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

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

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.

The change in Article 41 is only a very small part of the issue for you. It appears the real issue is that you have misunderstood the current meaning of Article 41, despite it being clarified many times by the courts, the law society and the Referendum Commission.

If the suggestion that "a family now constitutes anything really as long there is more then one person" is disingenuous in the extreme. The term family will have the same meaning if the referendum passes, except that it applies to people of any gender. Really, it's a very small change.

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.

The regulatory status of the legal profession has little to do with this issue - nor does it have any bearing on their stance on this referendum.

I also wasn't suggestig you the way the cool kids were.

I was asking you how your unsubstantiated and unsupported fear of unintended consequences and legal impacts stacked up against the stated position of the Law Society - who are extremely well placed to comment on legal and constitutional matters.

You assert there are lots of implications - what are they?

Again, is it reasonable and rational to adopt the position you have when those more qualified than you on the matter have taken a contrary view?

And not only individual solicitors/lawyers, but the largest organisation of legal professionals in the country?

And you have at least appeared to be trying to engage maturely and reasonably here, so i would appreciate it if you actually addressed the question rather than introduce irrelavant criticisms about the regulatory status of the law society or childish comments about peer pressure.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If the George was over-run with straights it'd turn into a farce as well. Both sides have their rules.

Not really. It would still be a gay-themed pub. That is a very silly argument.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If the George was over-run with straights it'd turn into a farce as well. Both sides have their rules.

Well the dragon is currently "over-run with straights."

It's not a farce though - just faux-Scandinavian.

Just for context -

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Oh dear. You don't know what you are talking about. And, bless, you think you do.

A marriage contract is a document that is evidence of an agreement between two people to marry to the exclusion of other.

Who can enter the contract?

Well, marriageis defined to require (or did require, once the referendum comes) that you must be, inter alia

1 of the opposite sex
2 over 18
3 be of sound mind


So, two elements there

Then you have to follow the instructions to ensure that the contract is binding, there are requirements about where you marry and who witnesses the rites, and the notice requirement

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What's your point though?

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

So, when you loose an argument, this is how you reply, play dumb :rolleyes:

I'm not playing then if that's what you mean, so you're going to have to help me understand what actually is your point?

I don't know what I'm talking about according to you, and I'm sure as hell lost as to what point you're trying to make.


EDIT: Actually, forget it tbh, this thread is just gone to the ridiculous, I'm not even able to keep up with some of the nonsense being entertained here any more.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Try getting in with some straight friends, no hope.

Really?? Were you drunk, Monkey?

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.

Bizarrely enough this exact same argument was made against the abolition of slavery.

What about the 'rights' of the Plantation owners who would go bankrupt if they had to actually pay wages...society would be unbalanced if hoards of former slaves suddenly were free to live where they wanted... wages would plummet for white men as former slaves under cut them..

So what happened? - to try and preserve 'equilibrium' the former slave owners were paid compensation for loss of labour, most former slaves stayed on the Plantations as it was safer(less likely to be lynched) and became poverty stricken sharecroppers and black men* were denied the vote as they were already free and wasn't that enough for them no need to go upsetting the equilibrium further because 'implications' and now look at us (U.S.) and Barak Obama and :eek:

I'm convinced! Voting No!



*women vote Ha! - won't somebody think of the balance of society!!

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Try getting in with some straight friends, no hope. It's a good thing but not nice to be excluded because your different either.

First off, I been in there with straight mates loads of times. I think you and your mates just need to buy better shoes. I have been barred from bars because of my shoes a heck of a lot more than for being straight.

But besides that - would you say that voting against black people being allowed to vote could be justified because you can't get into a blues bar? Because voting would just become a farce if you let black people do it? And hey - so would a blues bar overrun by wonderbead, amirite?

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

The implications I refer to are:

1) Surrogacy minefield (I know this is not to do with the referendum but it is the next step) - when the same sex couples are married it will get further complicated.
2) The definition of the family will be defined out of existence even further as the couples do not even have to be of different sex now.
3) If children are involved and they may or may not be how will this effect thier upbringing in a new married family of same sex couples. I know this can already be done as unmarried. But the marriage ref will copper-fasten a new "married family" unit and any children's rights who are already there will change.
4) How will it effect society where a father and a mother have two very distinct natural roles.What should children be taught?
5) Will having a father and mother become passe as heterosexual couples take advantage of new impending surrogacy laws as a result of this ref?
6) Will homosexual couples take advantage of new impending surrogacy laws as a result of this referendum.
7) Will it on the other hand be a good thing for society and encourage inclusiveness or will it just cause resentment that traditional values have changed?



As for the abstaining/spoiling vote I have thought about it.

1, 5 and 6 are, as you say, Irrelavant as being nothing to do with the Referndum. If you think your vote has anything to do with surrogacy, you are very much mistaken. I again suggest consulting yhe referndum commission.

2 is plainly wrong. The constitutional definition of family will be slightly expanded as described above.

The lay mans definition is independent of the referendum/constitution - and already includes same sex headed families.

3. You present this as an unknown and potential risk. But we know what will happen - they will have the same rights as children in existing marriages.

And if, as you claim, marriage is the best environment for children, then it's better that we allow children of same sex parents grow up within a marriage - which is the view of Barnados, ISPCC, and other child welfare organisations.

4. They don't have very distinct roles anymore, nor should they. Fathers are thankfully more evolved and involved then the old days, and mothers now work as often or not.

Even in a traditionalist family like Breda O'Brien's, the father is the primary care giver and Breda is the bread winner.

This argument is out of sync with reality, and a throw back to an Ireland wr all gladly left behind where men worked and women stayed at home and did what they were told.

7. It very much will be a good thing. It will mean a more inclusive, fairer society, a vast improvement in the status and rights of the lgbt minority and zero impact on the position of the heterosexual majority (other than happier gay friends and relatives).

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The point is more this one (if I can quote from another poster, just to break this unhealthy emphasis on whatever I happen to be saying):I'd similarly expect a need for carefully worded legislation. And I'd like to see what that entails.

Because that's what this amendment will really mean. And maybe its benign. Or maybe it isn't. But the material available in support of the referendum should be covering this. And it really isn't.

The constitution informs the content of the legislation. Not the other way around.

Bloody gays, coming over here, stealing our marriages.

:rolleyes:

Nodin wrote: »

I'll just leap in here and inform you that (1) 'gay' marriage will not be compulsory (2) 'heterosexual' marriage will still be legal (3) the percentage of the population that is gay will stay at the same levels it always has.

Also to point out the concept of a mother father and a child is not the "core concept of any society". It's a distinctly modern adn Western concept.

Firstly, there are many cultures who practice polygamy, engage in communal child rearing, raise children within an extended family, have strictly patriarchal or matriarchal societies - and so saying that all societies are founded on the same family model is rather ignorant and arrogant.

Secondly, until recently western society was based on a family model of a man, his property, labourer and sex slave, and any smaller laborers and property she might grow for him (as a by product of her sexual service/rape).

The modern nuclear family is a very new and evolving concept.