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

Hyzepher · 11-05-2015 01:17PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I don't agree with that in the slightest but thanks for trying to help!

Maybe you should help and tell us why?

aloyisious · 11-05-2015 01:18PM

Please remember that when you are casting your vote on the 34th amendment, it doesn't merely mean you are using your franchise as you like. You are also deciding on whether future generations of Irish Adults, LGBT adults, will have the option of entering a loving committed same-sex Civil Marriage, that; at this moment in time, this present generation (young and old) do not have.

gormdubhgorm · 11-05-2015 01:19PM

traprunner wrote: »

Such crap!! I removed the worry about families.

So I'll ask again...hypothetically....if everything was to your sanctification would you support same sex marriage, yes or no? One word answer please.

In that case I would vote yes.

SireOfSeth · 11-05-2015 01:19PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Impossible for me to give a one word answer!

I would vote yes for equality (as the phrase goes) - if the definition of the family was not redefined as result of marriage.

Side note - I have noticed when I say it does not involve children people say gay couples have children and when I said it does beforehand I am told it has nothing to do with children.
Therefore I find the what is a family question much easier in my mind.

Confusion might be caused by the fact that the Ref has nothing to do with children, it's the Children and Family Relationship Act that has to do with children (and the family). Ref is just about civil marriage.

floggg · 11-05-2015 01:20PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

It will result in a redlining of the family in Art 41 of the constitution.

From the ref commission:
Article 41 pledges the State to guard with special care the institution of marriage on which the family is founded. In a number of cases, the courts have decided that the Constitutional rights which apply to the family based on marriage are not necessarily applicable to non-marital families.

What you have failed to do is articlulate why its a bad thing to do so. What objective and testable reason is there to oppose the extension of the constitutonal family to include those based on same sex marriage.

What benefit does excluding same sex families from the constitutional protection do for anybody - other than avoiding the need to reconsider existing notions.

Btw the constitutional family includes married but childless couples - so harking back to the current text and its meaning undermines your previous claims about the non-family status of childless marriages.

gormdubhgorm · 11-05-2015 01:22PM

Hyzepher wrote: »

Maybe you should help and tell us why?

As I said above in my head a family is man/woman and child.
Anything else is a pre-family - former family or a group being a family substitute.

Zubeneschamali · 11-05-2015 01:22PM

SireOfSeth wrote: »

The question is, why shouldn't gay couples also be afforded this human right (the same as everyone else)?

The real answer to all such questions is: bum sex!

traprunner · 11-05-2015 01:24PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

In that case I would vote yes.

Thank you. I hope you didn't go for the easy answer.

Now since you won't believe anyone here about families please contact RefCom for an unbiased answer to your questions.

The Referendum Commission
18 Lower Leeson Street, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Telephone: 01 639 5695

Locall: 1890 270970

Email: refcom@refcom.gov.ie

Bannasidhe · 11-05-2015 01:24PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Impossible for me to give a one word answer!

I would vote yes for equality (as the phrase goes) - if the definition of the family was not redefined as result of marriage.

Side note - I have noticed when I say it does not involve children people say gay couples have children and when I said it does beforehand I am told it has nothing to do with children.
Therefore I find the what is a family question much easier in my mind.

Heterosexual married couple with no children are a 'family'.
Heterosexual married couple with children are a 'family'

Separated but still married Heterosexual couple with no children are a family.
Separated but still married Heterosexual couple with children are a family.

Divorced heterosexual couple with no children are not a family.
Divorced heterosexual couple with children are not a family.

Cohabiting heterosexaul couple with no children are not a family.
Cohabiting heterosexual couple with children are not a family.

Civil partnered couple with no children are not a family.
Civil partnered couple with children are not a family.

Cohabiting homosexual couple with no children are not a family.
Cohabiting homosexual couple with children are not a family.

Do you see a pattern here?

The presence of children makes no difference to who is and who is not a family.
That is determined by who is legally married in the eyes of the State and nothing else.

If you were even slightly interested in equality you would be looking to expand the definition of family not continue to restrict it.

Ave Sodalis · 11-05-2015 01:24PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

As I said above in my head a family is man/woman and child.
Anything else is a pre-family - former family or a group being a family substitute.

But that's not in the Constitution and since it's the Constitution that we're voting on, it should be what is looked at.

smash · 11-05-2015 01:24PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

As I said above in my head a family is man/woman and child.
Anything else is a pre-family - former family or a group being a family substitute.

That's quite sad. If your child was gay or was even straight but didn't agree with marriage and had a long term partner, maybe a child, would you consider them a family? I'm sure they'd want people to consider them as a family.

aloyisious · 11-05-2015 01:25PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

This is from wiki the definiton of the family in the constitution:
Article 41.1.1° of the Constitution "recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law", and guarantees its protection by the state. However, these rights and protections are not extended to every family unit, such as single parents, unmarried opposite-sex co-habiters, and same-sex couples.

So???? Is that a reason for the citizens NOT to change sections in the constitution when they see there is a deprivation of right/s (any rights) to citizens contained within the constitution????

gormdubhgorm · 11-05-2015 01:26PM

floggg wrote: »

What you have failed to do is articlulate why its a bad thing to do so. What objective and testable reason is there to oppose the extension of the constitutonal family to include those based on same sex marriage.

What benefit does excluding same sex families from the constitutional protection do for anybody - other than avoiding the need to reconsider existing notions.

Btw the constitutional family includes married but childless couples - so harking back to the current text and its meaning undermines your previous claims about the non-family status of childless marriages.

Because I feel that the family unit of mother.father and child is the strongest possible unit above all else. That includes hetrosexual/homosexual or whatever else.

Therefore further re-defining of the family I think will be bad for society as a whole. Have I am evidence for it? No. Is it a gut feeling primal instinct? yes

Zubeneschamali · 11-05-2015 01:27PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Now that we've established its a live issue, can anyone finally give me a positive reason for extending the scope of the right to marry under age 17?

Equality.

jobbridge4life · 11-05-2015 01:27PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Because I feel that the family unit of mother.father and child is the strongest possible unit above all else. That includes hetrosexual/homosexual or whatever else.

Therefore further re-defining of the family I think will be bad for society as a whole. Have I am evidence for it? No. Is it a gut feeling primal instinct? yes

So you are literally voting in total ignorance?

Ave Sodalis · 11-05-2015 01:27PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Because I feel that the family unit of mother.father and child is the strongest possible unit above all else. That includes hetrosexual/homosexual or whatever else.

Therefore further re-defining of the family I think will be bad for society as a whole. Have I am evidence for it? No. Is it a gut feeling primal instinct? yes

You cannot redefine family when family is not defined.

floggg · 11-05-2015 01:28PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

r Article 41.1 the state promises to "protect the Family", and recognises the family as having "inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law".

In other words the family unit is top dog.

And?

What benefit do we get from treating same sex (or any other) families as lesser?

Surely you can't see granting equal protection to another form of family as diminishing or prejudicing the existing constitutional family.

Or do you?

traprunner · 11-05-2015 01:28PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Because I feel that the family unit of mother.father and child is the strongest possible unit above all else. That includes hetrosexual/homosexual or whatever else.

But they only make up a percentage of the population. What about kids where the mother and father are separated due to domestic abuse? Should the child and whichever parent they stay with be forced to have a new mother/father to adhere to what you "feel"?

osarusan · 11-05-2015 01:29PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

As I said above in my head a family is man/woman and child.
Anything else is a pre-family - former family or a group being a family substitute.

You appreciate that the constitution (which you keep referring to) says something different?

Dimithy · 11-05-2015 01:30PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Because I feel that the family unit of mother.father and child is the strongest possible unit above all else. That includes hetrosexual/homosexual or whatever else.

Therefore further re-defining of the family I think will be bad for society as a whole. Have I am evidence for it? No. Is it a gut feeling primal instinct? yes

What do you think will happen to those mother+father+child families if we vote yes?

aloyisious · 11-05-2015 01:31PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The real answer to all such questions is: bum sex!

ROFL. Cue Dick Emery: oh you're awful, but I like you.

gormdubhgorm · 11-05-2015 01:32PM

aloyisious wrote: »

So???? Is that a reason for the citizens NOT to change sections in the constitution when they see there is a deprivation of right/s (any rights) to citizens contained within the constitution????

If the minority breaks down one of pillars of society for the majority if the rights are changed (as they will be) then I believe that it is not the right thing to do.
How can the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the the majority. it will completely re-write what a family unit means.

Another way should be found around it in my view to keep everyone happy.
I don't think this ref is as simple as yes for equality, no for inequality (although it is painted that way).

smash · 11-05-2015 01:32PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It is, according to the list of differences presented by Marriage Equality, and linked many times by Yes posters on these forums.

This is most certainly a consequence that arises from voting Yes. It's just not rational to say otherwise.

With good sometimes comes bad. But it's still not what we're voting on. I wish you'd just come out and say it that you disapprove of same sex marriage instead of picking apart laws like that. Laws that will not change anyway if the vote doesn't pass. You're looking for any excuse.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 11-05-2015 01:32PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Now that we've established its a live issue, can anyone finally give me a positive reason for extending the scope of the right to marry under age 17?

Equality.

That assumes that someone feels marriage under age 17 is a Good Thing. You'll recall, the question is more why we would want to do more harm.

dodderangler · 11-05-2015 01:33PM

I was called a scumbag by a bloke who was handing out leaflets for voting yes when I didn't take it off him. When he asked why, I told him because I'm voting no.
I was called a scumbag and he basically followed me saying this. I have my reasons and he didn't exactly help change my mind about it.

SireOfSeth · 11-05-2015 01:33PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Because I feel that the family unit of mother.father and child is the strongest possible unit above all else. That includes hetrosexual/homosexual or whatever else.

Therefore further re-defining of the family I think will be bad for society as a whole. Have I am evidence for it? No. Is it a gut feeling primal instinct? yes

Do you realise that in the eyes of the law a married (heterosexual) couple without kids are a family? It doesn't matter what you feel. It doesn't matter it you believe that it's the strongest possible unit above all else.

What matters is that homosexuals don't have the rights that heterosexuals have. That is, they are treated unequally by the state. All you need to ask yourself is: should they be treated equally?

Hyzepher · 11-05-2015 01:33PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

How can the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the the majority. it will completely re-write what a family unit means.

Where is this definition of family written?

Ave Sodalis · 11-05-2015 01:33PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

If the minority breaks down one of pillars of society for the majority if the rights are changed (as they will be)

You will not be forced to a) stop having children yourself or b) come into a gay marriage, so you'll have to explain how the pillars of society will be broken down.

jobbridge4life · 11-05-2015 01:34PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

If the minority breaks down one of pillars of society for the majority if the rights are changed (as they will be) then I believe that it is not the right thing to do.
How can the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the the majority. it will completely re-write what a family unit means.

Another way should be found around it in my view to keep everyone happy.
I don't think this ref is as simple as yes for equality, no for inequality (although it is painted that way).

You are talking fiction and scare-mongering nonsense. You have been politely corrected countless times over the past few pages and continued with the same claptrap.

SummerSummit · 11-05-2015 01:35PM

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.

There is tax advantages and disadvantages to being married. An advantage would be you can transfer your rate bands & credits between spouses & gifts between spouses is exempt from CGT. On the downside, if you get divourced the spouse can take 50% of your assets and demand maintenance payments for the rest of their life. So I highly doubt people would enter a marriage for purely tax reasons. It wouldn't make sense.

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

Comments