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

A herd all descended from one breeding pair sounds like a dreadful idea.

MrWalsh wrote: »

Dont be ridiculous, men will be referred to as husbands. The word husband is gender specific.

The traditional marriage argument makes no sense. Society evolves.

Because the same but different means that there is implicit discrimination.

What breakdown of society norms? You are just grasping at straws now. Do you think there will be a big Coming Out on May 23rd? That itll be like the zombie apocalypse or something? It wont. There are already homosexual couples all around you.

Well I remember seen a programme about a gay fella in american robbing a bank to pay for his transgender friends op. He referred to as his man as his "wife"
Incidentally the most amusing part of the proramme there was an America association called the GAA Gay Activist Association.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31457718

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_Day_Afternoon

My fundamental believe is that a family is one with a father and a mother that is what I believe by social norms. Anything else is prentending to ape this or a broken family like single parents etc. That is the bit I am struggling with and that is the bit that is making me lean towards no.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I looked at that 160 differences list thing, While there are some minor differences there are a load of similarities. Surely these can be tidied up without having to introduce marriage for same sex? Then everyone is a winner the no side the yes side the whole gambit. Give Civil Partnership the equivalency of marriage but just don't call it marriage. Simple work around job done!? :cool:

I have also belatedly realised if the referendum does not have anything to do with children (something I was repeatedly told here) why is a necessity at all that same sex couples get married since it does not involve children? In other words carrying on the family name etc Since civil partnerhip can be used for same sex couples to express their love for one another etc etc ?

Also I saw a map of the world of who has civil partnership and who has marriage are Ireland is not as backward as people on here are portraying. Germany has some sort of civil partnership like Ireland and they are supposed to be far more advanced then the likes of our little country.
Attachment not found.

Firstly, why go the effort of equalising each institution in all aspects but name, and then maintaining two separate but equal insitutions for no benefit other than some people don't want me to use the term marriage to describe my relationship?

It would be added cost and bureaucracy for no actual benefit other than for to fuel an irrational refusal to recognise the equality of the two relationship types?

More importantly, why should we refuse to recognise the equality of the two in that way? If they are equal in everything with name, why deny me the right to be recognized as equal. Why maintain an irrational and unnecessary distinction just to mark me and my relationship out as different from heterosexuals?

I don't win in those circumstances, because I am still made to feel different - for no good reason whatsoever.

It's separate but equal - which is never equal.


On your point about the necessity of marriage for same sex couples, why is it necessary for heterosexual couples to marry? Heterosexual couples may not have children at all (whether by choice or not).

They may have children outside marriage (which is increasingly the case).

A child can carry on their father's name even where their parents are unmarried. A child who's parents are married may still not necessarily take the fathers name.

Homosexual couples can and do have children (biologically from past relationships and through adoption or assisted reproduction*).

The fact of the matter is marriage isn't about children - it is an adult relationship, entered into between consenting adults who commit to loving and supporting each other. Children may or may not result from a marriage, but that doesn't mean children are its purpose.

Same sex couples need marriage for the same reasons heterosexual couples do - to have a form of relationships recognised and protected by the State which allows them to build a life together, to become each others legal family and to have their relationship and commitment recognised by the public at large.

What we also want, need and deserve is to be recognised as equally worthy, equally cherished, and equally worthy of protection. We want our State and our country to see us as equally worthy as our straight brothers and sisters. We don't want to be arbitrarily marked as different, unequal, unworthy or lesser.

Our love is equally worthy of being cherised and supported, and we want it to be so cherished and recognised.



* most cases of assisted reproduction are heterosexual

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Otherwise it will be seen as breakdown of social/societal norms for some of the non-gay community.

What 'societal breakdown' has occurred bacause of SSM in the countries where it is already legal?

Nodin wrote:

What form would this breakdown take, exactly?

Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together...mass hysteria.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I know someone posted a study that same sex couples have no effect on a families upbringing in comparison to hetrosexual couples but I find this incredulous if I am honest.
.

It wasn't a study. It was a review of loads of studies.

So you can go ahead and believe the opposite, but be aware that your belief flies in the face of the vast majority of research.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

But don't call a civil partnership marraige it can and never should be the same thing. Biology dictates as much.

It will be the same thing, legally, if it passes. Only legally - that's what counts.

Biology will have nothing to do with the constitutional aspect.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I know someone posted a study that same sex couples have no effect on a families upbringing in comparison to hetrosexual couples but I find this incredulous if I am honest.

I think that the referendum should be re written and civil partnership be given the same constitutional protection as marriage instead. But don't call a civil partnership marraige it can and never should be the same thing. Biology dictates as much.

Gorm.

I am getting the impression that you really really want to vote No and are searching for justification.

This perked me up this morning:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/sr-stan-to-vote-in-favour-of-same-sex-marriage-1.2207761?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Sr Stanislaus Kennedy has announced she will vote in favour of same-sex marriage in the forthcoming referendum.

“I have thought a lot about this,” she told The Irish Times. “I am going to vote Yes in recognition of the gay community as full members of society. They should have an entitlement to marry. It is a civil right and a human right.”

Sr Stan (75), as she is widely known, is a member of the congregation of the Religious Sisters of Charity and founder of the homeless support organisation Focus Ireland.

When asked how she reconciled her position with the Catholic Church’s teaching on the issue, she said she was speaking in a personal capacity.

“I have a big commitment to equality for all members of society. It’s what my life has been about. We have discriminated against members of the gay and lesbian community for too long. This is a way of embracing them as full members of society.”

Armagayddon was one I saw.

Nodin wrote: »

What form would this breakdown take, exactly?

Increased price of potatoes, tax increases, babies being forcibly taken from their parents at birth ( actually that can't be considered ghey societal breakdown because it happened via religious orders long before the gheys tried to ruin society), bakers will be forced to bake ghey cakes, printers will be forced to print ghey invitations, bulls will be forced to mate with other bulls, surrogacy and single parenting will be allowed and children will not be entitled to parents, God will be displeased and will smite things.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

A family to me is a mother/father and kids. Anything else is a group of people who live together/a family that lost a member of the previous family unit.

Asides from that being a little arrogant - as if one is stating they know better than others about who their family is - the constitution disagrees with you. A family is two people who join together under law. Kids are not a pre or post-requisite.

You aren't being asked to express your opinion on what a family is in this referendum, however. You're being asked whether these units - or whatever you want to call them - should be treated equally with regard to the state or not. That's it.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Gorm.

I am getting the impression that you really really want to vote No and are searching for justification.

It is the description of the family unit that bothers me too now I relise on further reflection (see above). (yes I know you do consider yourself to be a family).

I know there is the argument that families come in all shapes but to me a family mammy + daddy + kid

Anything else is not a family to me but a collection of people who were a full family or wish to be a full family.

I think the family thing might be at the back of a lot of peoples minds but they do not realise it. Which is why children were been brought into the marriage to the debate.

Then taken furhter the ideal family is one which is married (of course this is not always the case either!)