nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Same Sex Marriage Referendum Mega Thread - MOD WARNING IN FIRST POST

humanji

As the other thread has reach 10k posts, I'm setting up this second one.

This thread is about the Same Sex Marriage Referendum, so keep the discussion to this subject. Dragging the thread off topic will result in deleted posts, warnings, infractions or bans.

Also be aware that for many it's an emotive subject. As such, tempers will flare. Please make an effort to post in a civil manner.

Find more posts tagged with

congratulations ireland!

Comments

thegreatescape

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Voting no. Don't like the idea of adoption either and I think the whole argument is very selfish and never thinking of the children (the most important part of the equation) - it's all about the adult's notional "rights".

The referendum has NOTHING to do with children. It is about seeing gay couples in the same light as straight couples. The adoption bill has already passed, so if you disagree with that, take it up with the government.

This referendum is purely about extending the same rights to two people who love each other, without distinction as to their sex. That's it. Let that by what you make your decision on, not on the children.

NewCorkLad

For all the people so concerned about the children, why have you all not started a thread dealing with the separate legislation around family & children?

MrWalsh

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

They could suffer in many ways - i'd be most concerned about their peers in their personal lives. I can see many a kid getting a really hard time in this sort of family.

It's not the natural atomic family unit so I don't agree with it.

Eh, these sorts of families already exist. There will be more protections for children if SSM is voted in.

Why do you think every childrens charity in the country has come out in favour of SSM?

average_runner

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

They could suffer in many ways - i'd be most concerned about their peers in their personal lives. I can see many a kid getting a really hard time in this sort of family.

It's not the natural atomic family unit so I don't agree with it.

You do know your only stopping a gay couple and not a lesbian couple?

Lesbian couples already have kids, with the other half adopted the child.

Nothing wrong with your opinion as if we weren't allowed one, it be a boring place

jobbridge4life

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

They could suffer in many ways - i'd be most concerned about their peers in their personal lives. I can see many a kid getting a really hard time in this sort of family.

It's not the natural atomic family unit so I don't agree with it.

Then my friend why pick on LGBT families when there are countless other examples for you to have a go at.

Lt J.R. Bell

sup_dude wrote: »

http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/marriage/faqs.html

Quelle Surprise , no effort to actually show that you have actually read any of it.

I will quote one part of the site

"And yet some very important inequalities remain. For example, Civil Partnership:

does not permit children to have a legally recognised relationship with their parents - only the biological one. This causes all sorts of practical problems for hundreds of families with schools and hospitals as well as around guardianship, access and custody. In the worst case, it could mean that a child is taken away from a parent and put into care on the death of the biological parent."

Maybe context of above needs explaining but,

why one earth would the non biological parent be entitled to any legally recognised relationship to their partner's child, when the other biological parent is about?

Yeah, like the Health Service are so capable and so anxious to put take the responsibility of another child, if or when the extended family members of the deceased parent are unable or unwilling to look after the child; that most of the cases, somehow the other biological parent will refuse to play a role

So, none of these problems have been dealt with by the new act?

Next one
"does not recognise same sex couples' rights to many social supports that may be needed in hardship situations and may literally leave a loved one out in the cold."

Social Support services such as ?

Next one
"defines the home of civil partners as a "shared home", rather than a "family home" , as is the case for married couples. This has implications for the protection of dependent children living in this home and also means a lack of protection for civil partners who are deserted."

Well, you can now make that 159 and less differences, and not 160....

Maintenance,access, custody and proceedings dealing with the dissolution of the partnership shall deal with these issues. The better off partner won't be able to walk away scott free

civil partners DO have some protections similar to Section 3 of the Family Home Protection Act 1976.

The issue about "dependent children" can be easily changed without the need for marriage. It is a nonsense to say that children are the children of a gay marriage without proper legal steps being taken first (if at all, since the other parent may have a role to play) As you know, the adoption laws have just been changed since the publication.

Serious issues, of course, but all fixable

Funny most of the so called "differences", and the protestations about the issues not being about children, you would swear that there is no actual biological differences at all between SSM and hetrosexuals . You know, stuff many couples won't need to worry about

http://www.marriagequality.ie/marriageaudit/full-list
The Spread sheet, if anyone cares to look, really and truly is scrapping at the bottom of the barrell.

Of course, they have better tax advantages there, better than non married cohabitation

Many of the issues in red, in taxation, will not effect every day issues,

There is one about how only marriages can be solemnised in a religious place - your not seriously suggesting that a church must solemnise a civil partnership or gay marriage if, it opposes such a union? Surely, gays would not want to get married in a church (even if they themselves are religious , if their church said NO?) Thats another one taken from the 169 differences between marriage and civil partnership

Another one, about Criminal Evidence 1992, about the possibilities of former spouses not being compellable to give evidence..........(entry 87), eh, back in the day, spouses use to be seen as the property of the other spouse, so ...

Oh, and, if you want to dissolve your Civil Partnership, you only need to be separated for 2 years and not 4 years for marriage. Yep, another of the 169 differences between marriage and civil partnerships , the poor gay people will have problems with.

Differences in legal aid (important), all fixable without marriage . Again, all the employment and pension issues, all better than non married couples with kids

Then we go to Immigration Section. So, an immigrant will be really concerned about changing his name to that of his Civil partner ? Vanity . On a serious note, for family reunification, well, I doubt, considering the country of origin many refugee will come from, they hadn't offered civil partnership in their countries anyway.So,? What's the problem? Won't the partner also have their own right to make an application for asylum?

Now the biggest idiotic lie - Civil Partners are not some how covered by EU Directive 2004/38 EC (see Article 2 AND 3 of the Directive). Christ on a stick, such bull****. Even gay (and straight) couples who are NOT married but have cohabited for 2 or more years can fall under family members (or qualified family members) Section 2 and 3 of the Irish equivalent are not fully quoted. Lies ,anything less would be a BREACH OF EU LAW

Again, on Parent Child Relationship, much of that in red will now be sorted out, so that is definitely way less than 169 differences

Moving on to their view of "legal Procedures , and the recent 2006 Sexaul Offences Act , and the definition of a "sexual act" , in particular Section 3 of the act that makes it an offence to commit a sexual act against a person under 17 years old. Sexual act is defined :

"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."

Eh, there is only a tiny tiny tiny tiny select group ie Travellers, are permitted to marry while under 17, but, hey, I feel for the teenage gay traveller who has entered a civil partnership Somehow, I detect that there won't be too many under 18 year old gays getting hitched just yet, or even under 18 hetrosexaul people looking to marry.

Couldn't the gays not have pushed for the right to under a Civil Partnership while under 17 or 18?

NewCorkLad

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

They could suffer in many ways - i'd be most concerned about their peers in their personal lives. I can see many a kid getting a really hard time in this sort of family.

It's not the natural atomic family unit so I don't agree with it.

In that case you must agree with taking children away from single parents to protect the child?

suicide_circus

This "kids might get bullied for having gay parents" as a reason to vote no really is beyond contempt. Kids get bullied for every reason under the sun, we dont base the structure of our society around what might or might not get a kid bullied. Preposterous argument.

Kermit.de.frog

Hyzepher wrote: »

Should we not be trying to eliminate the source of the bullying rather than restricting the rights of others in case they are bullied?

That is never going to happen.

Trudiha

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

They could suffer in many ways - i'd be most concerned about their peers in their personal lives. I can see many a kid getting a really hard time in this sort of family.

It's not the natural atomic family unit so I don't agree with it.

What about that young fella who did the Ask Me Anything with the two mammies, he seemed unscarred?

Hyzepher

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That is never going to happen.

it will if adults like you accept that gay people are entitled to respect and basic human rights - and you teach this to your children.

MrWalsh

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That is never going to happen.

Exactly, so therefore it is not a reason to block SSM.

Glad youve seen sense.

Ave Sodalis

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Quelle Surprise , no effort to actually show that you have actually read any of it.

I said 160, not 169. 9 of the things relating to children (a lot of what you posted) is dealt with in the Children and Family Relationship Bill. The rest can be answered easily if you bothered going to look so I'm not gonna spend time explaining. Probably should have known, given your previous posts, that you were gonna argue with anything I posted anyway.

Trudiha

average_runner wrote: »

You do know your only stopping a gay couple and not a lesbian couple?

I don't think even that's true. I find it really difficult to believe that there's a couple of gay men in this country, with fifty grand to pay a surrogate, who've overcome all of the moral difficulties such a transaction would bring into play and the only thing that's holding them back is wanting a bit of wedding cake first.

MrWalsh

Trudiha wrote: »

I don't think even that's true. I find it really difficult to believe that there's a couple of gay men in this country, with fifty grand to pay a surrogate, who've overcome all of the moral difficulties such a transaction would bring into play and the only thing that's holding them back is wanting a bit of wedding cake first.

Why do they need a surrogate?

Its could be that one of the men has custody of his own child from a previous heterosexual encounter.

The point is, all different types of families already exist.

Trudiha

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

That is never going to happen.

You'd be amazed at how enlightened and good at parenting many straight couples are, they totally discourage their kids from bullying.

Trudiha

MrWalsh wrote: »

Why do they need a surrogate?

Its could be that one of the men has custody of his own child from a previous heterosexual encounter.

The point is, all different types of families already exist.

All true but I think it's been sufficiently demonstrated that the 'no' voters have no more than a passing interest in kids who already exist. It's the ones they make up, like those in my example and all of the non-existent adoptable ones that they are really interested in.

MrWalsh

Trudiha wrote: »

All true but I think it's been sufficiently demonstrated that the 'no' voters have no more than a passing interest in kids who already exist. It's the ones they make up, like those in my example and all of the non-existent adoptable ones that they are really interested in.

Ah, the Makey Uppys. Yes, they do attract a lot of undue attention.

Kermit.de.frog

Hyzepher wrote: »

it will if adults like you accept that gay people are entitled to respect and basic human rights - and you teach this to your children.

I accept what you say about respect but not about rights.

jobbridge4life

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I accept what you say about respect but not about rights.

So there is no confusion, you are saying that you do not agree that gay people deserve basic human rights?

Hyzepher

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I accept what you say about respect but not about rights.

So you would teach your children that guy people don't deserve the same rights as them?

What if one of your children were gay?

Lt J.R. Bell

sup_dude wrote: »

I said 160, not 169. 9 of the things relating to children (a lot of what you posted) is dealt with in the Children and Family Relationship Bill. The rest can be answered easily if you bothered going to look so I'm not gonna spend time explaining. Probably should have known, given your previous posts, that you were gonna argue with anything I posted anyway.

The vast majority of the so called differences , published by that website that you provided, are not accurate at all, especially the immigration stuff.

Many of the differences, which are important, are easily solvable without the need for marriage

As you note, since the publication of that spreed sheet , many of those differences will now be solvable in the coming months.

As, as we speak, that number, 160, has taken a bit of a hit.That is all I have said in my last post. As already stated, there is one so called difference about the Sexual Offences Act and sexual acts on under 17 years olds and how they will not apply to 17 year old if married. All I said was, well (a) why didn't they include that for the Civil Parternship, and (b) only a select few, gay or hetro get married while under 17

You make a comment , it is likely someone will have something to say. That is what a discussion or debate is about.

" The rest can be answered easily if you bothered going "
I guarantee you ,you would fail miserably, if you looked at the spread sheet.( I am not saying all the stuff on the spread sheet is nonsense by the way)

"to look so I'm not gonna spend time explaining", of course you won't because you can't and probably not sure what it's all about

Kermit.de.frog

Hyzepher wrote: »

So you would teach your children that guy people don't deserve the same rights as them?

If I had kids why would I talk to them about gay people?

What if one of your children were gay?

I'd be disappointed. But if that's the way they want to be then so be it.

jobbridge4life

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If I had kids why would I talk to them about gay people?

I'd be disappointed.

Can you answer the question I asked?

Hyzepher

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I'd be disappointed.

But would you see them as 2nd class citizens with less rights than others?

TwoShedsJackson

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

If I had kids why would I talk to them about gay people?

Because gay people exist? Or are you just planning on saying nothing about things you apparently find distasteful and hope they never find out?

Kermit.de.frog

Hyzepher wrote: »

But would you see them as 2nd class citizens with less rights than others?

No but it depends on what rights you mean. I want the right to do and have lots of things. Doesn't mean i'm going to get it.

KungPao

I will absolutely vote NO. It is an insult to God...this is a Catholic country after all... and a yes vote would be unfair on our childerens. Two gays should not be rearing kids.

Just joking. Don't be an arse. Vote yes!

Ave Sodalis

Lt J.R. Bell, there's no point in engaging with you if you're already assuming I haven't read or researched anything (something you threw about a lot in the last thread to other posters) and make petty insults towards my intelligence. Ordinarily, I'd have no problem discussing the content of that spreadsheet but not if I'm met with that type of condescending, presumption attitude.

jobbridge4life

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

No but it depends on what rights you mean. I want the right to do and have lots of things. Doesn't mean i'm going to get it.

What did you mean when you said you disagreed about rights? Can you answer the question please. This is the third time.