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

smash · 07-05-2015 10:45AM

gravehold wrote: »

Hence posters show have YES SSM not YES EQUAILTY, the yes posters are being dishonest.

This referendum is about couples, so they're not being dishonest. Dishonesty is bringing children into the picture and using it as a tool to deny a couple a right.

Your argument is as relevant as suggesting that the age of the presidential candidate vote should consider that dogs and cats age differently to humans.

Maximus Alexander · 07-05-2015 10:45AM

gravehold wrote: »

Is that equality for all adults in a referendum about marriage. I think not you are discriminating against some cause you don't like their lifestyle.

I find it really interesting that logic and equivalence utterly defeat your comprehension.

It's really simple. Currently:

Adults of one sexuality can marry one other adult of the same sexuality, with the exception of close relatives.
Adults of other sexuality cannot marry one other adult of the same sexuality.
No adult can marry more than one other adult simultaneously.

This is unequal.

If the referendum passes:

All adults can marry one other adult of the same sexuality, with the exception of close relatives.
No adult can marry more than one other adult simultaneously.

This is equal.

kunst nugget · 07-05-2015 10:47AM

gravehold wrote: »

Hence posters show have YES SSM not YES EQUAILTY, the yes posters are being dishonest.

The referendum is about all people, irrespective of sexual orientation, having access to the same institution of marriage, which the state at present defines as being between two people. People aren't being discriminated in terms of polygamous marriages because it isn't available to anyone, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Stop trying to hobble the thread with this nonsense. If you feel passionate about people being denied the chance to have polygamous marriages, feel free to start a campaign to get it recognised by the state but it has nothing to do with the referendum in hand and you know it.

kunst nugget · 07-05-2015 10:48AM

floggg wrote: »

You can voluntarily sign away the rights and still be legitimately upset about how it's used.

I'm going to find it hard to have any sympathy in that instance.

gravehold · 07-05-2015 10:48AM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I find it really interesting that logic and equivalence utterly defeat your comprehension.

It's really simple. Currently:

Adults of one sexuality can marry one other adult of the same sexuality, with the exception of close relatives.
Adults of other sexuality cannot marry one other adult of the same sexuality.
No adult can marry more than one other adult simultaneously.

This is unequal.

If the referendum passes:

All adults can marry one other adult of the same sexuality, with the exception of close relatives.
No adult can marry more than one other adult simultaneously.

This is equal.

But a gay man can still marry a woman atm so he is just as equal. Sure he doesn't get to be in the marraige he wants but is equal.

Hyzepher · 07-05-2015 10:49AM

So apart from lies on posters, inaccurate facts, including children in a marriage debate and unsavory comments against gay people, what have the Romans "No Votors" ever done for us?

VinLieger · 07-05-2015 10:49AM

gravehold wrote: »

But a gay man can still marry a woman atm so he is just as equal. Sure he doesn't get to be in the marraige he wants but is equal.

That sentence there is the very definition of unequal

smash · 07-05-2015 10:50AM

gravehold wrote: »

But a gay man can still marry a woman atm so he is just as equal. Sure he doesn't get to be in the marraige he wants but is equal.

You've just completely contradicted yourself.

El Weirdo · 07-05-2015 10:50AM

gravehold wrote: »

But a gay man can still marry a woman atm so he is just as equal. Sure he doesn't get to be in the marraige he wants but is equal.

Oh, for fuck's sake.

Hyzepher · 07-05-2015 10:51AM

gravehold wrote: »

But a gay man can still marry a woman atm so he is just as equal. Sure he doesn't get to be in the marraige he wants but is equal.

I thought you were all for gay marriage?

Maximus Alexander · 07-05-2015 10:51AM

gravehold wrote: »

But a gay man can still marry a woman atm so he is just as equal. Sure he doesn't get to be in the marraige he wants but is equal.

And again it escapes you.

kylith · 07-05-2015 10:52AM

gravehold wrote: »

But a gay man can still marry a woman atm so he is just as equal. Sure he doesn't get to be in the marraige he wants but is equal.

Tell you what, you go ask those gay friends of yours what's wrong with that statement.

smash · 07-05-2015 10:53AM

gravehold wrote: »

But a gay man can still marry a woman atm so he is just as equal. Sure he doesn't get to be in the marraige he wants but is equal.

I have to come back to this... This completely contradictory point coming from a trans-gender member of society is just mind boggling to me. It's like people saying to you "Your body might not be what you want and your birth cert might not say what you want, but you're human so just deal it."

floggg · 07-05-2015 10:53AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Ah, the famous "160 differences" spam list. Including such material infringements of human rights as:

"Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 15 1, 3 (1) A "sexual act", unless rape, aggravated sexual assault, with a person under the age of 17 is an offence, except when the parties to the Act are married."

The unpedantic among us might notice that the minimum age for marriage in Ireland is 18, unless people get a dispensation by the Courts. To give a picture of that, only 11 people aged under 17 got married in 2013.

Most of us would say that's 11 too many. The main point is it's not a material problem. If we were going to address it, we'd be more likely eliminating the capacity of the Courts to grant an exemption to anyone to marry under the age of 17, instead of widening the scope.

A sensible, useful, analysis of remaining differences is here:
http://fergryan.blogspot.ie/2015/04/civil-partnership-v-marriage-some.html
But, sure, "equal" in the sense of uniformity (which is how you seem to be using it there) is a nonsense, too. The Constitutional right of married couples to import contraceptives for their own use is simply irrelevant to SSM. So's the concept of presumption of paternity. Plus, Article 41 will retain all the gender-based wording about the essential role of 'woman' in the family. (You'll recall, 'family' and 'marriage' mean the same thing in the Constitution.)

It wasn't a right to import contraceptives - it was a right to narital privacy.

And married/CP'd gay couples can and do use contraceptives.

The presumption of paternity is also irrelavant in a marriage between two infertile people, two elderly people or two voluntarily childless people.

I assume you know all this but like to ignore it to pretend to have a "reasoned" position.

There is also no requirement under the constitutional wording for there to be a mother in any marriage or family. So that provision has as much relevance to gay men as it does to single dads.

Not even the no side could manufacture an issue from it.

kunst nugget · 07-05-2015 10:54AM

gravehold wrote: »

But a gay man can still marry a woman atm so he is just as equal. Sure he doesn't get to be in the marraige he wants but is equal.

Ah, the old classic Iona Institute/Ronan Mullen argument… interesting one for a Yes voter to be using.

gravehold · 07-05-2015 10:57AM

VinLieger wrote: »

That sentence there is the very definition of unequal

Hyzepher wrote: »

I thought you were all for gay marriage?

kylith wrote: »

Tell you what, you go ask those gay friends of yours what's wrong with that statement.

Yes it's unequal and discrimination just like the yes side saying to my polygamous friends they don't need to get married.

smash wrote: »

I have to come back to this... This completely contradictory point coming from a trans-gender member of society is just mind boggling to me. It's like people saying to you "Your body might not be what you want and your birth cert might not say what you want, but you're human so you're equal."

And it's perfectly their right, I can understand why people want to keep the birth cert to show the sex of the person at their birth it's a record of time. I don't complain in public if someone misgenders me that's their right they get to chose how to gender me on their beliefs I don't have to be their friend or like it but I don't get to force my opinion on them either

Maximus Alexander · 07-05-2015 10:59AM

gravehold wrote: »

Yes it's unequal and discrimination just like the yes side saying to my polygamous friends they don't need to get married.

Are the yes side saying that? I don't think the yes side are talking about polygamy at all - I think they're generally just trying to talk about the referendum that we're actually having.

gravehold · 07-05-2015 10:59AM

kunst nugget wrote: »

Ah, the old classic Iona Institute/Ronan Mullen argument… interesting one for a Yes voter to be using.

Yes people are the ones using it to deny polygamous people marriage just showing you how hypocritical that is

SpaceTime · 07-05-2015 11:00AM

My concern is the Yes side is nice and has principles!
Aspects of the No side will throw anything into the argument to see this defeated. There's a siege mentality coming across on a lot of the U.S. forums and this is bring transferred by proxy to Ireland.

The adoption and suragacy debate should be countered by continuously pointing out that the single biggest problem for adoption rights in Ireland is the legacy of Catholic adoption agencies, mother and child homes, magdalene laundries, forced and hidden adoptions etc

Yes, adoption needs modern child centric laws but it's not gay couples that have been the issue ... It's actually been the Church and religious orders who have had the most damaging impact on adoptees and biological parents in Ireland !

Also which institutions engaged in cover up of child abuse? Emmmm?

Or which organisations removed children from biological parents by force and stuck them into horrific institutions where they were basically beaten to pulp and denied anything even approaching a normal, loving, caring environment.

Perhaps the No side would like to discuss that little issue?!

Which organisations were involved in child trafficking to the U.S. in the not so distant past?
Were they LGBT couples? Or were they establishment conservatives?

The right wing religious of Ireland simply have absolutely no business whatsoever ranting and raving about child welfare!

smash · 07-05-2015 11:03AM

gravehold wrote: »

And it's perfectly their right, I can understand why people want to keep the birth cert to show the sex of the person at their birth it's a record of time. I don't complain in public if someone misgenders me that's their right they get to chose how to gender me on their beliefs I don't have to be their friend or like it but I don't get to force my opinion on them either

You're clearly a disingenuous poster just looking for an argument if you consider that your gender identity is just your opinion.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 07-05-2015 11:04AM

floggg wrote: »

It wasn't a right to import contraceptives - it was a right to narital privacy.

The right to import contraceptives is part of the right to marital privacy, yes.

floggg wrote: »

And married/CP'd gay couples can and do use contraceptives.

But not for contraception. I believe IUD's are great for getting things out from under the cushion of a sofa.

floggg wrote: »

The presumption of paternity is also irrelavant in a marriage between two infertile people, two elderly people or two voluntarily childless people.

The presumption of paternity is not irrelevant to straight marriages, just considerably less likely to be called on in certain circumstances. It clearly has relevance for a fertile couple, even if they initially state they have no intention to have children.

floggg wrote: »

There is also no requirement under the constitutional wording for there to be a mother in any marriage or family. So that provision has as much relevance to gay men as it does to single dads.

The point is more that the wording very clearly says family = marriage, and uses gender-base language that assumes "woman" is an essential part of that. To read it otherwise is to deny what's there in black and white, and will still be there in black and white after 22 May.

20Cent · 07-05-2015 11:05AM

Suspect the yes win will be a lot bigger than expected. Looking at the no side the groups are very small. Mothers and fathers matter seems to be about half a dozen, John Waters "group" is three people, Iona are small to. Its just these tiny groups are getting 50% of broadcast time for the sake of "balance". The only significant one is the RCC which is keeping its head down, them showing sudden concern for children might be counterproductive.

Hyzepher · 07-05-2015 11:06AM

How are Yes voters denying rights for Polygamous people?

gravehold · 07-05-2015 11:07AM

smash wrote: »

You're clearly a disingenuous poster just looking for an argument if you consider that your gender identity is just your opinion.

I am saying their opinion is as valid as mine. Birth cert is a record of sex at birth not record of gender, I can understand why people might think that record shouldn't be changed. We can already alter sex on every other offical current document. It's not like changing my birth cert make me a cis woman and magically all is right in the world.

Ave Sodalis · 07-05-2015 11:09AM

gravehold wrote: »

I am saying their opinion is as valid as mine. Birth cert is a record of sex at birth not record of gender, I can understand why people might think that record shouldn't be changed. We can already alter sex on every other offical current document. It's not like changing my birth cert make me a cis woman and magically all is right in the world.

What has this to do with SSM?

gravehold · 07-05-2015 11:11AM

sup_dude wrote: »

What has this to do with SSM?

Ask smash they brought it up, just replying to his questions

frostyjacks · 07-05-2015 11:12AM

Daith wrote: »

Agreed, it's not about cars or tanks but access to the same road.

We can have access to the same road, but I just like us to have separate lanes.

SpaceTime · 07-05-2015 11:12AM

20Cent wrote: »

Suspect the yes win will be a lot bigger than expected. Looking at the no side the groups are very small. Mothers and fathers matter seems to be about half a dozen, John Waters "group" is three people, Iona are small to. Its just these tiny groups are getting 50% of broadcast time for the sake of "balance". The only significant one is the RCC which is keeping its head down, them showing sudden concern for children might be counterproductive.

I'm actually not convinced that the Irish bit of RCC itself is really very strongly opposed. They're required to go through the motions of being opposed by their superiors but I honestly don't get the impression that priests on the ground are very likely to do anything other than sit on the fence. I think there's a big split of opinion going on internally.
They also know they'll risk badly alienating parishioners and cutting off income by doing so.

They seem to be adopting a "soft no" and mostly just staying out of it stance while letting Iona and others do the campaigning.

Meanwhile, the Church of Ireland seems to be moving towards a situation where I wouldn't be surprised if it became the first church here to actually offer SSM.

smash · 07-05-2015 11:13AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The point is more that the wording very clearly says family = marriage

This is true:
The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

and uses gender-base language that assumes "woman" is an essential part of that.

This is not true:

In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

These are the only gender based statements in Article 41. The article does not suggest that a woman(or man) is required for marriage or a family to be qualified, or that either gender is an essential part.

It also does not state that children are what make a family.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

To read it otherwise is to deny what's there in black and white, and will still be there in black and white after 22 May.

To read it how you read it, is to misrepresent what it says.

SpaceTime · 07-05-2015 11:17AM

smash wrote: »

This is true:
The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded

This is not true:

In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

These are the only gender based statements in Article 41. The article does not suggest that a woman(or man) is required for marriage or a family to be qualified, or that either gender is an essential part.

It also does not state that children are what make a family.

To read it how you read it, is to misrepresent what it says.

I've often wondered if that could be used to force the state to pay or nullify a debt or mortgage. If said debt forced the mother to "neglect her duties in the home"

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

Comments