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

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

No. I think is the fact that people see a child as a more natural fit with a mother and a father.

I know there are straight parents that are bad parents but at least it gives nature a chance. Otherwise I think it's a bit off.

If I was was asked to list the hierarchy of parents (and I am been honest) I would say:

Straight married parents (more stable if married at least for a short while)

Straight parents

Gay Couple (purely because there are two people to shoulder the work)

Single parents (would be a a struggle financially and emotionally)

I will probably get slaughtered from all sides for writing that but it is what is in my head. (it might help me decided on my vote)

What did you think of what I posted earlier:

In 2004, the APA Council of Representatives adopted a policy resolution including the following statement based on a review of the best available science:
There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children (Patterson, 2000, 2004; Perrin, 2002; Tasker, 1999); See the full resolution on the Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children webpage.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

By the way...'Ok I decided to answer your question do I think that same-sex parents wll harm our children'... 'our' children?!?!?!?

I just quoted you put in the "our" I answered the question as is.

But yeah I think you hit the nail on head with horse has bolted thing. Maybe it just means I am getting old!

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Sure isn't that fairly obvious did you have a mam and dad when you were growing up?

Even if you watch the nature programmes you get the basic idea.:eek:

That's not actually an answer, but since you ask, no, I can't think of anything one parent did that the other couldn't have. Both my parents can cook, so nothing special there. My mum helped with the maths homework but my dad helped with the Irish... I figured out how to shave on my own.

I don't see why watching nature programs would be relevant, since I don't have to catch my own food.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Futile because the Referendum has no say on who gets to be a parent

So fully agree with you on that point.

It really does make the hair on my neck stand-up when I hear the No side say and/or suggest voting "No" because otherwise gay people could have children or doing it as they don't like the idea of gay people having kids.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I don't believe it is a tangent I believe it is inextricably linked see Dil Wickremasinghe of Newstalk fame.

You believing they are linked and them actually being linked are not the same thing. In the case of the referendum on May 22.. there is no link.

gravehold wrote: »

Voting no does make it easier stop them adopting kids in the future kf we get a very consertive government voted in

If's/But's and Maybe's ..

This is really simple, many Gay people or Gay couples and households already do have kids. This is never going to change.

It can be that that one is the biological parent or both the biological parent (Think about it) and I am sure some will adopt. This will continue, no matter what. Even a very conservative government as you suggest will not change it unless you plan to somehow bring us in line with nations that still stone gay people to death.

As for the No side such as the Iona Institute:
"If we change this as the government wants, two men or two women will be given the right to marry and to have children."

Do they and the no voters really think that they have any say whether or not Gay people can have kids by voting no on the Marriage referendum ? Sorry you don’t, and I'm sorry to upset you but you never will.

Should we as Irish people not be extremely suspicious of all this talk of 'ideal families', given our history? Dev's talk of comely maidens dancing at the crossroads seems laughable now, but there was always a sinister edge to it. It represented a commitment to try and create a pious and perfect 'Catholic' society, and all sorts of methods become acceptable when one has a divine mandate.

The industrial schools had a purpose. They were a blunt regulatory tool meant to shape Irish society, and they were very much premised on the notion that certain families were 'ideal' and others were not. If children found themselves in less than ideal circumstances, such as their parents being unmarried, or Protestant, but most often poor, it was the state's duty to remove them from those circumstances and place them with the religious orders, who would oversee their proper instruction. The laws allowing the state to take possession of children were extremely permissive, and poor, uneducated parents had no real defence in any case.

Tens of thousands of children were not herded into these schools as an act of stupid barbarism, but because those doing so believed it to right and even benevolent. And because a perfect society requires no reflection, adjustment, or outside influence, the rightness of all this went unquestioned.

In many quarters it still goes unquestioned. For my part, I do not see in either the Magadaline laundries or the industrial schools a benign intention gone awry. Dev's vision of comely maidens and frugal comfort required the existence of such institutions, their frequent use, and their cruelty.The whole enterprise was monstrous from the start.

I'm against gay marriage...But... I'm voting yes.

Who am I to say what's right for others that do not harm me or my family.

Every law that that passes is a freedom lost.... Think about that.

Having freedom means you have to support ideas you are against. I support all law reduction actions that do not harm civilization. Gay marriage.... Not a breakdown of society.

How do same sex partners hurt you, as citizens, and harm your family???

Perspective: I'm against same sex marriage. But, I'm voting yes. Who am I to define what's best for others??

ted1 wrote: »

Can anyone explain as to why there is an election?

The consistution currently has equality and doesn't say marriage is between male and female.

The 2004 civil partnership bill says marriage is between male and female , this could be changed over night.

The 2015 family and relationship bill looks after adoption etc and lets same sex couples adopt among other stuff.

So why the vote? Why not just change the bill?

The Zappone case where the courts refused to recognise her Canadian marriage caused the AG to suspect a referendum would be needed.

What sort of guarantee is the "equality" provisions of the 1937 Constitution given that in the Norris v. Attorney General case, the ban on homosexuality was upheld? It was the ECHR that made us remove it.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The Zappone case where the courts refused to recognise her Canadian marriage caused the AG to suspect a referendum would be needed.

And also a rederendum would make these necessary changes to law constitutional and essentially unchallengeable.

ted1 wrote: »

Can anyone explain as to why there is an election?

The Constitution currently has equality and doesn't say marriage is between male and female.

The 2004 civil partnership bill says marriage is between male and female , this could be changed over night.

The 2015 family and relationship bill looks after adoption etc and lets same sex couples adopt among other stuff.

So why the vote? Why not just change the bill?

I'd never claim to be an expert in the law, the closest I've come is a semester course in human rights law my Natalie McDonnell, but basically:

It's not just what the document itself says, it's how it's interpreted in case law. Our constitution doesn't say what marriage actually is, it just pledges to defend it against 'attack', without clarifying what form an attack might take either. This is why lawyers loathe ambiguity in documents like this: it means they'll be arguing over what exactly it means for decades, and that they'll never actually be finished either.

The upshot is that you could bring in a law that made Civil Partnerships into Marriages on the grounds that the Constitution doesn't state that a marriage is 1 man and 1 woman, and it would be challenged immediately by those against it on the basis that the original drafters of the constitution certainly meant 1 man 1 woman, as they also criminalised homosexuality, and that the preamble of the Constitution praises God and the Trinity, which means that the document is to be interpreted with a Christian ethos.

There would be no way of predicting the outcome, there would be months or possibly years of arguing, and in the meantime, thousands of people would have their civil partnerships upgraded into marriages with the very real possibility of having those rights stripped away again. If the state lost in court we'd have to have the referendum anyway, with the added bonus of everyone hammering the government for being so stupid for not having it in the first place.

I still think everyone voting on the rights of a minority is a terrible idea, but we don't really have a choice.

Cris Jones wrote: »

why is there a mod warning in first post? no need for it. everyone has to agree with the yes vote. if they don't, they will be ganged up on.

I've seen a few heated comments between the two sides, ill give you that, but that's to be expected given the topic of marriage equality and deep rooted feelings on both sides. I would however myself not yet go as far as calling it ganged up on, by either side on the thread. It's simply heavy discussion/debate on different points of views.

Do you think Paddy Power would give odds on who ****s up their kids more (per capita?) Same-sex married parents or opposite-sex married parents?

On the one hand I think gay parents have to go through a lot to win a child. There's surrogacy, adoption rules, paying lots of money, etc. which takes a lot of homework. And I think gay couples for the first few years would be more conscious of messing up. Straight couples can win a child any night of the week (most of them anyway, not the ones who have to go through adoption or surrogacy, the poor craters.) And they're really practiced at messing up children. You could say they're naturals!

But balancing that is the fact that everyone is human. And kids are thick as planks who'll mess up their own lives no matter what the parents do.