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

Mothers and fathers facebook page just blocked me from posting as I disagreed with their opinion.

Well done on allowing debate.

I will be voting Yes.

Oddly enough, I would have been voting yes, but I probably wouldn't have gotten involved. Then I saw the No posters going up around the city, and I got annoyed and curious both. So I looked into exactly what I was voting for, because I was pretty sure I hadn't seen anything about surrogacy or the rest of it.

Then I got mad. Not at the No voters, but rather at the campaign that seemed out to twist the truth, to appeal to fears and to make decent people confused and apprehensive.

I'm sure this is going to offend some, and I apologise. I have no issues with people voting No because that is their deep-held beliefs. Indeed, I admire people fighting for their beliefs.

Surrogacy is not legislated for in Ireland. This is a massive red herring to be using this as an argument. That is an entirely separate debate (and I have issues with surrogacy, and will be glad to see it discussed openly).

Same-sex couples can adopt. They can also biologically produce children from previous relationships, and these children already exist. Civil partnerships do NOT protect them as much as children are protected within marriages. Maintenance, family vs "shared home", consent forms, etc. These are all legal grey areas that could lead to kids slipping through the social nets.

Children deserve a mother and a father, is another one. Well, that's kinda insulting to the nearly 30% of kids brought up by a single parent, isn't it? The very report that Mothers and Fathers Matter used to prove this point actually included same-sex households as part of their "two-parent households"! Which rather goes against their point. They could not distinguish differences between children brought up in loving, stable heterosexual marriages versus children brought up in loving, stable, homosexual partnerships. It's "loving" and "stable" that matters.

Marriage is for procreation - Well, we don't deny people who can't reproduce marrying; elderly people, people who can't conceive, etc. We could, if we strongly believed it was for procreation only, but we're not bloody insane.

Marriage is a holy binding of a man and a woman in the eyes of God - a perfectly fair argument if you're religious. But this will NOT AFFECT religious marriages. Churches are free to marry whom they will. This is -civil- marriage, the part that makes people married in the eyes of the State, not of a god.

Should people be allowed to marry a tree? Or a dog! Or what about polygamy?
...What's that got to do with the price of fish? Or other red herrings, if it comes to that. Slippery slope fallacy. You may as well say "Why should we reduce the legal age at which one may be allowed to run for president? Next thing, toddlers will be running! And babies! And fetuses!". Sorry, but that argument is sheer nonsense, and not very honest nonsense at that.

efb wrote: »

Shame they used brand new posters that didn't have cable tie holes...

You're not serious??? I've seen a low res picture so didn't notice. You have a high res?

eviltwin wrote: »

An unmarried father doesn't lose his guardianship if the mother marries someone else.

I didn't say that

eviltwin wrote: »

You said if she marries her husband gets automatic guardianship.

He does

marienbad wrote: »

So what are you saying ? Surely you can't walk in to your former partner's home right now when ever you like and take your child ?

Of course not. I'm trying to figure out John waters point

How fun would a gay weeding be?

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

He does

Only with the permission of existing guardians and then he can adopt the child. It's all there online if you want to read it. This is just more scaremongering.

marienbad wrote: »

I don't see the connection to this referendum ?

I'm specifically talking about John waters delusions

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I see. So the New spouse can apply for guardianship. But how is this worse if we have ssm? surely things are just....equal?

Under the new Child & Family Relationships Act, a partner (not just a spouse) that meets certain criteria can apply for guardianship, but the granting of that guardianship is subject to a number of factors. Chief among them is the consent of the existing guardians.

That remains the case no matter which way the referendum goes, so Waters is just talking out his hat basically.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is there something intrinsically different about how people who are LGBT tend to their gardens or something?

I'm fairly sure it'd be no different from any other weddings I've been to, save for the bride and bride or groom and groom part

I planted a Cherry blossom tree in the garden today.
So maybe yes.

rarnes1 wrote: »

Still haven't heard a decent argument for voting No, or a person doing so. Surely someone is! Older generation I assume

I wouldn't be so quick with that assumption if I were you . Lots of yes supporters are living in an internet/college bubble .