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

Peist2007 · 11-05-2015 05:04PM

floggg wrote: »

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, the idea that a

Exactly. Annoys me to hear that trotted out. Usually heard in the midst of a homophobic comment

One eyed Jack · 11-05-2015 05:05PM

efb wrote: »

Rory, eloquently puts the point across far better than I.

A NO vote would be a huge slap in the face to me on the 23rd, a real "know your place" kind of moment. Even if I never got married, I hope my gay friends will be allowed the same equality now my straight friends enjoy.

Y'know what, he actually does put his point across really well when he wants to!

I wish he'd said what he just said in that video when he got up on stage at the Abbey rather than that "noble call" nonsense about "checking himself" and all the rest of it, as Rory O' Neill, and not some ridiculous looking alter-ego.

aloyisious · 11-05-2015 05:06PM

Just seen this M.A.F.M video on facebook.. I opened it because the onscreen blurb said Yes Side Funding Exposed, unfortunately i couldn't find the expose. No one who watches it can say Boards.ie is run like RTE. It may be a N.S.F.W video for some.

http://www.keepmarriage.org/

smash · 11-05-2015 05:07PM

It's strange to think that a good percentage of no campaigners classify families as a husband, a wife and natural children. and they don't want this to change. But they'll then go to church to worship a lady who gave birth to a child not of her husband and then worship him.. And sure he never got married, all he did was hang around with 12 single guys for most of his life. Seems legit... also, deffo not gay.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 11-05-2015 05:07PM

floggg wrote: »

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

That doesn't address the point. Again.

Vivisectus · 11-05-2015 05:11PM

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.

Sorry, people can already make use of surrogacy arrangements. As singles and as couples - gay or straight. In fact, by making this an issue during a gay marriage debate, you show that you are not really concerned with surrogacy. Just surrogacy where gays are involved.

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.

Sorry, we are not really re-defining family, we are updating the definition if marriage in a way that really does not affect straight marriages. Like we have been updating marriage for ages. And a good thing too: it now is an equal institution, in stead of one where the male holds all the power. This was a good thing, yes?

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.

Well, for the ones who are already raised by same sex couples, I do not think their parenting style will be much affected by them being married. What will change is that they get a little bit more security: if one parent dies, the other one will not have to go through any hassle. There is no effect on anyone who is NOT already in that situation: the ways to get into such a situation remain the same.

4) How will it effect society where a father and a mother have two very distinct natural roles.What should children be taught?

Well, children will be taught whatever parents teach them, really. I think the biggest change will be that gay people will feel less excluded. Motherhood and fatherhood are not really affected. It would be nice to teach kids that gay people exist and that the only difference is that they love someone of the same sex. We might even teach them this is fine, but hey, baby steps right?

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?

What impending surrogacy law? People can already avail of this. How on earth would having a father and a mother become "passe" because of gay marriage? Where on earth are you getting this?

Will gay marriage increase the price of cake? Will straight marriage go out of fashion altogether? Good grief.

6) Will homosexual couples take advantage of new impending surrogacy laws as a result of this referendum.

Here it sounds like you are really asking "will gays get their hands on babies?" and I have to say it is kind of offputting. There is no change proposed to surrogacy laws. Say it with me.

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?

Gay people will get the right to marry. It will make homosexual relationships a bit more normal. And yes, some people may not like that idea.

floggg · 11-05-2015 05:12PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That doesn't address the point. Again.

You don't look at legislation to consider how the constitution should look.

Cart before horse.

Now we both know you don't actually care about anything we say here so I'll go back to ignoring you.

Apologies to everybody else for falling for the bait.

efb · 11-05-2015 05:13PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Y'know what, he actually does put his point across really well when he wants to!

I wish he'd said what he just said in that video when he got up on stage at the Abbey rather than that "noble call" nonsense about "checking himself" and all the rest of it, as Rory O' Neill, and not some ridiculous looking alter-ego.

The Abbey speech obviously struck a chord with people too

Zubeneschamali · 11-05-2015 05:17PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

People can't just vote on a slogan.

Not a slogan, a principle. The constitution does not try to include all necessary legislation - it includes principles, and then legislation is enacted to give them force. We do not need to see the size of the pile of amended legislation to decide whether the principle is right or wrong.

And despite your arguments about whether this principle is important enough to warrant a change, and your nitpicks about what bits of legislation may need changing, you have never actually said that you think SSM is wrong in principle.

Which is why I think you are actually a Yes voter being contrary, like gravehold.

eviltwin · 11-05-2015 05:20PM

I was in a gay bar at the weekend and got talking to a bloke about the referendum. I just assumed he was gay and told him I hoped he'd have freedom to marry soon and he said 'i can marry already, I'm straight'.

And in that moment the total idiocy of the entire thing really hit me.

Here is this guy who can marry the person he loves because that person is a female but this exact same guy if he chose to marry a man....all of a sudden that's a problem.

Why, what changes? What difference does it make really. He doesn't become a different person on the basis of who he marries. The whole thing just really depresses me that gay people and their future is in the hands of bigots whose lives won't be affected either way.

I hope the country does the right thing.

seamus · 11-05-2015 05:20PM

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

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?

This is the kind of argument you can make when politicians are thinking about making laws. It doesn't really apply in constitutions, since if a majority approves it, therefore by definition it is what society wants.

"Will it cause resentment" is a pretty empty phrase. I cycle to work every day and I can guarantee you there is at least one person on the road who "resents" this. That doesn't mean I should stop cycling, it just means that person needs to get over themselves.

Resentment is not a good reason for allowing or disallowing something, it is by definition personal and non-quantifiable.

Bannasidhe · 11-05-2015 05:21PM

floggg wrote: »

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

Introduced to Ireland at sword point by perfidious Albion

*shakes fist at England*

**remembers England has 5 more years of the David and Boris show so lowers fist and looks sympathetic at how karma is paying them back**

Zubeneschamali · 11-05-2015 05:23PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That doesn't address the point. Again.

It destroys your point, which is that you can't vote on the principle until you see the detailed legislation.

But you can: because the legislation must embody the principle or be unconstitutional.

smash · 11-05-2015 05:25PM

I really hope this does pass. That Rory O'Neil clip pretty much hit it home for me anyway. I was always going to vote yes but listening to what he said really does show how this is a case of "you're either with us, or against us". There really is no reason to deny this vote. If it fails to pass we'll be seen as the most homophobic country there is. The majority will have said "you're not equal!" It will be a horrible place to live.

kunst nugget · 11-05-2015 05:32PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Y'know what, he actually does put his point across really well when he wants to!

I wish he'd said what he just said in that video when he got up on stage at the Abbey rather than that "noble call" nonsense about "checking himself" and all the rest of it, as Rory O' Neill, and not some ridiculous looking alter-ego.

Considering he was in the eye of a storm, I thought he handled himself remarkably well with his Abbey speech. The whole point of dressing up as Panti for the speech was about not being afraid to express yourself whatever way you want to and not let small minded dictate who you are. Can't say I found any of it to be nonsense.

eviltwin · 11-05-2015 05:35PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Y'know what, he actually does put his point across really well when he wants to!

I wish he'd said what he just said in that video when he got up on stage at the Abbey rather than that "noble call" nonsense about "checking himself" and all the rest of it, as Rory O' Neill, and not some ridiculous looking alter-ego.

Think he might have been enroute to a job hence the costume. I don't think it diluted the message. If anything it make it more poignant. If someone wants to go out dressed in drag or anything else why shouldn't they?

Frank Bullitt · 11-05-2015 05:39PM

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/silent-no-fears-of-shock-defeat-in-marriage-referendum-grow-31211350.html

This concerns me, its the phantom No votes that could be the sting in the arse for this referendum.

Being away from Ireland fro this referendum really frustrates me, and I wish I could come home to vote.

Is there any idea of what the balance is currently for each side? As we saw in the U.K last week, even the polls can be wrong. But I really hope thats not the case with this.

smash · 11-05-2015 05:41PM

Gintonious wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/silent-no-fears-of-shock-defeat-in-marriage-referendum-grow-31211350.html

This concerns me, its the phantom No votes that could be the sting in the arse for this referendum.

Being away from Ireland fro this referendum really frustrates me, and I wish I could come home to vote.

Is there any idea of what the balance is currently for each side? As we saw in the U.K last week, even the polls can be wrong. But I really hope thats not the case with this.

So many of the no side won't admit to the fact over fear of how they'll be branded.

Ave Sodalis · 11-05-2015 05:42PM

Gintonious wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/silent-no-fears-of-shock-defeat-in-marriage-referendum-grow-31211350.html

This concerns me, its the phantom No votes that could be the sting in the arse for this referendum.

Being away from Ireland fro this referendum really frustrates me, and I wish I could come home to vote.

Is there any idea of what the balance is currently for each side? As we saw in the U.K last week, even the polls can be wrong. But I really hope thats not the case with this.

At the minute, it's about three quarters for the yes side... but I really think the polls could be way different to the final vote which will be a lot closer to half and half.

eviltwin · 11-05-2015 05:42PM

smash wrote: »

So many of the no side won't admit to the fact over fear of how they'll be branded.

Says it all really. They know themselves how wrong they are.

Frank Bullitt · 11-05-2015 05:43PM

smash wrote: »

So many of the no side won't admit to the fact over fear of how they'll be branded.

Well it would depend on their reason for voting No. But as we have seen, the reasons many are giving for voting No are pathetic.

smash · 11-05-2015 05:43PM

sup_dude wrote: »

At the minute, it's about three quarters for the yes side... but I really think the polls could be way different to the final vote which will be a lot closer to half and half.

Even if it passes with a small majority, it still sends a message about how the country feels. It would be a bitter sweet victory for the yes side.

One eyed Jack · 11-05-2015 05:44PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

Considering he was in the eye of a storm, I thought he handled himself remarkably well with his Abbey speech. The whole point of dressing up as Panti for the speech was about not being afraid to express yourself whatever way you want to and not let small minded dictate who you are. Can't say I found any of it to be nonsense.

Well, personal taste and all that. By all means dress whatever way he wants, but in just the same way as I'd say a girl who puts on her make-up with a trowel looks ridiculous, so too does a man who dresses up like a conservative middle aged woman, who puts her make-up on with a trowel.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

Fred Swanson · 11-05-2015 05:55PM

This post has been deleted.

Frank Bullitt · 11-05-2015 05:55PM

I don't think the current 3/4 to 1-4 in favour of a yes will fully come to fruition on the 22nd, it will be closer.

In a way I do hope its a landslide, but it being close is still somewhat of a concern. Also, it will give Quinn et all a lovely reason to say it was bully tactics and all sorts of garbage, and no one on earth wants to hear that ****.

kunst nugget · 11-05-2015 06:00PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well, personal taste and all that. By all means dress whatever way he wants, but in just the same way as I'd say a girl who puts on her make-up with a trowel looks ridiculous, so too does a man who dresses up like a conservative middle aged woman, who puts her make-up on with a trowel.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

You must hang around with some pretty wild looking conservative middle aged women…

Bannasidhe · 11-05-2015 06:01PM

smash wrote: »

Even if it passes with a small majority, it still sends a message about how the country feels. It would be a bitter sweet victory for the yes side.

I have to say if it's a No I will feel... less warm.. towards my country...something indefinable will be lost for me

jobbridge4life · 11-05-2015 06:04PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

You must hang around with some pretty wild looking conservative middle aged women…

Meh... he looks like a standard middle aged female PD member back in the boom times.

tayto lover · 11-05-2015 06:07PM

What odds does it make to any hetrosexuals whether gay people marry or not.
Many find it repulsive to think of what gay men especially do to each other but as long as they do it in private and don't involve me then it's their lives and I can live with it. Why shouldn't they marry if they want to? Again it doesn't effect any married couple and doesn't seem to change anything.
As regards Panto, who cares how he dresses. He's free to dress how he wants. There are far more concerning things in life. Live and let live.

gormdubhgorm · 11-05-2015 06:07PM

Surrogacy has nothing to do the SSM ref according the Irish Times:
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/why-surrogacy-has-nothing-to-do-with-same-sex-marriage-1.2189717

But then this leads to ask the question what is the situation where a SS female couple have a baby?
For example
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/dil-wickremasinghe-pregnant-online-bullying-1983965-Mar2015/ (She was the victim of bullying in this article I do not agree with the harrasment she recieved by the way)

What if following the passing of the SSM ref Dil Wickremasinghe decides to marry her partner?

What are the legal implications for the child? What if the father turns up looking for his say? Or vice versa where there are two male partners what rights will the surrogate mother have if they the SS couple marry?

I will admit that the picture of Dil Wickremasinghe pregnant with her female partner shocked me.

But if this is the way of the future following (a likely yes vote) in the SSM ref what will it mean for a SSM couple and the child in this situation.

I know it has been said that surrogacy has nothing to with the same sex marriage ref. But surely there are implications if a SS couple get married in this situation? Sucession rights and god knows what else?

This is what I meant by surrogacy minefield in a previous post. Surrogacy will have something to with the SSM ref if a SS couple who have availed of surrogacy get married legally following the referendum.

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

Comments