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

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Still with me?

Irish law says that the surrogate is the mother and the only way she can 'lose' her rights as a mother is if she signs them away in exactly the same way as if she was giving the child up for adoption.

Yea with you I remember that. The dude threw me with no womb, thought it was some new school relationship I should understand that I couldn't.

I'm sure people will sign anything for enough money, That's the problem.

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm kind'a amused that what applies for marriage law in Massachusetts is thought by Ronan and the gent who returned from there to be what we should bear in mind when we decide what's right in law here for Ireland. However the out-of-left-field scare story of what might be put into education and schoolbooks here if civil marriage is extended to LGBT couples must have been like manna from heaven for Ronan. That might not have even occurred to Iona to use as a "protect the kids" angle.

Can anyone remember his name?

Oh, and Healy-Emes complaining about having a bill rejected even after it was explained to her that she was trying to introduce a right that already existed...

frostyjacks wrote: »

Didn't actually say he was voting yes, just supporting the campaign.

I don't think it's a logical jump to think that he is voting yes. If he is supporting the campaign why wouldn't he?

Storm in a teacup or a nice distraction while the politicians get on with recapitalising their cronies at the public's expense ?

Why do we need a marriage reference in article 41 ? same sex marriage isn't going to introduce any more difficult legal issues than exist already, but as an happily unmarried (and happily in a relationship) parent it would seem more reasonable to remove the religious mumbo from our constitution. Leave love and faith out of the law.

One thing I learned from the No side...Breda O'Briens son loves a good bualadh bos mór. I thought he was going to fall off his chair at the end of the debate he was clapping so hard. The mad yoke.

efb wrote: »

did he get The Clap from his ma? :P

I was going to end my post with "he is mad for the clap" but I'm glad I didnt. That one is much better :pac:

Deleted User wrote: »

If the no side do want to use children for their no campaign then how about the thousands of children now who will go through puberty one day and realize they're gay and regardless of having a mother and a father, or raised by one parent, or raised by their grandparents, that they haven't been protected in Irish society, because according to homophobic people they don't fit into any definition of family in words on a page.

It's funny, the only time I hear Iona talk about children is when it comes to SSM. No mention of the damage poverty does to children, growing up in abusive homes or growing up facing discrimination.

What makes them more of an expert on children than Barnardos or the ISPCC? What is there history working with children and real families.

RobertKK wrote: »

The state are not the only ones involved in marriage, the state only matters for civil marriage.

The state and the couple are the only people involved in a marriage. Who else were you thinking of????

RobertKK wrote: »

States rely on the church. They are the second biggest provider of education and healthcare in the world after governments.
States will not cut off their noses despite their faces.

They are paid to provide those services by the state. The church has always tried to grab the education roles in countries, as this is how they most efficiently indoctrinate children early into believing their nonsense. The church of course has vast amounts of property which allows them build / own schools. But that property bank is there because they do not pay taxes on gifts, a concession given to them by the state.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That doesn't address the point. Again.

Yet that is the reality of how it works in Ireland. Why do you expect this Ref to be any different from all the previous ones?