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

eviltwin wrote: »

Was in town with my kids and wearing a Yes badge when someone on a pro life stand at the GPO called me selfish and a bad mother. She then screamed baby killer at us because I wouldn't buy a foetus necklace. It's unsettling and quite scary, this girl was only a young one herself, how do they get so militant.

They are so deeply concerned about children that they hurl random abuse at women in front of their children? Maybe it was because they are born children that she thought it was ok to abuse you and call you a killer in front of them. You should have told her you have a foetus as well, she might have been nicer to you then because she likes foetuses.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Why does this matter, as the concept is clearly irrelevant to SSM? Well, it shows the 160 differences can't be presented as just a flat list of whatever differences they found - as they seem to have left out one that would qualify on that basis.

A court ordered exception to the minimum age of marriage would apply to a same sex marriage, but not to a civil partnership, so it is a difference, and hence is on the list.

Presumption of paternity cannot apply to a same sex couple, so it is not a difference between civil partnership and same sex marriage.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

My statement stands, and when you address it directly we'll be having a discussion.

Which statement, this one?

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It still is what we're voting on

Because no, that statement does not stand. We are not voting on the 160 differences. We are not voting on civil partnership.

We are voting on allowing same sex marriage.

Dimithy wrote: »

One of the consequences of potentially settling other planets is that you increase the scope for cataclysmic meteorite strikes that wipe out billions of people.

I say we forget about marriage equality, and get to work on stopping NASA from maybe, in the future some time, possibly kinda contributing to the death of billions of people.

True but if we are on more planets you also reduce the risk of one single meteor strike that hits earth wiping out the entire human race

VinLieger wrote: »

True but if we are on more planets you also reduce the risk of one single meteor strike that hits earth wiping out the entire human race

You just say that because you don't care about children's right not to be struck by a meteor. Why do you hate children VinLieger?

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Yeah, which is why they argue marriage offers additional necessary protections.

How do I know the basis of the Yes campaign better than you?

Seriously, stop playing silly with the issue.

OK, let's back up for a second, shall we?

The argument surrounding the 160 differences can be summarised as follows.

Quite a few people have posted on the various marriage referendum threads that they would vote No because, after all, gay people already have civil partnership and that's basically the same thing, right?

Then, several yes posters (myself included) pointed out that there are, in fact, a great many differences between civil partnership and civil marriage. This is not to say that the differences are necessarily rights which should be conferred on gay couples, but rather that there are differences in the first place (which some people seemed to be genuinely confused about).

Then, you having examined the list of differences, picked out one of them to show that these differences are not necessarily meaningful or relevant. IMHO, you were a little heavy-handed in the way in which you went about this but your point was effective nonetheless.
However, what you haven't either realised or acknowledged is that presenting all the differences, for better or worse, is the most honest way to present them. If you read the list you'll find that the authors of the documented where civil partnership offered exactly the same rights, where it offered a legal alternative which was practically equivalent and where there were still differences. The one thing the list doesn't do is make the case that any of these differences are meaningful or relevant. Certainly some of the differences will be irrelevant to a lot of same-sex couples and I'm certain that some of the differences will be irrelevant to all same-sex couples. That, however, is not the point. The point is, that once you begin to filter that list to highlight ones which you feel are more relevant than others then you begin to make a quality assessment of the differences, a subjective analysis of them, which can be disingenuous. The more honest way to present the argument is just to point out the list of differences and let people make up their own mind as to how persuasive these differences are within the context of the overall debate.

However, the list of differences has been overwhelmingly used to point out the difference between civil partnership and civil marriage to those posters who have either innocently or dishonestly claimed that they are the same. Also, even if there were no list of differences between the two, the argument would still not hold because of the lack of constitutional protection afforded to civil partnership.


Now as for your main arguments against gay marriage, you have previously summarised them thusly:

• Any amendment to the Constitution creates uncertainty. For that reason, a proposal for change has to overcome a level of materiality before I'd back it. I'm afraid I just don't see that level of materiality here.

That's fair enough I suppose. I would argue that the principle outlined in Article 40.1 is more important than the uncertainty that is amendment might create. Also, the resultant effect of the passage of this referendum may go some way towards increasing the societal acceptance of homosexual couples in general. Given the spirit of Articles 40.3.1 and 40.3.2 this is also something which I feel outweighs the possible uncertainty you speak of.

• If there's a protest element to the vote, its that there are more pressing issues requiring an amendment (specifically termination of unviable pregancy) that I expect this proposal is attempting to distract from.

This, no disrespect, is ridiculous. It's just whataboutery. The idea that you would vote No based on a protest, whether it's because the government are charging you for water or because you think abortion legislation is more important is just spiteful. Any honest argument should consider the proposal on its own merits and not because of other unconnected issues.

• I don't like the Oireachtas getting an explicit power to regulate marriage. I'd want to know what the limits of this power will be (there don't seem to be any under the wording). No, I don't expect that a resurgent Catholic political force will re-criminalise contraception any time soon. I just see the right of married couples to access contraception under the Constitution as something that should not be disturbed. Ditto for the wider concept of marital privacy. Collectively, we needed it the past, and may need it in the future.

That horse is already bolted. The Oireachtas already has the power to regulate marriage. Expanding the number of people who fall within that remit doesn't change the way in which that power is wielded. There are arguments about the state getting involved in civil marriage in the first place but introducing them in the context of this referendum is about as relevant as those who introduce polygamy or incest as if relevant.

• I'd like to know the shape of any legislation planned following the amendment. I'd like to see it's consistency with the wording proposed; in particular, if there are areas where straight and gay marriages will need different treatment, or where measures applying to all marriages might need to change.

Again, I'd say you're possibly right here. I would say that there probably will be a need for some carefully worded legislation and it's probably going to have to be more generic because of the greater diversity of family types which already exist but are now going to be acknowledged in law. However, as with your first point I just don't find this to be a persuasive impediment to the practical issue of the current environment of inequality.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Now, that's being disingenuous. While I believe that many of the 160 differences are either fixable , or not really an issue to concern the gays, there are some genuine problems for a couple

I they marry, they will fall under Article 41. All of the relevant legislation that talks about spouses, will then have to include gays. Some of the legislation might have to change the wording to cover the gays and their children

Oh no...you mean...we might have to change legislation...how will we do that?...surely nobody has done that before. The end is nigh!

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

So, returning to an earlier theme, what's going to happen to the concept of presumption of paternity? Anyone know?

Didn't think so.

It. Doesn't. Matter. We are discussing the Same Sex Marriage referendum. Marriage doesn't concerns itself with paternity.

You seem to get really uptight when people don't answer your questions. Try this one on for size...
Are you in favour of allowing gay couples to get married?

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

So, returning to an earlier theme, what's going to happen to the concept of presumption of paternity? Anyone know?

If the corner case where a woman divorces a man, marries a woman and gives birth all within 10 months is considered a problem, we might have to amend the legislation.

Fortunately, we have a bunch of public servants in this place called the Dáil whose entire job is passing legislation.

I'm voting no to responding to anymore of GCU's bullshít, diatractionist posts. At least banging my head off an actual wall would burn calories.

Vivisectus wrote: »

You just say that because you don't care about children's right not to be struck by a meteor. Why do you hate children VinLieger?

I only hate children for the greater good of humanity surviving a meteor strike

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If the corner case where a woman divorces a man, marries a woman and gives birth all within 10 months is considered a problem, we might have to amend the legislation.

Fortunately, we have a bunch of public servants in this place called the Dáil whose entire job is passing legislation.

Yes, but to pass legislation requires paperwork, and paperwork requires paper, and paper requires the cutting down of trees, and that leads to climate change.
Are you saying that if we vote yes, we're basically voting for climate change?

I'm definitely voting no now, because of climate change and bullies.

And because I don't like gays, of course. But before the climate change I did like them, and saw a gay person once on television.