to do with reproduction and guardianship legislation, which, as it happens, is addressed by the Children and Family Relationship Act.

The degree of delusion here I'm afraid is your own in that you are trying desperately to differentiate between marriage and... marriage! It is only the one civil institution and will not be referred to in legislation as "one marriage where the parties to the marriage are of the same sex", and "one marriage where the parties to the marriage are of the opposite sex".

If the referendum is defeated, Civil Partnership will remain in place for couples of the same sex, and Civil Marriage will only be an option for couples who are of the opposite sex.

smash · 01-05-2015 06:13PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

On the first point, absolutely. Legislation also needs to deal with the fact that unmarried people will conceive children together. It just never needs to deal with people of the same sex having children together.

It does. Because it's happening right now.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In terms of the relevance to marriage, there's a presumption of paternity in our law and in many other jurisdictions. So, yes, marriage law very commonly deals with the very common situation of married straight couples having children together without external assistance.

The law also deals with couples having children with external assistance.... But they don't have to be married.

marienbad · 01-05-2015 06:16PM

marienbad wrote: »

You are still not answering my question , I will try again -

1 am I correct in saying that all the concerns and issues you have outlined would still exist if this referendum never took place ?

So GCU Flexible Demeanour, can you answer my question please ?

frostyjacks · 01-05-2015 06:23PM

smash wrote: »

It does. Because it's happening right now.

The law also deals with couples having children with external assistance.... But they don't have to be married.

Same sex couples aren't having children together. This is impossible, AFAIK. Only heterosexuals can procreate. I know that really annoys the yes camp, but they need to get that chip off their shoulder

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 01-05-2015 06:23PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You're still not explaining why any distinction, if necessary, should be on grounds of sex rather than ability to have children

Have you considered posting that on the Biology forum, assuming there is one?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What has reproduction got to do with whether a person meets the criteria for being able to avail of civil marriage?

Sure, I haven't. I've just said that what civil marriage means will depend on who is contracting it. Because of their sex.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Your statement isn't banal. It's just purposely misleading.

It's misleading to say straight married couples commonly have children together? This thread is a hoot, and you're making my point for me.

smash wrote: »

It does. Because it's happening right now.

You equivocating around the word "having". I'll clarify, and make your 'point' redundant.

It just never needs to deal with people of the same sex conceiving children together.

smash wrote: »

The law also deals with couples having children with external assistance.... But they don't have to be married.

And I'm not saying anything different to that.

marienbad wrote: »

So GCU Flexible Demeanour, can you answer my question please ?

I have.

Now, if you good people can talk among yourselves, I might take a break. Au Resevoir.

MrWalsh · 01-05-2015 06:24PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'll try again.

As I've said several times, the fact that SSM cannot generate children without external assistance is neither an argument in favour or against legislating for SSM.

As I've said several times, I'm not trying to make an argument for anyone to change their vote from whatever they've decided. I'm stating plainly how I vote to reduce (but not eliminate) the amount of "what's your angle" posts that I'd expect to receive.

What I am saying is your vote can't create uniformity where it doesn't exist.

The amendment wording expresses a pious aspiration to no distinction being made on grounds of sex. That's simply unattainable. Even with AHR, its simply not possible to have legislation without distinguishing between SSM between two women and SSM between two men.

Its perfectly normal for straight marriages to produce children without external assistance, and legislation needs to provide for that. That legislation is irrelevant to SSM - its a necessary distinction based on the sex of the parties to the marriage. Can I point out we actually had a Yes poster rejecting that banal statement. That's the degree of delusion surrounding this referendum campaign.

Parklife?

bunnyarmstrong · 01-05-2015 06:24PM

I CAN'T F***ING WAIT TO VOTE YES.

Ironé · 01-05-2015 06:26PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

You seem to be getting confused around thinking these things have to be compulsory, or something.

My point is very simple, and very clear. If you see nothing wrong with the statement "It is perfectly normal for straight married couples to have children without external assistance, and to date the law reflects this", then you've no need to post at all.

That statement doesn't mean anyone else is especially required or excluded from having children - although obviously same sex couples can't without external assistance.

If I've an alterior motive in this, its in pointing out how uncomfortable people seem with such a banal statement.

I'm giving you one question ok - keeping it simple for you as you requested:

How does the referendum have any impact on the above?

Are you capable of showing that clearly without deflecting, using passive agressive insults (trying to imply I am not able to think clearly), or changing the subject?

RobertKK · 01-05-2015 06:27PM

https://twitter.com/thejournal_ie/status/594182012140826625

Ironé · 01-05-2015 06:32PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Have you considered posting that on the Biology forum, assuming there is one?Sure, I haven't. I've just said that what civil marriage means will depend on who is contracting it. Because of their sex.It's misleading to say straight married couples commonly have children together? This thread is a hoot, and you're making my point for me.You equivocating around the word "having". I'll clarify, and make your 'point' redundant.

It just never needs to deal with people of the same sex conceiving children together.And I'm not saying anything different to that.I have.

Now, if you good people can talk among yourselves, I might take a break. Au Resevoir.

So in a nutshell you feel that your 'statement' that it is normal for a married straight couple to have kids naturally somehow explains why he is voting no for a referendum allowing same sex couples to get married??? Incoherent rambling nonsense.

Still waiting for a logical argument from the No side.

Take a break by all means, I think you need it.

One eyed Jack · 01-05-2015 06:34PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Same sex couples aren't having children together. This is impossible, AFAIK. Only heterosexuals can procreate. I know that really annoys the yes camp, but they need to get that chip off their shoulder

What is actually annoying for me personally, and I don't speak on behalf of any yes camp or anyone else, but what is annoying is that despite people's numerous efforts now to help you understand that this referendum is not about people's reproductive rights, you still persist with that same line of argument.

This referendum is about removing one of the discriminatory criteria from the rules which determine who is, or indeed isn't allowed to enter into marriage, on the basis of their sex.

aloyisious · 01-05-2015 06:37PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'll try again.

As I've said several times, the fact that SSM cannot generate children without external assistance is neither an argument in favour or against legislating for SSM.

As I've said several times, I'm not trying to make an argument for anyone to change their vote from whatever they've decided. I'm stating plainly how I vote to reduce (but not eliminate) the amount of "what's your angle" posts that I'd expect to receive.

What I am saying is your vote can't create uniformity where it doesn't exist.

The amendment wording expresses a pious aspiration to no distinction being made on grounds of sex. That's simply unattainable. Even with AHR, its simply not possible to have legislation without distinguishing between SSM between two women and SSM between two men.

Its perfectly normal for straight marriages to produce children without external assistance, and legislation needs to provide for that. That legislation is irrelevant to SSM - its a necessary distinction based on the sex of the parties to the marriage. Can I point out we actually had a Yes poster rejecting that banal statement. That's the degree of delusion surrounding this referendum campaign.

I'm posting this in relation to parts in para's 1 & 4 above to learn more about them, not to enter into a debate on them.

1. re "is neither an argument in favour or against legislating for SSM" I haven't seen anyone from the YES side proposing legislative action on those grounds, where-as the NO side have included the generation (or procreation) of children in their argument against SSM. Is there somewhere i can find a YES argument for such legislation?

2. re "Its perfectly normal for straight marriages to produce children without external assistance, and legislation needs to provide for that". why do you think that such legislation is needed?

marienbad · 01-05-2015 06:41PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

.I have.

Now, if you good people can talk among yourselves, I might take a break. Au Resevoir.

Well if you have I don't see it , so can I ask once again and a straight yes or no will suffice

Will the concerns you have expressed still exist irrespective of this referendum ?

Just a straight answer please before you cut and run .

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

Comments