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

gravehold · 09-05-2015 04:41PM

sup_dude wrote: »

The Constitution requires a referendum. Then it's changed. It's not that difficult.

Hipope you don't regret those words on the 22nd

Jimoslimos · 09-05-2015 04:41PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not discrimination against a whole set of consenting adults any more than it discriminates against 12 year olds on the grounds of their age.

Careful now, that similar argument has been used by the No side.

My whole point is that marriage is by its very nature, discriminatory. It affords two people greater rights (including tax breaks) that are not available to singles or groups of more than two persons.

All I'd like to see from many in here is a little realism. Voting yes for SSM is good but tone down the hyperbole about this being the defining moment of our generation.

Ave Sodalis · 09-05-2015 04:45PM

gravehold wrote: »

Hipope you don't regret those words on the 22nd

Odd, I thought you were going on about how it's a democracy and yet when it suits, a referendum is suddenly not that great?
A referendum is easy. Whether it passes or not will have nothing to do with the wording of this referendum.
I suppose though, if there was a polygamy referendum, you'd throw everything you've wrote here out the window and campaign for a No vote then too.

LookingFor · 09-05-2015 04:45PM

gravehold wrote: »

Legislation is easy to change, the constitution not, no point adding discrimination into the constitution and call it equality

In the issue of marriage you can't change legislation easily without constitutional change. It is too vulnerable to challenge. That's why we're having this referendum, to safe guard a desired legislative change.

A polygamy law, pre-amendment, would not have survived a challenge IMO. The amendment is not going to make a practical difference to the legislative appetite for polygamy. Like SSM I think it would need a safeguarding amendment, whether the current amendment was there or not.

If you are truly looking for legalisation of polygamy, a no vote would probably have unintended consequences. You might keep an explicit clause re. numbers in a marriage out of the constitution, but no one would touch marriage law or Article 41 again for at least ten years. If I was sincerely in a boat waiting for polygamy legislation, a No vote would be a big set back.

However, based on your other posts, I think this is more a matter of contrarianism for you rather than support for polygamy. Which is fine. I think contrarianism for contrarianism's own sake is of limited value though.

gravehold · 09-05-2015 04:46PM

sup_dude wrote: »

Odd, I thought you were going on about how it's a democracy and yet when it suits, a referendum is suddenly not that great?
A referendum is easy. Whether it passes or not will have nothing to do with the wording of this referendum.
I suppose though, if there was a polygamy referendum, you'd throw everything you've wrote here out the window and campaign for a No vote then too.

If it was in the majority and pickingmon the no side yes

evo2000 · 09-05-2015 04:48PM

Why would anyone give a **** about ssm? i mean how like ? i wouldnt give a **** if two penguins wanted to go get married in the morning it would make no impact on my life what so ever, it seems people are desperate these days just to take offense to something.

The parenting stick the No party use aswell is probably the dumbest thing ive see essentially saying that if 2 gay people raise a child = child being gay, id love to know they explain straight couples having gay kids?

Ave Sodalis · 09-05-2015 04:49PM

gravehold wrote: »

If it was in the majority and pickingmon the no side yes

You keep saying this. Yet in the other thread you spent the first few pages telling people that they'll be bullied and called a homophobe if they say they have a problem with any part of the referendum... and then spend the next few calling people homophobes.

Honestly, the most I've seen about bullying and picking on and being called homophobes is random people from the No side.

gravehold · 09-05-2015 04:50PM

sup_dude wrote: »

You keep saying this. Yet in the other thread you spent the first few pages telling people that they'll be bullied and called a homophobe if they say they have a problem with any part of the referendum... and then spend the next few calling people homophobes.

Honestly, the most I've seen about bullying and picking on and being called homophobes is random people from the No side.

That was a vote no thread so took the yes side in the debate

traprunner · 09-05-2015 04:51PM

Nice one gravehold. Did you ignore my post because it highlighted your hypocrisy?

Ave Sodalis · 09-05-2015 04:52PM

gravehold wrote: »

That was a vote no thread so took the yes side in the debate

What I'm saying is that you're being the very thing you're complaining about... and then still complain about it. Nobody else was calling random people homophobes. The OP of that thread was a very obvious troll. And you're being a hypocrite, and you call us a hypocrite...

gravehold · 09-05-2015 04:53PM

traprunner wrote: »

All the more reason to add this equality to it. Any future government could remove legislation permitting SSM unless it's enshrined in the constitution therefore re-adding this equality.

traprunner wrote: »

Nice one gravehold. Did you ignore my post because it highlighted your hypocrisy?

I have always said you need constitunal protection of marriage otherwise the next goverment can remove cp and stop allowing gay to adopt.

I don't like you are calling yes ssm yes equality when it's not equality

upinthesky · 09-05-2015 04:54PM

so if this referendum is passed this (Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex) will be added and that's it nothing else will change unless there is a new referendum to do? so?

gravehold · 09-05-2015 04:54PM

sup_dude wrote: »

What I'm saying is that you're being the very thing you're complaining about... and then still complain about it. Nobody else was calling random people homophobes. The OP of that thread was a very obvious troll. And you're being a hypocrite, and you call us a hypocrite...

Yes it was an obvious false flag troll thread, I took the opposite of the op no one in that thread was serious it was joke thread

traprunner · 09-05-2015 04:55PM

gravehold wrote: »

I have always said you need constitunal protection of marriage otherwise the next goverment can remove cp and stop allowing gay to adopt.

I don't like you are calling yes ssm yes equality when it's not equality

Sorry I'm still trying to figure out how I'll magically turn gay when I vote yes. Please explain it to me.

Does it create an equal playing field for Gay people? Yes. Therefore its equality. The same rule applies to all.

gravehold · 09-05-2015 04:56PM

lisar816 wrote: »

so if this referendum is passed this (Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex) will be added and that's it nothing else will change unless there is a new referendum to do? so?

Read up sites outside of boards talk to both side, this site is yes central you will never get an unbiased answer here

gravehold · 09-05-2015 04:57PM

traprunner wrote: »

Sorry I'm still trying to figure out how I'll magically turn gay when I vote yes. Please explain it to me.

Does it create an equal playing field for Gay people? Yes. Therefore its equality. The same rule apoes to all.

You won't turn gay if you vote yes, you need to have sex with exclusively men for that

traprunner · 09-05-2015 05:00PM

gravehold wrote: »

You won't turn gay if you vote yes, you need to have sex with exclusively men for that

But you said that only 'the gays' will be voting yes.

Bannasidhe · 09-05-2015 05:01PM

lisar816 wrote: »

so if this referendum is passed this (Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex) will be added and that's it nothing else will change unless there is a new referendum to do? so?

Nothing in the Constitution will change but a new section will be added.

Legislation dealing with marriage will be amended to include same sex couples.

If the age change for President is a yes, then the relevant section will be changed - nothing else. Legislation will be amended.

upinthesky · 09-05-2015 05:07PM

This is what they are proposing to change, basically swapping wife with spouse if the bill is passed.

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/General%20Scheme%20of%20the%20Marriage%20Bill%202015.pdf/Files/General%20Scheme%20of%20the%20Marriage%20Bill%202015.pdf

Vivisectus · 09-05-2015 05:07PM

gravehold wrote: »

Are you gay voting yes, then you are one of the gays adding discrimination into the constitution.

No, what you are doing is changing the wording of the constitution, in a way that may, should decriminalization of polygamy ever follow, require further updating should we decide that excluding people who would like to engage in polygamous marriages is no longer acceptable. If enough people want to di that, we can have that debate. I am not aware of any group campaigning for it at the moment. So all in all, we are removing one piece of discrimination from our legal system as a whole. It could be argued that it would be better to leave none in at all, sure. But that is no reason not to improve matters now by removing the discrimination against gay people right now.

And let's face it: the constitution already has plenty of discrimination in it. Just the article we are proposing to change is rife with sexism. That is because it is a pretty old document, and one that needs a touch-up now and then to keep it up to date. That is the great thing about a living constitution.

evo2000 · 09-05-2015 05:09PM

traprunner wrote: »

But you said that only 'the gays' will be voting yes.

Anyone with a brain will be voting yes because saying no is just dumb and achieves nothing but making ireland look like a stone age backward country, the reasons for saying no are dumb,

Like the arguements against it are purely out of fear of change..

Kids being gay because of being raised by a gay couple? what about gay kids raised by straight couples?

No because it cheapens marriage? i dont see how it does, if anything the amount of divorces these days cheapens it!

No because you dont like it, thats just homophobic and they are going to gay people with or without marriage so ur still achieving nothing by saying no.

let people do what makes them happy and go about your own business.

Jimoslimos · 09-05-2015 05:16PM

Vivisectus wrote: »

No, what you are doing is changing the wording of the constitution, in a way that may, should decriminalization of polygamy ever follow, require further updating should we decide that excluding people who would like to engage in polygamous marriages is no longer acceptable. If enough people want to di that, we can have that debate. I am not aware of any group campaigning for it at the moment. So all in all, we are removing one piece of discrimination from our legal system as a whole. It could be argued that it would be better to leave none in at all, sure. But that is no reason not to improve matters now by removing the discrimination against gay people right now.

And let's face it: the constitution already has plenty of discrimination in it. Just the article we are proposing to change is rife with sexism. That is because it is a pretty old document, and one that needs a touch-up now and then to keep it up to date. That is the great thing about a living constitution.

I agree, I just think that it is a pity that people haven't questioned exactly why marriage (of any sort) is deserving of special constitutional protection and why equality is something only available once a critical mass demands it. If there was only one polygamous group wanting to marry then that would be enough.

The wording seems to purposely exclude the possibility of polygamy being recognised at a future date, perhaps to pre-emptively counter that argument from the No side.

Vivisectus · 09-05-2015 05:28PM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I agree, I just think that it is a pity that people haven't questioned exactly why marriage (of any sort) is deserving of special constitutional protection and why equality is something only available once a critical mass demands it. If there was only one polygamous group wanting to marry then that would be enough.

The wording seems to purposely exclude the possibility of polygamy being recognised at a future date, perhaps to pre-emptively counter that argument from the No side.

I agree with you that we could indeed wonder to ourselves why we let the state give special privileges to one kind of relationship over another in the first place. But I think that is a separate discussion to this one, and not an impediment to agreeing with this amendment. After all, there is no reason not to fix this problem just because there are others out there too.

Vivisectus · 09-05-2015 05:40PM

I don't like you are calling yes ssm yes equality when it's not equality

It is marriage equality for gay people. More equal than a no-vote, which would mean continuing to exclude them.

If I change the law to say that from now on, not just blond people may vote, but brunettes also, then that is a move towards equality. Just because red-haired people are still not allowed to vote does not mean that a vote for my proposal is not a vote for equality. It just means that other proposals are possible to grant equality to even more people. And it is most certainly is no kind of argument to vote in favour of the continued exclusion of brunettes.

gormdubhgorm · 09-05-2015 05:41PM

I am stuck over which way to vote on this as I could see valid arguments on both sides.So much so that I am honestly thinking of not voting for the first time in my life. I don't feel like it is my fight either way and I feel like I am intruding on both the yes and no sides "battle".
Then I saw a huge pink advert draped on liberty hall saying "make grá the law"from the students union crowd.

I thought to myself these type of stupid phrases will only make people vote no!
I am still undecided but if I see any more stupid phrases it will make me vote the opposite of which way the advert intended.

B_Wayne · 09-05-2015 05:43PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I am stuck over which way to vote on this as I could see valid arguments on both sides.So much so that I am honestly thinking of not voting for the first time in my life. I don't feel like it is my fight either way and I feel like I am intruding on both the yes and no sides "battle".
Then I saw a huge pink advert draped on liberty hall saying "make grá the law"from the students union crowd.

I thought to myself these type of stupid phrases will only make people vote no!
I am still undecided but if I see any more stupid phrases it will make me vote the opposite of which way the advert intended.

"Mothers and Fathers Matter". "Surrogacy"......And your big concern is the rather innocuous 'make grá the law'? Why not watch a discussion on the subject or read up on it rather than using phrases on posters as your entire basis....

Vivisectus · 09-05-2015 05:47PM

Gorm, what valid no argument have you seen?

traprunner · 09-05-2015 05:47PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I thought to myself these type of stupid phrases will only make people vote no!
I am still undecided but if I see any more stupid phrases it will make me vote the opposite of which way the advert intended.

You'll be swinging more often than a pendulum then.

It's simple to me. I'm straight and married. I have no gay friends or relatives (that I know of). I have no kids. However who am I to deny the same rights as I have to any possible future children I have, or their kids, or my nieces or nephews?

Vivisectus · 09-05-2015 05:51PM

B_Wayne wrote: »

Mothers and Fathers Matter. Surrogacy....... Why not watch a discussion on the subject or read up on it rather than using phrases on posters as your entire basis....

What do mothers and fathers and surrogacy have to do with marriage equality? Single people of all sexual preferences can already avail of surrogacy, IVF, adoption...

Or are you just against gay people availing of those services?

B_Wayne · 09-05-2015 05:54PM

Vivisectus wrote: »

What do mothers and fathers and surrogacy have to do with marriage equality? Single people of all sexual preferences can already avail of surrogacy, IVF, adoption...

Or are you just against gay people availing of those services?

Should have thrown that in quotation marks, I was referring to the absurdly silly phrases on posters.

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

Comments