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

traprunner · 11-05-2015 03:39PM

LaGlisse wrote: »

Cant find an image to illustrate my point, but does anyone else think the Referendum commission information booklet is biased towards the yes side? I reckon 3 of the 4 on the front cover are blatant yes voters,the only one im not sure about it is the gut with the beard, he is a bit youth defencey looking.
Then inside the booklet the guy in the changing room is definetly a yes voter.
That leaves the woman in the red top (looks like a good churchgoing country girl, with true-believer eyes) as the token no voter.
So 4 definite yes voters, 1 definite no voter and 1 bi-curious.
Discuss

lol...that gave me a chuckle. Although, I'd imagine they are stock images. At least they are not obviously taking any side so are unlikely to be offended.

For your assistance here is the brochure: http://refcom2015.ie/english_guide.pdf

Nodin · 11-05-2015 03:40PM

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.

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

So the "breakdown of social/societal norms" of allowing same sex marriage for some non-gay people would be people of the same sex getting married. With ye now.

MrWalsh · 11-05-2015 03:44PM

traprunner wrote: »

lol...that gave me a chuckle. Although, I'd imagine they are stock images. At least they are not obviously taking any side so are unlikely to be offended.

For your assistance here is the brochure: http://refcom2015.ie/english_guide.pdf

I thought yer man on page 7 was sitting on the jacks!

Zen65 · 11-05-2015 03:48PM

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

“At present marriage is, by definition, the sexual union of one man and one woman. If the referendum is passed, it will simply be a legally recognised relationship open to any two people who are not closely related and are of the right age.”

He continued: “Consummation will no longer be a requirement for marriage in all or possibly any cases. Already in other jurisdictions with same-sex marriage, there is no consummation requirement for same-sex couples. Logically, this means there is no reason to stop two straight male or female friends from marrying either.

Did nobody tell David Quinn that it's legal for two heterosexuals to get married in Las Vegas and the state will recognise it? That it's possible for an Irish woman to marry a non-EU citizen that she has never met (prior to the wedding) for the purposes of giving him citizenship?

The man is grasping at straws . . .

PS: The state does not require consummation of marriage for it to be legal. On the other hand the church will grant an annulment if consummation has not taken place.

MrWalsh · 11-05-2015 03:50PM

Zen65 wrote: »

Did nobody tell David Quinn that it's legal for two heterosexuals to get married in Las Vegas and the state will recognise it? That it's possible for an Irish woman to marry a non-EU citizen that she has never met (prior to the wedding) for the purposes of giving him citizenship?

The man is grasping at straws . . .

Why is consummation a requirement of marriage anymore anyway, most marriages are long consummated prior to the marriage ever happening these days!

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 11-05-2015 03:51PM

oldrnwisr wrote: »

I would argue that the principle outlined in Article 40.1 is more important than the uncertainty that is amendment might create.

And, I'd say that's a perfectly reasonable position on what is the nub of the matter. Clearly, I don't see a significant material issue at stake, and I don't immediately see the risk of the civil partnership framework falling foul of the Constitution.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Any honest argument should consider the proposal on its own merits and not because of other unconnected issues.

I'd agree if it's an unconnected concern - as you say, voting No if my real problem is water charges. However, my approach is to see this under the broader heading of constitutional reform, where it belongs. Put another way, I'm not interesting in a sort of back-slapping constitutional reform, where we all agree on stuff that's essentially irrelevant.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

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.

Although my point there was more that how the regulation of marriage is done must surely be changed by this. And the next point might flesh that out a little.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

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.

And that's grand - I'd like to see it up front. I've no preconceptions about, for the sake of argument, how the presumption of paternity will be handled after SSM. But I do want to know what will change. I'm sceptical of suggestions that staight and SS marriage can be handled with any differences in the legal code. In a context where, you'll appreciate, questions of this kind are being poo-poohed.

Zubeneschamali · 11-05-2015 03:53PM

LaGlisse wrote: »

I reckon 3 of the 4 on the front cover are blatant yes voters,the only one im not sure about it is the gut with the beard, he is a bit youth defencey looking.

I must object.

YD have not made any statement about this referendum. When a hacker stuck a gay image of gay stuff on their website, they said that was stupid and pointless, but they have not called for a No vote.

So even a YD looking guy can't be assumed to be a No voter.

Zen65 · 11-05-2015 03:55PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

You don't discuss anything with anyone. You make the same bizarre points again and again and aggressively attempt to shout down all those who highlight just how absurd your position is. It is pointless.

To quote another poster here: "add to your ignore list" is your stress-relieving friend in the case of trolls

gormdubhgorm · 11-05-2015 03:56PM

floggg wrote: »

Why is it bad? What negative consequence will there be?

Can you point to anything tangible?

Yes, you are entitled to vote based on a gut feeling and theres nothing anybody can do to stop you.

But at a certain point you have to ask yourself is it a mature and rational thing to do, or are you just acting on a baseless bias or prejudice and for no objective purpose.

If you can't point to any specific harm, negative consequence or prejudice to a yes vote, is voting no just because your "gut" tells you something a mature, responsible and compassionate citizen would do?

We all know countless examples throughout history were people held biases and prejudices based on gut feelings which we now consider to be gravely wrong.

So I'm sure your smart enough to know that just because you feel something in your gut it doesn't mean it's the right way to think or act.

Can ask then why are you certain that this is the right way to vote, and can you say that it is a reasonable or fair basis to vote against the rights of people like myself?

I know it could be the wrong way to vote. But I am thinking of the broader picture of how this strive for equality could cause an unbalanced equilibrium for others who could be affected by it. As I said before and I will say again I am for equality but if it is at the expense of the literal re-construction of the basis of any society what do you expect me to do? Vote twice?

I also find the comments by another poster about "bum sex and the greeks" rather glib. I can remember Norris using the same arguement to defend an unsavory character who was jailed in the far east for under-age sex with minors but that is a different story entirely.

So your saying I have to vote yes for equality and rip up the core value of any society a father mother and a child. Which in my view is a family.
If I vote no I will be castigated as homophobic, unenlightened and anti-equality.

Zen65 · 11-05-2015 03:57PM

BTW, I can't find it now, but have you seen that NO poster where the couple with their child have been replaced by Fred and Rose West? Very funny!

Zubeneschamali · 11-05-2015 04:02PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But I do want to know what will change.

Either same sex marriage should be allowed or not - the question of which laws needs to be changed to line up with the amended constitution is a secondary one.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 11-05-2015 04:03PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

How does the 'presumption of paternity' work in families where there is a step father? Should divorced women and widows with children be excluded from the right to marry due to this 'presumption of paternity' not being relevant to their family circumstance if they do?

The concept works as stated. I haven't especially raised it as a reason against SSM. I've mostly asked how the concept will be amended after the constitutional amendment is in place. I find no-one knows.

Dimithy wrote: »

Simple question, if you could rewrite the amendment so that it was to your liking, excluding parts you were not happy with and would allow same sex couples access to marriage, would you vote yes?

You mean would I vote for an amendment that I liked? Yes.

seamus · 11-05-2015 04:03PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Why is consummation a requirement of marriage anymore anyway, most marriages are long consummated prior to the marriage ever happening these days!

The law continues to reflect the attitudes of those who wrote it, until someone else repeals it.

In reality, the consummation get-out clause is still there because nobody has seen fit to remove it. It's acknowledged that practically all* people who get married do so on the understanding that it will be a relationship where sexual intimacy plays a huge part, even if it not necessarily a procreative one.
So if either party is unable to perform sexually, most people would agree that the disgruntled party should be given a free pass to get out of it.

That is, acknowledging the importance that sex plays in the majority of peoples' lives. Hence there's been no appetite to remove the concept of consummation.

While personally being of the opinion that anyone who hasn't taken their partner for a few hundred spins around the block before entering into marriage is a complete idiot, I would maintain that inability to engage in sexual activity for an extended period at any time during a marriage should be reasonable grounds to obtain a quick divorce.
Annulment is an unnecessary pander to religions and should be dispensed with, instead replaced with a fast-track divorce service for genuine cases (not of sound mind, danger to the other partner, sexually inert, etc).

I've always wondered how annulment manages to square with the constitutional ban on quick divorce. I know annulment doesn't "count" as a real divorce, but how is this justified when it comes to consummation?

*Tiny number of exceptions notwithstanding

gormdubhgorm · 11-05-2015 04:04PM

floggg wrote: »

The Law Society disagree. They have called for a Yes vote, and said that a Yes vote is in the best interests of society and of Children.

Alan Shatter, who you referred to earlier (and widely regarded as a Family Law expert) has forcefully called for a yes vote.

As has the Children's Minister (unpopular as he is).

Similarly the ISPCC, Barnados, the social workers organisation and many other child welfare groups have also called for a Yes vote as being in the best interests of children (primarily those who will grow up to be gay, but also those being raised by gay parents).

Have you considered that your gut may not be as informed as the experts and professionals in the area who all support a yes vote. Again, while you may have a gut feeling, is it rational or logical to follow it?

But this is the same law society that only likes self-regulation, no transparency and no independent body to keep an eye on them. Ironically Shatter has fought them on this. Then again if the Garda fisaco that forced Shatter out is anything to go by should I believe him either?
him
I am not going to vote yes just because it is the hipster trendy thing to do there are a lot of implications here.

Peist2007 · 11-05-2015 04:05PM

Zen65 wrote: »

BTW, I can't find it now, but have you seen that NO poster where the couple with their child have been replaced by Fred and Rose West? Very funny!

Yeah hilarious. There is freedom of expression and whatever rights there are to campaign but it's taking the piss and shouldnt be allowed. Stick to the facts. Oh, i see their problem now.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 11-05-2015 04:05PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Either same sex marriage should be allowed or not - the question of which laws needs to be changed to line up with the amended constitution is a secondary one.

No, it's the primary one because that's the propostion that we're voting for.

Absolutely, people need to know what the proposition actually means. If there's no substantial implications, there should be no problem showing what legislation will be needed to apply it.

jobbridge4life · 11-05-2015 04:06PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I am not going to vote yes just because it is the hipster trendy thing to do there are a lot of implications here.

Such as? Cause you have been making fairly outrageous claims about re-writing society. I'd like to see just one implication that you can stand over and not just the basic change to the law as introduced by the referendum either.

traprunner · 11-05-2015 04:07PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

But this is the same law society that only likes self-regulation, no transparency and no independent body to keep an eye on them. Ironically Shatter has fought them on this. Then again if the Garda fisaco that forced Shatter out is anything to go by should I either?

I am not going to vote yes just because it is the hipster trendy thing to do there are a lot of implications here.

Nope. There is just one implication. Gay people will be permitted to get married. Don't believe me? Read the impartial Referendum Commission website, the booklet they have sent to your home or, contact them as follows:

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

Locall: 1890 270970

Email: refcom@refcom.gov.ie

Peist2007 · 11-05-2015 04:07PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

But this is the same law society that only likes self-regulation, no transparency and no independent body to keep an eye on them. Ironically Shatter has fought them on this. Then again if the Garda fisaco that forced Shatter out is anything to go by should I either?

I am not going to vote yes just because it is the hipster trendy thing to do there are a lot of implications here.

You're going to vote no because you're homophobic. Dress it up any way you want.

I also love how you think that the acceptance of gay people in our society is part of some hipster trend. That's how out of touch you are. Outstanding :pac:

Zubeneschamali · 11-05-2015 04:07PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

But I am thinking of the broader picture of how this strive for equality could cause an unbalanced equilibrium for others who could be affected by it.

What others? What unbalance?

I'm a married straight guy with kids, and I cannot see any effect whatsoever on my marriage or family life that might come from allowing same sex marriage.

SireOfSeth · 11-05-2015 04:09PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I know it could be the wrong way to vote. But I am thinking of the broader picture of how this strive for equality could cause an unbalanced equilibrium for others who could be affected by it. As I said before and I will say again I am for equality but if it is at the expense of the literal re-construction of the basis of any society what do you expect me to do? Vote twice?

You only seemed to be happy with making homosexuals equal-ish.

So your saying I have to vote yes for equality and rip up the core value of any society a father mother and a child. Which in my view is a family.
If I vote no I will be castigated as homophobic, unenlightened and anti-equality.

Again, it doesn't matter what your view of a family is. We are talking about the states view of the family, which is currently a man and a woman. You will be voting on the states view of marriage, not yours.

traprunner · 11-05-2015 04:09PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What others? What unbalance?

I'm a married straight guy with kids, and I cannot see any effect whatsoever on my marriage or family life that might come from allowing same sex marriage.

I am straight, married and without kids and I can't see any effect on my marriage or family due to allowing same sex marriage.

Not a NSA agent · 11-05-2015 04:11PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

So your saying I have to vote yes for equality and rip up the core value of any society a father mother and a child. Which in my view is a family.

A family is a married couple with or without children. According to the referendum commission "The courts have decided that a married couple with or without children constitute a “Family” in the Constitutional sense."

SireOfSeth · 11-05-2015 04:13PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

But this is the same law society that only likes self-regulation, no transparency and no independent body to keep an eye on them. Ironically Shatter has fought them on this. Then again if the Garda fisaco that forced Shatter out is anything to go by should I believe him either?
him
I am not going to vote yes just because it is the hipster trendy thing to do there are a lot of implications here.

Enlighten us.

seamus · 11-05-2015 04:14PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I know it could be the wrong way to vote. But I am thinking of the broader picture of how this strive for equality could cause an unbalanced equilibrium for others who could be affected by it. As I said before and I will say again I am for equality but if it is at the expense of the literal re-construction of the basis of any society what do you expect me to do? Vote twice?

I also find the comments by another poster about "bum sex and the greeks" rather glib. I can remember Norris using the same arguement to defend an unsavory character who was jailed in the far east for under-age sex with minors but that is a different story entirely.

So your saying I have to vote yes for equality and rip up the core value of any society a father mother and a child. Which in my view is a family.
If I vote no I will be castigated as homophobic, unenlightened and anti-equality.

You still haven't provided any details of the alleged "implications" you believe this will have. You talk a lot, but there's little to no content or specifics.

What I do find interesting about your stance is that you're voting "No" because you believe that a "family" is a man, woman and child.

But the constitution disagrees with you already. The constitution considers any married couple to be a "family". So in essence, you already have a constitution that disagrees with you, yet you're voting "No" in order to avoid the constitution from disagreeing with you. Whichever way you vote, the constitutional family will not sync up with your definition of "family". So if you were being intellectually honest, would you not be better abstaining or spoiling?

So your true belief is actually exposed by your rationale. While you personally may believe that a family includes children, you're happy with the current constitutional interpretation so long as it doesn't include gay people.

So for you, it's not really about protecting the definition of family at all - because your definition of "family" doesn't exist and therefore you have nothing to protect.
For families who fall within your personal definition of "family", the outcome of this referendum will make no difference.

Peist2007 · 11-05-2015 04:16PM

seamus wrote: »

What I do find interesting about your stance is that you're voting "No" because you believe that a "family" is a man, woman and child.

But the constitution disagrees with you already. The constitution considers any married couple to be a "family". So in essence, you already have a constitution that disagrees with you, yet you're voting "No" in order to avoid the constitution from disagreeing with you. Whichever way you vote, the constitutional family will not sync up with your definition of "family". So if you were being intellectually honest, would you not be better abstaining or spoiling?

:pac:

Zubeneschamali · 11-05-2015 04:16PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No, it's the primary one because that's the propostion that we're voting for.

Absolutely, people need to know what the proposition actually means. If there's no substantial implications, there should be no problem showing what legislation will be needed to apply it.

The meaning couldn't be clearer. Two people will be allowed to marry without distinction as to their sex.

If it is the right thing to do, then it doesn't matter how substantial the changes to legislation needed are, since in that case, our existing legislation is doing the wrong thing, which is bad.

If it is not the right thing to do, then the legislative changes are irrelevant.

Either way, the question is should we allow same sex marriage, and the amount of legislation needing amendment is a side issue, not something that should decide a Yes or No vote.

floggg · 11-05-2015 04:19PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I know it could be the wrong way to vote. But I am thinking of the broader picture of how this strive for equality could cause an unbalanced equilibrium for others who could be affected by it. As I said before and I will say again I am for equality but if it is at the expense of the literal re-construction of the basis of any society what do you expect me to do? Vote twice?

I also find the comments by another poster about "bum sex and the greeks" rather glib. I can remember Norris using the same arguement to defend an unsavory character who was jailed in the far east for under-age sex with minors but that is a different story entirely.

So your saying I have to vote yes for equality and rip up the core value of any society a father mother and a child. Which in my view is a family.
If I vote no I will be castigated as homophobic, unenlightened and anti-equality.

I'm not saying you have to do that.

I asking you to critically appraise your reasoning for voting and ask whether it is mature, logical, rational or fair.

You are unable to point to any concrete and specific risk or negative impact, prejudice or consequence from a Yes vote but yet describe it as ripping up a core value.

The realty is you have no basis for you position other than an intangible, undefined and entirely subjective gut feeling.

And as we all know to well gut feelings can be very wrong.

Your gut feeling goes against all available evidence on child rearing and family development. Against the view of the law society of ireland on the legal impact of the change. Against the views of Barnados, ISPCC and others children's groups on the impact of children.

So what I would like you to tell me is whether in light of all that you honestly believe you have any rational, reasoned and logical basis for your position?

and whether if you were in my shoes, where your rights were being subjected to popular vote, you would feel that it was a fair and mature basis for people to decide how to vote.

gormdubhgorm · 11-05-2015 04:21PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

So you are literally voting in total ignorance?

Nope sure haven't I got (some) well informed from the yes side here.
For the record I would not use the Iona institute for information on the no side because they seem bit OTT.
So I feel I have learnt things the 160 differences etc etc.

There is little doubt that this thing will pass and I will just have to get used to idea that a family now constitutes anything really as long there is more then one person so Art 41 will be different to what it was.

It will be another one for the record books just like article's 2 and 3 which disappeared altogether.

Vivisectus · 11-05-2015 04:24PM

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

So letting gay people join in an institution makes it a farce - might as well not have one, it'll be ruined!

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

Comments