Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…245246248250251…325

Comments

  • #7412
    batnolan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 75 ✭✭batnolan


    Yes voters are browbeating No voters and those on the fence into a Yes vote.

    I'm going to vote no.


  • #7413
    Gavster1982
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73 ✭✭Gavster1982


    Watching the late late show has got me thinking. I had no intention of voting, still don't but I have a theory and I'd like to throw it out there...

    It's my view that those campaigning for YES are using this as a stepping stone to getting the right to adopting children I.e. 2 fathers or 2 mothers. This will face a vote inside 5 years..


    What do we think?


  • #7414
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Gavster1982 wrote: »
    Watching the late late show has got me thinking. I had no intention of voting, still don't but I have a theory and I'd like to throw it out there...

    It's my view that those campaigning for YES are using this as a stepping stone to getting the right to adopting children I.e. 2 fathers or 2 mothers. This will face a vote inside 5 years..


    What do we think?

    Single gay people can already adopt. Legislation allowing gay couples to adopt will be law before the referendum is voted on and did not require a public vote. It's an entirely separate, dealt-with issue.


  • #7415
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,947 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Gavster1982 wrote: »
    Watching the late late show has got me thinking. I had no intention of voting, still don't but I have a theory and I'd like to throw it out there...

    It's my view that those campaigning for YES are using this as a stepping stone to getting the right to adopting children I.e. 2 fathers or 2 mothers. This will face a vote inside 5 years..


    What do we think?

    that right already exists (or it will in a few weeks when the president signs the bill into law).


  • #7416
    batnolan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 75 ✭✭batnolan


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    that right already exists (or it will in a few weeks when the president signs the bill into law).

    How come this didn't go to a referendum? If they signed that into law why even bother with with this marriage referendum?


  • Advertisement
  • #7417
    Gavster1982
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73 ✭✭Gavster1982


    Nodin wrote: »
    Single gay people can already adopt. Legislation allowing gay couples to adopt will be law before the referendum is voted on and did not require a public vote. It's an entirely separate, dealt-with issue.


    It's not separate...it's linked uniquely...they cannot adopt if both are gay as yet...


  • #7418
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Gavster1982 wrote: »
    It's not separate...it's linked uniquely...they cannot adopt if both are gay as yet...


    It's not linked, because gay couples will be allowed adopt whether they're allowed marry or not. One issue is entirely independent of the other.


  • #7419
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,947 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    batnolan wrote: »
    How come this didn't go to a referendum? If they signed that into law why even bother with with this marriage referendum?

    because it didnt require a change to the constitution. hence no need for a referendum


  • #7420
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    batnolan wrote: »
    How come this didn't go to a referendum? If they signed that into law why even bother with with this marriage referendum?

    There was no need.

    Because gay people can't marry and are barred from doing so by the constitution as it now reads. Changing the constitution requires a referendum.


  • #7421
    Gavster1982
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 73 ✭✭Gavster1982


    Nodin wrote: »
    It's not linked, because gay couples will be allowed adopt whether they're allowed marry or not. One issue is entirely independent of the other.

    They can apply but aren't guaranteed I would have thought....? They face the same vetting as the rest of us..


    The YES side are very good at twisting I will say that


  • Advertisement
  • #7422
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Gavster1982 wrote: »
    They can apply but aren't guaranteed I would have thought....? They face the same vetting as the rest of us..

    Yes.


  • #7423
    MightyMandarin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    If the civil partnership laws were changed so that marriage and civil partnership were the same thing logistically, but marriage as a term could only be entered by a man and woman, would people vote differently?


  • #7424
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,947 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Gavster1982 wrote: »
    They can apply but aren't guaranteed I would have thought....? They face the same vetting as the rest of us..


    The YES side are very good at twisting I will say that

    nobody is guaranteed to allow to adopt. the change means that the sex of the prospective is not taken into account when applying to adopt. The primary concern is what is best for the child.

    What is it that you think the Yes side have twisted?


  • #7425
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Gavster1982 wrote: »
    Watching the late late show has got me thinking. I had no intention of voting, still don't but I have a theory and I'd like to throw it out there...

    It's my view that those campaigning for YES are using this as a stepping stone to getting the right to adopting children I.e. 2 fathers or 2 mothers. This will face a vote inside 5 years..


    What do we think?

    WEll given how ignorant of the law you are I am glad you don't intend to vote.


  • #7426
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    batnolan wrote: »
    Yes voters are browbeating No voters and those on the fence into a Yes vote.

    I'm going to vote no.


    It is a referendum campaign what did you think was going to happen ? That is how democracy works

    ''If you're going to say what you want to say, you're going to hear what you don't want to hear.''


  • #7427
    TheChizler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,573 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    MightyMandarin wrote: »
    If the civil partnership laws were changed so that marriage and civil partnership were the same thing logistically, but marriage as a term could only be entered by a man and woman, would people vote differently?
    Well what would be the point in that? Equal yet different?


  • #7428
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    MightyMandarin wrote: »
    If the civil partnership laws were changed so that marriage and civil partnership were the same thing logistically, but marriage as a term could only be entered by a man and woman, would people vote differently?

    The Constitution defines a family as a married couple (children aren't mentioned) and grants that family (even with no children) special protection. This protection is only given where there is marriage (with or without children).

    Civil Partnership is not granted these protections and those who are civil partnered are not, according to the Constitution, a family.

    Courts must abide by what it says in the Constitution as must Government.


  • #7429
    MightyMandarin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    TheChizler wrote: »
    Well what would be the point in that? Equal yet different?

    Pretty much, but a few people I've spoken to would consider voting no if this were the case. Logistically, civil partnerships and marriages would be the same; but to say you were 'married' could only apply to heterosexual couples.


  • #7430
    cloud493
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,835 ✭✭✭✭cloud493


    Well that debate on the late late was a bit embarrassing for the no side.


  • #7431
    MightyMandarin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    The Constitution defines a family as a married couple (children aren't mentioned) and grants that family (even with no children) special protection. This protection is only given where there is marriage (with or without children).

    Civil Partnership is not granted these protections and those who are civil partnered are not, according to the Constitution, a family.

    Courts must abide by what it says in the Constitution as must Government.

    I understand the current situation, but say if this referendum was to extend the special protection to civil partnerships aswell, whilst maintaining the boundary of 'marriage' between heterosexuals, I think this current referendum would have more people voting no.


  • Advertisement
  • #7432
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    MightyMandarin wrote: »
    Pretty much, but a few people I've spoken to would consider voting no if this were the case. Logistically, civil partnerships and marriages would be the same; but to say you were 'married' could only apply to heterosexual couples.

    Let me put it this way.

    There is an election.
    Right handed people can vote but left handed people can only cast their ballot. Both are counted the same way.

    There are legal protections like guaranteed secret balloting in place for people who are voting.
    These protections are not in place for people who are casting their ballot.

    Would that be ok?


  • #7433
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    MightyMandarin wrote: »
    I understand the current situation, but say if this referendum was to extend the special protection to civil partnerships aswell, whilst maintaining the boundary of 'marriage' between heterosexuals, I think this current referendum would have more people voting no.

    That would take a referendum.


  • #7434
    MightyMandarin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    cloud493 wrote: »
    Well that debate on the late late was a bit embarrassing for the no side.

    I can't understand the gay man campaigning for Mothers and Fathers. It just baffled me that he was campaigning to discriminate against himself. I don't mean to question his character, but surely there must be some ulterior motive for his campaigning for no.


  • #7435
    MightyMandarin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Let me put it this way.

    There is an election.
    Right handed people can vote but left handed people can only cast their ballot. Both are counted the same way.

    There are legal protections like guaranteed secret balloting in place for people who are voting.
    These protections are not in place for people who are casting their ballot.

    Would that be ok?
    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    That would take a referendum.

    Yes I understand that. But if that referendum had previously passed, which would be more popular than this one imo, I think the current one would have more support for no, and maintaining the institution of marriage between heterosexuals, whilst allowing homosexuals the same protections in civil partnership.


  • #7436
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,775 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Tigger wrote: »
    it was illegal to be gay in Ireland till 93
    how silly does that sound now?

    It wasn't.
    It was illegal to have gay sex and that is what was decriminalised.


  • #7437
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Nodin wrote: »
    Single gay people can already adopt. Legislation allowing gay couples to adopt will be law before the referendum is voted on and did not require a public vote. It's an entirely separate, dealt-with issue.

    Legislation to allow gay couples to adopt is law.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #7438
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    that right already exists (or it will in a few weeks when the president signs the bill into law).

    It's already been signed.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #7439
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    MightyMandarin wrote: »
    Yes I understand that.

    Legally marriage is simply a contract. A very specific contract but still a contract.

    Why would one want to have it in the Constitution that there are two contracts that mean exactly the same thing but have different names because some people didn't want other people to use the same word for this contract as themselves?


  • #7440
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,775 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    You say that as if they aren't effectively the same thing :rolleyes:

    They aren't.

    Does every heterosexual person have sex?


  • Advertisement
  • #7441
    Whosthis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,342 ✭✭✭Whosthis


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    You say that as if they aren't effectively the same thing :rolleyes:

    They're not.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement