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

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.

Fixed that for you. Bigotry dictates as much.

lak wrote: »

When SSM is introduced,will members of the LGBT community be looking to get married in church(catholic or otherwise).I've just finished reading the past 15 pages(69 is a lot to ask) and haven't been able to find any mention of weather or not anyone will even be interested in such a scenario let alone weather it is expected that the church must accommadate SSM on equality grounds.

No - this referendum is only about civil marriage.

Religious organisations will still have the power to marry who they want to, and not marry those they don't want to.

osarusan wrote: »

Do you think constitutional protection of the family should be removed from the 'no-longer-family' upon the death of a parent?

No because it once was a family therefore still deserves constitutional protection.

Magenta wrote: »

David Quinn/Iona now saying that a Yes vote would mean straight people marrying their own gender for tax evasion/a laugh therefore vote No.

http://www.mediahq.com/ionainstitute/107618/press-release-from-the-iona-institute-ref-com-confirms-that-two-heterosexual-male-or-female-friends-can-marry-under-proposed-new-marriage-law

As if straight couples never marry for technical conveniences...

lak wrote: »

When SSM is introduced,will members of the LGBT community be looking to get married in church(catholic or otherwise).I've just finished reading the past 15 pages or so and haven't been able to find any mention of weather or not anyone will even be interested in such a scenario let alone weather it is expected that the church must accommadate SSM on equality grounds.

I have read a lot about potatoes though

Any religious solemnisers are free to marry or not marry whoever they wish. That is protected in law. So a gay couple could look to get married in a Catholic church but they wouldn't have much luck there. Other faiths/churches might accommodate religious services for them though if they want to. Religious and civil marriage are separate matters, and this referendum only pertains to civil marriage.

MrWalsh wrote: »

Well can you find out please?!! If its me who has turned into the gay paedophile Ill be wanting to make an immediate application to have a baby taken off a heterosexual couple!

Make sure you get the application in soon, so you can get your government issued baby. If you wait too long the baby for gays service is going to be privatized.

This is a speech by a conservative New Zealand politician on the day equal marriage was legalised. No voters should definately watch!

MrWalsh wrote: »

Will there be tax breaks?

Only if you plan on installing solar panels in your baby.
Or in the case of the upkeep on a listed baby.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

It makes a farce of marriage if same sex couples can get married the whole institution might as well be scrapped.

Lets be honest with the amount of one parent families/divorce is there any point to it anymore?

It is like the straw that breaks the camels back redefining what the family is so it can be shoe-horned into marriage.

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.

You have ignored everything I said though about marriage not being about children.

A married straight couple can have no kids and still be validly married.

Moreover, if it is about children then why exclude gay couples who are in fact raising kids? If marriage serves some child related purpose wouldn't those kids be better of being raised within a family based on marriage than outside it?

And lastly, if civil partnership and marriage were to be equal in everything but name, what tangible benefit would result for anybody from precluding a same sex couple using the term marriage - gay, straight, adult or child.

I don't mean in terms of people's feara or attachments to a word - setting measurable, verifiable and objectively determinable.

Also it's oretty disnissive of the many wonderful alternative families we have today - be it adoptive, step parents, single parents or same sex.

They will all feel very much like a family to those within it, and can be more close knit, loving and supporting than some "traditional" families which fit your mould.

Do you give any consideration to them and how they feel about things when ioi dismiss them as a group of people who live together?

Why do you think they should be seen as different, lesser, unequal or what ever else it is you are implying by dismissing them in that regard?

I'm not attacking you for the sake of it btw - I'm genuinely interested to see if you have considered the import of your above statements and whether they hold any weight when critically assessed.

traprunner wrote: »

You are a no voter regardless. We know that. I'd be much more respectful of someone who was genuinely in the 'unknown' group and decided to toss a coin for direction.

It is no or abstain/spoil vote for me.