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

lisar816 wrote: »

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

What's actually written on Page Nine (9) - which is a part of the bill referring to IMPEDIMENT TO MARRIAGE - in the section referring to husband and wife is as follows:... (c) in sub-sections (4)(b) and (7) of section 51 by the insertion "after husband and wife" of "spouses of each other".

The words Husband and Wife stay put in The General Scheme of Marriage Bill 2015. They are not supplanted, weakened or removed from that bill. The words refer to heterosexual couples recognized as married within the bill. The term "Spouses Of Each Other" refer's to same sex married couples and it is "inserted" behind the words Husband and Wife in the bill.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

There was no such distinction previously, if marriage is unequivocally regarded as between two persons only then why the need to specify it in the Constitution.

Maybe the Referendum Commission could see how the conservative right-wing fundamentalists would come running out of the shadows claiming that a YES vote would pave the way for polygamy and marrying animals?? The change actually ties down the meaning of marriage in a way that the constitution previously did not do i.e. marriage can only contracted by two people

B_Wayne wrote: »

"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....

i have I get that the gay community do not want to be treated like "honorary whites" in apartheid South Africa.

But the reality is that the argument that marriage is for procreation (as an ideal) is a powerful one. I also view the family unit as ones with mothers and fathers as the ideal (particularly when children are involved).

Then on the other hand I can see why most of the gay community is pushing for a yes vote from thier point of view.

What is really worrying though is that anyone who is definitely voting no is treated like an evil person at worst and an antiquated person at best. The ultra-religious slant of the no side annoy me too.

It really comes down to semantics that civil partnership is not marriage.... or is it?

lisar816 wrote: »

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

That's simply a change to legislation, not to the constitution. All constitutional changes necessitate changes to legislation in order to enact the change; there is nothing untoward about that!

It is possible that other legislative changes will be needed also, because many of our old Acts may use the terms "Husband" and "Wife", but such changes will have no impact on anybody other than the changes which are enshrined in the 2015 Referendum.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

i have I get that the gay community do not want to be treated like "honorary whites" in apartheid South Africa.

But the reality is that the argument that marriage is for procreation (as an ideal) is a powerful one. I also view the family unit as ones with mothers and fathers as the ideal (particularly when children are involved).

Then on the other hand I can see why most of the gay community is pushing for a yes vote from thier point of view.

What is really worrying though is that anyone who is definitely voting no is treated like an evil person at worst and an antiquated person at best. The ultra-religious slant of the yes side annoy me too.

It really comes down to semantics that civil partnership is not marriage.... or is it?

Civil Partnership is not marriage.

It does not have the Constitutional protection afforded to marriage.

It does not grant the Constitutional status of being recognized as a family and afforded the constitutional protections extended to a family.

The argument that marriage is for procreation may be powerful but to use that only against homosexuals but not the infertile or post menopausal is to apply different rules to homosexuals on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Ability to procreate is not a condition of marriage but the No side are trying to make it one. Therefore, logically, they should apply this criteria to all couples who wish to get married and this should be reflected in their campaign.

Imagine your family is constantly being denigrated, called a social experiment and abnormal? Would you get cross when the same people over and over and over again insist you are not to be trusted around children but never actually say why? How many times do you have to be subjected to hurtful, hateful, bile before you get to feel anger?
If a person came on here and posted untruths about your favourite soccer team over and over and over again and cried 'I'm being bullied' if you pulled them up on it would that be ok?
Now imagine it's your family they are talking about...

'Ultra- religious slant of the Yes vote' - you lost me there.

I was on the bus yesterday as it was waiting for the traffic lights on Prussia Street (Dublin) and I look out the window and see a sign on the lampost. It read: Every child deserves a mother and a father. Am sure we've all seen those signs. But couldn't help but think how other people in this world want to hold others down. It's bloody wrong like.

funny enough I just did a google search while writing this and the couple used in the picture say they are voting yes http://www.amnesty.ie/news/family-no-poster-say-yes-marriage-equality (not sure if that was mentioned previously on here)

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

i have I get that the gay community do not want to be treated like "honorary whites" in apartheid South Africa.

But the reality is that the argument that marriage is for procreation (as an ideal) is a powerful one. I also view the family unit as ones with mothers and fathers as the ideal (particularly when children are involved).

Then on the other hand I can see why most of the gay community is pushing for a yes vote from thier point of view.

What is really worrying though is that anyone who is definitely voting no is treated like an evil person at worst and an antiquated person at best. The ultra-religious slant of the yes side annoy me too.

It really comes down to semantics that civil partnership is not marriage.... or is it?

Treated like Honorary Whites - what r u talking about??

If a referendum had to be held on the abolishment of slavery, do you think people who would have been on the "No" side should not be branded as bigots and racists??

There really shouldn't have to be a referendum to recognise the rights of all families equally as I said in a previous post gay people already have families the problem that exists at the moment is that the non biological parent is not recognised as a legal guardian.

They have no rights with regard to that child (children's) welfare, if the legal guardian in that family dies the other party has no rights over that child and the child could be taken away by the state, another family member of the deceased who could be a complete stranger in that child's eyes.

(I'm straight and married, but If my partner was to die tomorrow, I certainly wouldn't want one of her estranged relatives or her 75 year old mother who hates my guts taking our children away. If we were a gay couple, at the moment she could waltz in the door take the kids, pull them out of school move them over to the other side of the world and there wouldn't be a thing I could do, She'd have lost her mum, lost the only person she could call her dad, lost all her friends and be forced to live with a 75 year old alcoholic!!

or even worse - if the state walked in and took them:
deaths-children-state-care-preventable-hse-official-report-494026-Jun2012

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

i have I get that the gay community do not want to be treated like "honorary whites" in apartheid South Africa.

But the reality is that the argument that marriage is for procreation (as an ideal) is a powerful one. I also view the family unit as ones with mothers and fathers as the ideal (particularly when children are involved).

Then on the other hand I can see why most of the gay community is pushing for a yes vote from thier point of view.

What is really worrying though is that anyone who is definitely voting no is treated like an evil person at worst and an antiquated person at best. The ultra-religious slant of the yes side annoy me too.

It really comes down to semantics that civil partnership is not marriage.... or is it?

Treated like Honorary Whites - what r u talking about??

If a referendum had to be held on the abolishment of slavery, do you think people who would have been on the "No" side should not be branded as bigots and racists??

There really shouldn't have to be a referendum to recognise the rights of all families equally as I said in a previous post gay people already have families the problem that exists at the moment is that the non biological parent is not recognised as a legal guardian.

They have no rights with regard to that child (children's) welfare, if the legal guardian in that family dies the other party has no rights over that child and the child could be taken away by the state, another family member of the deceased who could be a complete stranger in that child's eyes.

(I'm straight and married, but If my partner was to die tomorrow, I certainly wouldn't want one of her estranged relatives or her 75 year old mother who hates my guts taking our children away. If we were a gay couple, at the moment she could waltz in the door take the kids, pull them out of school move them over to the other side of the world and there wouldn't be a thing I could do, She'd have lost her mum, lost the only person she could call her dad, lost all her friends and be forced to live with a 75 year old alcoholic!!

or even worse - if the state walked in and took them:
thejournal.ie/deaths-children-state-care-preventable-hse-official-report-494026-Jun2012/

It is only natural that these people are going to try and fight for their rights!

What is awful is these organisations who try to deny others their rights - If we had to have a referendum to abolish the Penal Laws which banned Catholics rights to practise their religion Would the IONA institute and the likes be branding the "No" side of said referendum bigots and racists??

traprunner wrote: »

Nothing more needs to be said if you'd be disappointed your kids are gay. I'm straight. Not afraid to say that I would have been a homophobe when I was younger. I don't have kids but if I do I most certainly would not be disappointed in them if they were gay. I'd hate to have your miserable life.

Let's say you have an only child and he comes to you and says he is gay. Do you think that the only consequences are for him?

In this scenario I would never be a grand parent and the family line would be over. You think I would not have reason in such a situation to be disappointed or pissed off?

The whole gay rights thing has always been selfish and self centered. Never thinking of others only their own "rights". I am voting no. My mind has been made up for me.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

i have I get that the gay community do not want to be treated like "honorary whites" in apartheid South Africa.

But the reality is that the argument that marriage is for procreation (as an ideal) is a powerful one. I also view the family unit as ones with mothers and fathers as the ideal (particularly when children are involved).

You say that the argument that marriage is for procreation as an ideal is a powerful argument, but reality flies in the face of that when there are couples marrying who will never procreate, and there are couples procreating who will never marry. They aren't mutually exclusive positions.

Where children are involved, the reality is that many children do not have a mother and a father in their lives, and that is reality. The ideal you speak of just isn't a reality for some children. The referendum doesn't seek to deny children a mother and a father, it seeks to provide a way two people of the same sex to be able to enter into marriage in order to be legally recognised as a family by the State. Whether or not they choose to have children is unrelated to the referendum itself. If they choose to have children, or if they have children already, then those children are given the extra protection provided by the State through the institution of marriage.

Then on the other hand I can see why most of the gay community is pushing for a yes vote from thier point of view.

I'm not a member of any gay community and from my point of view, I can see why allowing for two people to enter into marriage without distinction as to their sex is a good thing for society as it promotes marriage in society and offers those people the opportunity to be regarded as a family by the State, and to enjoy the extra benefits that marriage entails both from a legal and social perspective.

What is really worrying though is that anyone who is definitely voting no is treated like an evil person at worst and an antiquated person at best. The ultra-religious slant of the yes side annoy me too.

Not at all. My mother is voting no and I don't think any less of her. I don't think she's evil and she's certainly not antiquated, and she is an incredibly well educated and highly intelligent woman. I'm disappointed with her decision, but I accept that is the way she feels.

Honestly though, to base your voting on who annoys you less seems a bit, well, it just doesn't make any sense to me really tbh when there are plenty people that annoy me too and I wouldn't deny a whole group something based upon the actions or words of a small handful of people I found annoying. I've met plenty people have annoyed me over the years who have been less than complimentary towards me, or don't think before they speak, or think only of themselves... but again - I'm not about to deny a whole group something on the basis of a minority of their group behaving like assholes.

Speaking of religious, I used have to listen to all sorts of sh!t being spouted about people who are religious, by people who are non-religious, but I'm not going to base my opinion of non-religious people on the behaviour of a handful of people. I'd never have married my wife if I judged all non-religious people to be assholes! They're not, I've met far more non-religious people who are fantastic people, than I've met non-religious people who spend their time giving out about religious people.

I went for lunch the other day with my wife and her mum and her brother who was back in Ireland for a visit. My brother in law is gay, lives with his boyfriend over in London, big city, and he's travelled the world, nice chap really.

The subject of the referendum came up anyway and he was like a greyhound out of a trap - "Ohh the Catholic Church this, the Catholic Church that, anyone who follows the Catholic Church nowadays is an idiot", and all the rest of it. He knows well I'm religious, but in that moment it just didn't occur to him, he was just thinking of himself.

I didn't bother to pull him up on it, because I only get to see the guy a few times a year and I like hearing about his travels and all the rest of it. I'd have felt like an awful prick tbh, would've been so unnecessary.

What I'm saying is that some people are just thoughtless, they don't think of anyone but themselves and the issues that affect them. I'm not one of those people and I'd hate to become one of those people. Someone that's so focused on their own issues that they forget that there's more to people than just labelling them with a particular label and assuming that all those people whom they identify with that particular label are automatically the same.

That kind of thinking is small minded at best, and utterly devoid of any thought at worst.

It really comes down to semantics that civil partnership is not marriage.... or is it?

It's more, so much more than just semantics. There are all sorts of social and legal implications if Civil Partnership is maintained in law and is not replaced by giving everyone the opportunity to enter into Civil Marriage.

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

In your scenario everything about the son ended as soon as he was gay

damn straight!

swampgas wrote: »

TBH it sounds like you wouldn't care at all about your hypothetical gay child, instead you would be upset about your own disappointment and about your family line. That's pretty selfish right there. Go ahead and vote no, for the outstandingly robust reason that "wah, the evil gheys will extinguish my bloodline".

How could you simply ignore the fact that your gay child, your own flesh and blood, would still be a regular human being with, you know, actual hopes, dreams and feelings, and might want one to to get married?

Oh, sorry, I forgot, this is all about you.

Same again, never changes. Never acknowledge the problems this causes for others whatever you do. Always the same. Totally selfish.