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

gravehold · 08-05-2015 10:00AM

seamus wrote: »

Whichever way the vote goes, the next government can revert the adoption laws easily.

Voting no or yes does not affect adoption.

They cannot give preference to mrried couples if there is gay married couples

Ave Sodalis · 08-05-2015 10:02AM

gravehold wrote: »

They cannot give preference to mrried couples if there is gay married couples

A gay married couple is a married couple...

Honestly, even if the vote doesn't pass and they manage to revert the Children and Family Relationship Bill, you do know they won't be dragging kids off same sex couples? That they will continue to have children, same as they did before last month?

SpaceTime · 08-05-2015 10:03AM

I'm just wondering when they're going to attempt to link Gay Marriage to an increase in water charges.

gravehold · 08-05-2015 10:03AM

sup_dude wrote: »

A gay married couple is a married couple...

Honestly, even if the vote doesn't pass and they manage to revert the Children and Family Relationship Bill, you do know they won't be dragging kids off same sex couples? That they will continue to have children, same as they did before last month?

Yes but it will stop gay adoption like the no side wants. So they have a point in saying vote no to help the kids

kunst nugget · 08-05-2015 10:05AM

SpaceTime wrote: »

I'm just wondering when they're going to attempt to link Gay Marriage to an increase in water charges.

I'm not paying my Irish Water bill until they take fluoride out of the water because it's turning kids gay.

Ave Sodalis · 08-05-2015 10:07AM

gravehold wrote: »

Yes but it will stop gay adoption like the no side wants. So they have a point in saying vote no to help the kids

No it won't. Gay people have been adopting since before the Children and Family Relationship Bill.

And "help" the kids implies that a gay couple is doing harm to children which is completely untrue anyway.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 08-05-2015 10:07AM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The yes side is not campaigning for the recognition of polygamy if that is what you mean

That's not what I mean.

smash wrote: »

But it's not. I've asked for just one valid reason to vote no. Just one reason to show how a yes vote will damage society in any way or damage marriage in any way. So far there's been none.

But, sure, it's the other way around. There needs to be a positive reason for voting yes. What's the protection that's being sought?

(I'm not going back over 'woman', but can we take it as read that I see scope for potential problems that I've seen no substantive answers to. I'd repeat, when you consider that the Irish wording needed to be quickly changed because an English journalist pointed out it was wrong, I find it hard to have confidence that the Law Society or anyone else is actually giving this thing the kind of scrutiny it needs.)

Looking at the actual material differences between marriage and civil partnership, it seems to be around the difference between "shared home" and "family home". However, if the pivotal issue was giving families protection for their shelter, we'd surely ask why this is best achieved by SSM - when folk who actually have a problem with getting legal protection for their homes are people who rent.

As we've seen in recent years, compulsory repossession of owner occupied dwellings are rare as hen's teeth. On the other hand, as I understand it rented "family homes" don't have any particular protection.

Now, I can anticipate the response to that. All I can say is I won't vote for a measure that's pointless. I'm sure a constitutional amendment that says flowers are pretty would be pretty harmless. I can't think of a specific reason for voting against the notion that flowers are pretty. I wouldn't vote for such an amendment in a fit, because its a waste of time and solves no problem.

(Here, he's having a go at the flowers now)

eviltwin · 08-05-2015 10:08AM

gravehold wrote: »

Yes but it will stop gay adoption like the no side wants. So they have a point in saying vote no to help the kids

To read this stuff you'd think adoption was common. Non family adoptions are almost nil in this country. Hardly anyone adopts. You have nothing to worry about.

floggg · 08-05-2015 10:08AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Yes, the Supreme Court has considered the definition of marriage, which you acknowledge

Yes, the Supreme Court has not considered the definition of marriage and whether, now, it would include same sex couples, which I had in fact earlier ackowledged.

What you fail to note (whether intentionally or not) is the fact that I said that the Supreme Court had considered previously that marriage = man + woman only, and, because of that precedent (which can always be changed) and it's new found reluctance (well since the 1990's) to over step their powers (my comment on Haridan and Separation of powers) , I am of the view that nothing would have changed. The fact that the ECHR didn't bite either would encourage the current crop of Supreme Court Judges. It was after all, the judgments (in the area of Constitutional Interpretation, when dealing with the valid argument by Zappone about the Constitution being ready with modern values) of some of the then Supreme Court Judges, that were cited by the High Court to support her judgment to refuse to interpret the Constitution to include gays as part of "marriage" (Hardiman in 2001-2005 wrote extensively on Constitutional interpretation and Separation of Powers)

I said the parties of the High Court case, clearly were not too optimistic of their chances of directly appealing the original judgment . If they were, they would have appealed (and, to be fair,some of the High Court judgment is questionable) without the need to amend the their papers/issue a new case. The original High Court Case , was afterall, in or around 2006ish, surely, even after a few years, the Supreme Court case would have concluded before 2012. Thats a few years before 2014 or even 2015

I also pointed out that it would be likely that the Supreme Court would try to dodge a bullet and suggest letting the legislators, and ultimately , the people (via Referendum) decide

Weren't they denied the right to amend their original case ?

http://www.thejournal.ie/gilligan-and-zappone-vow-to-continue-with-supreme-court-appeal-261350-Oct2011/

The SC accepted the common law definition without considering the same sex issue because it was never asked the question.If and when it is asked the question (unlikely now) it would then be necessary to reconsider the issue from a different angle which may we produce different results.

The old case will be persausive, but it will not be bound by it as it did not consider the issue.

The constitution is also a living document - something referenced in the high court case.

Indeed the HC indicated its decision may have been different if more countries had allowed for same sex marriage. At that time there were only 6 or 7. Now we are up to circa 20 - including most of the common law systems usually cited by the irish courts including NZ, Canada, UK and Scotland, South Africa and most of the US (which soon may be all of it).

So I would be fairly confident that the SC would at least find same sex marriage compatible with the Constitution, if not constitutionally required.

And I never failed to acknowledge the previous cases (they were referred to in posts I'm sure I quoted). I just (accurately) pointed out that they had never considered this issue. Which made you choke on your sandwich even though you agreed with me.

And I believe they were going back to the HC after that SC ruling to start the process over as the SC denied them the opportunity to add arguments to the appeal.

If I recall correctly the original question is pretty narrow and applied to Revenue recognition only, rather than any wider question.

BizzyC · 08-05-2015 10:09AM

gravehold wrote: »

Yes but it will stop gay adoption like the no side wants. So they have a point in saying vote no to help the kids

No it wont.
Before the bill it was legal for a gay person to adopt, but that persons partner had no legal rights as a parent even if they had a civil union.
The bill allows both to have rights as parents.

So even if the no side wins, adoption by gay couples is still legal.
Even if they then move on then and roll back the bill, adoption by a gay person will still be legal.

gravehold · 08-05-2015 10:10AM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Even if your assertion were true, they still wouldn't have a point as there is no evidence being raised by gay people harms children.

There is peer reviewed studies that say otherwise and I know there are some that say there is no harm done. Not enough has been done to prove either side.

But if we see a upturn of abuse with the new childrens act from adoption with a no vote they can easily revert it and protect the kids and yes makes it so they can't

Zubeneschamali · 08-05-2015 10:11AM

aloyisious wrote: »

It seem's to me that GCU Flexible Demeanour believes that ...

I wouldn't take anything the GCU writes as evidence of what he believes - he is just stirring it:

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

For whatever reason, I find I'm trying to remember who it was that said an argument can be made for and against any contention, including the contention that an argument can be made for and against any contention.

gravehold · 08-05-2015 10:11AM

BizzyC wrote: »

No it wont.
Before the bill it was legal for a gay person to adopt, but that persons partner had no legal rights as a parent even if they had a civil union.
The bill allows both to have rights as parents.

So even if the no side wins, adoption by gay couples is still legal.
Even if they then move on then and roll back the bill, adoption by a gay person will still be legal.

They don't get preference a married couple does.

Hermy · 08-05-2015 10:13AM

gravehold wrote: »

Yes but it will stop gay adoption like the no side wants. So they have a point in saying vote no to help the kids

Can you explain this please cause I don't understand it?

Ave Sodalis · 08-05-2015 10:13AM

gravehold wrote: »

There is peer reviewed studies that say otherwise and I know there are some that say there is no harm done. Not enough has been done to prove either side.

But if we see a upturn of abuse with the new childrens act from adoption with a no vote they can easily revert it and protect the kids and yes makes it so they can't

Again, peer reviewed means very little! No study is the same and no study holds the same weight. This has been gone over. We need a drop down menu of responses at this stage, saves us typing it out over and over. There's plenty of credible studies to say it does no harm.

For a Yes voter, you have an awfully narrowminded view of gay people... Or is this you playing "devils advocate again"?

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 08-05-2015 10:13AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I wouldn't take anything the GCU writes as evidence of what he believes - he is just stirring it.

I'm not just stirring it. I do think that people needed to be challenged on how they decide to vote.

Ave Sodalis · 08-05-2015 10:14AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm not just stirring it. I do think that people needed to be challenged on how they decide to vote.

There's a difference between challenging and rambling...

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 08-05-2015 10:16AM

sup_dude wrote: »

There's a difference between challenging and rambling...

No worries, I'm a Buddhist. I don't expect to be thanked for helping others.

smash · 08-05-2015 10:16AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm not just stirring it. I do think that people needed to be challenged on how they decide to vote.

Funny isn't it that when you challenge the No side you're disregarded and called a Bully.

Bannasidhe · 08-05-2015 10:16AM

Can someone please explain to me what, exactly, the No side think will happen to children raised by same-sex couples?

No waffle about 'ideal' or 'natural' or any of that.

Just - in plain English - what specific harm will children come to if they are raised by a same-sex couple that they could not also suffer if raised by a married heterosexual couple. ?

Ave Sodalis · 08-05-2015 10:18AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No worries, I'm a Buddhist. I don't expect to be thanked for helping others.

Buddhism accepts others too, funny that.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 08-05-2015 10:18AM

smash wrote: »

Funny isn't it that when you challenge the No side you're disregarded and called a Bully.

In fairness, that might be when you all gang up and bully someone?

bb1234567 · 08-05-2015 10:20AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Can someone please explain to me what, exactly, the No side think will happen to children raised by same-sex couples?

No waffle about 'ideal' or 'natural' or any of that.

Just - in plain English - what specific harm will children come to if they are raised by a same-sex couple that they could not also suffer if raised by a married heterosexual couple. ?

Their main argument seems to be that the child will face undue amounts of bullying in their adolescent years due to having parents who are different. Personally I don't think that argument holds much water unless you live in an absolute kip, and the thing I find funniest is it'll probably be the children of those who so fiercely oppose SSM and adoption that will be doing any of this bullying they are warning about.

gravehold · 08-05-2015 10:21AM

sup_dude wrote: »

Again, peer reviewed means very little! No study is the same and no study holds the same weight. This has been gone over. We need a drop down menu of responses at this stage, saves us typing it out over and over. There's plenty of credible studies to say it does no harm.

For a Yes voter, you have an awfully narrowminded view of gay people... Or is this you playing "devils advocate again"?

Hence why easily changable if abuse does go up is a good thing a yes make easily changeable hard.

Pointing out way a yes vote can effect adoption when one side says it won't do anything to adoption. Long term ramifications need to be taken into account when changing the constitution.

smash · 08-05-2015 10:21AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In fairness, that might be when you all gang up and bully someone?

The no side have one argument and it revolves around children. It's a non argument and it's not what's being voted on so of course when someone rambles about it they're going to receive attention. This is not bullying.

endacl · 08-05-2015 10:22AM

Right folks. I've been doing some thinking. I've had a couple of revelations that the No team have surprisingly overlooked.

1. Puppies. What happens to the puppies in a so called gay 'couple' divorce. As a couple, it could be argued that they would share ownership in any puppies either party brought to the relationship. There is a very real danger that a court would be in the constitutionally bound position of having to order the puppies of said relationship be either put down, or cloned, so each partner could have one identical puppy. As we all know, cloning is evil and very much against church teaching. So that's reason one.

2. I haven't fully formed reason number two, and would appreciate some help with this one. Something to do with 'I don't have a problem with them, but why do they have to force it down our throats?'. Obviously, we can't have a situation where the ramming down of throats would have a constitutional protection. Where would it end? They be shoving it up our noses and poking it in our ears next. Slippery Slope, folks...

Iona, Waters et al seem to have missed these valid and compelling reasons to vote no. Anybody have an email for them? I'm sure they'd be delighted to hear somebody had finally come up with logical, rational reasons with which to convince an obviously misguided electorate.

eviltwin · 08-05-2015 10:22AM

gravehold wrote: »

Hence why easily changable if abuse does go up is a good thing a yes make easily changeable hard.

Pointing out way a yes vote can effect adoption when one side says it won't do anything to adoption. Long term ramifications need to be taken into account when changing the constitution.

What's the long term ramifications ?

smash · 08-05-2015 10:22AM

gravehold wrote: »

Hence why easily changable if abuse does go up is a good thing a yes make easily changeable hard.

That's your argument? Seriously?

Ave Sodalis · 08-05-2015 10:23AM

gravehold wrote: »

Hence why easily changable if abuse does go up is a good thing a yes make easily changeable hard.

Pointing out way a yes vote can effect adoption when one side says it won't do anything to adoption. Long term ramifications need to be taken into account when changing the constitution.

Hence what? You haven't drawn a "hence" from that post. You've been told that IF the Children and Family Relationship Bill gets overturned, gay people will still adopt as they have been before last month. Abuse won't go up. There's no credible evidence to suggest it will.

Bannasidhe · 08-05-2015 10:23AM

bb1234567 wrote: »

Their main argument seems to be that the child will face undue amounts of bullying in their adolescent years due to having parents who are different. Personally I don't think that argument holds much water unless you live in an absolute kip, and the thing I find funniest is it'll probably be the children of those who so fiercely oppose SSM and adoption that will be doing any of this bullying they are warning about.

Same argument could be applied against mixed race marriages, marriages where one or both partners have an obvious disability, marriages where there is a large age difference between parents, marriages where adoptive child is obviously not same race as parents...

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

Comments