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

munchkin_utd wrote: »

to be fair, a lot of the yes arguments being made unfortunately are along the lines of
- you should feel sorry for gays who don't feel equal, so make them smile and vote yes
- its nothing about kids, at all, not a little bit, so ignore the no side, and vote yes
- if the above isnt enough reason to vote yes, you are a homophobe and bigot if you vote no, so vote yes
etc etc etc.

Instead, if the focus of the yes side was less emotional and pity enducing and more fact based on the improvements in legal status of gay people and the failings of civil partnership, and even better focus on how kids of gay parents are so much better off with a yes vote, then there'd be so many good points made that even a smokescreen of doubts planted from the no side should be negated by real tangiable benefits on the yes side.

I am still shocked that the childrens groups proposing a yes vote in a coordinated press event were more worried about their gay adult mates being made warm and fuzzy inside through a yes vote and a vague knock on effect that playground bullying of gay kids will subside, than tangiable immediate legal benefits to kids of gay parents after a potential yes vote.
Crazy stuff.

Except that doesn't address my point about pseudo legal nonsense at all, and just brings the argument back to children again, which is a common spin.

More often then not, it's those with a victim complex mentioning the word homophobe before they're accused of anything to do with it. My own personal opinion is that I can't know if these people are homophobes, I'm not psychic and can't get into their brains, but their actions demonstrably are as they are unreasonably arguing against equal, practical rights. I have yet to see one person reasonably make the connection between SSM and children, it's like the underpants gnome's three phase plan in South Park; Phase 1: Collect underpants, Phase 2: ?, Phase 3: Profit. Family is founded on Marriage, ???, gays can't have children without a third party therefore vote no.

Constitutionally there is no dependency between marriage and children, if you can show me this connection you claim exists then I'll listen to you. The family is undefined in the context of the constitution. The only reference to children in the context of marriage in the constitution is that their circumstances may be considered in the event of divorce. Children and family are mentioned in the context of education in that the primary educator is the family, (actually acknowledging here the dependency between family and marriage, if a child's parents aren't married does that mean they constitutionally don't have a primary educator?) but that doesn't prevent people from having children without being married or mean people must have children if they are married.

I think one of the problems here is the willingness to conflate constitutional statements with common practice.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

"This referendum has nothing to do with adopting children."

It sort of does thought, if what used to happen was only one of the gay couple could technically be the guardian and now they can both be the guardian.
(if I'm picking it up right)
Small yes, but not no change.

Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 sorted that = nothing to do with the Referendum.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

"This referendum has nothing to do with adopting children."

It sort of does thought, if what used to happen was only one of the gay couple could technically be the guardian and now they can both be the guardian.
(if I'm picking it up right)
Small yes, but not no change.

If the bill that addresses that hadn't been brought in already and made same sex cohabiting partners eligible to apply together, then yes it would have, but that wouldn't have theoretically prevented the government from changing the legislation to rule out same sex couples.

The government can make any law they want as long as they have a majority and it's constitutional. However in this case the Children and Family Relationships bill beats this referendum by a week or two and the outcome of the referendum won't have any effect on this.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think you mean "no absolute right".

Sorry, I'll re-define what I wrote (There is NO RIGHT TO PROCREATE in Irish Law) to read (there is nothing in Irish written statute law that say's one DOES NOT have the right to procreate).

In writing the above, I'm bearing in mind that there are laws listing criminal sanctions for people who might take, or try to take, ADVANTAGE of other people for procreational or sexual pleasure purposes.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sean O Rourke show now discussing the children of Catholic priests -apparently every child needs a Mammy and Daddy unless Daddy is a Catholic priests in which case deny everything on orders from HQ.

But Pope Francis did say that priests should be responsible for their children.
Think about that for a second - they have to be told and it took this long to tell them...

Ugh **** the priests and the church! Why should they get to say anything when half those people have raped young lads.

Roger_007 wrote: »

Could someone enlighten me as to what precisely the difference in legal terms is between marriage and civil partnership. I have heard the question asked numerous times but have yet to hear of a concrete example of a scenario where there is a difference. In my opinion the state should recognise all partnerships as civil partnerships and drop the term 'marriage' as an official term altogether. Then everyone would be equal.

There are circa 160 legal difference s between the two for a start (though this will be reduced once the Children's and Family Relationship's Act comes fully into force).

But the two main differences are:

1. Civil Partnership does not have any constitutional status or protection.

It is not possible to confer the same rights and protections on a CP as currently apply to marriage. And CP can be repealed by a future Oireachtas if it wishes, to the detriment of LGBT people.

2. More importantly, even if we could make the two institutions equal as a matter of law, CP would then serve solely to mark out same sex relationships unequal and different.

Think about it - if they were the same in substance, wouldn't it be absurd to insist on calling them two different names?

The only reason to insist on maintaining an artificial distinction between the two would be to create an unnecessary divide between the two, and to mark same sex relationships out as something "other".

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Some lad from the Referendum Commission was on Morning Ireland this morning answering questions, and it must be horribly dispiriting:

Q. What will this mean for surrogacy?

A. Nothing.

Q. What will this mean for Adoption?

A. Nothing

Q. What will this mean for existing Civil Partnerships?

A. Nothing.

etc.

Lol, so many No's..............

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Some lad from the Referendum Commission was on Morning Ireland this morning answering questions, and it must be horribly dispiriting:

Q. What will this mean for surrogacy?

A. Nothing.

Q. What will this mean for Adoption?

A. Nothing

Q. What will this mean for existing Civil Partnerships?

A. Nothing.

etc.

He's right of course, but I think a lot of people are justifiably angry that they have not been asked to vote on these far more important issues (I.e. the family and relationships bill). A good share of the no vote will be a protest vote.

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I think it's odd that this could go through without a constitutional change TBH. Why didn't the same "ambiguity" in the constitution prevent this when it was preventing same sex marriage? Happy to admit I don't know any more about the bill than what I've just heard though.
(and I'm a firm Yes BTW)

Firstly, there is a question about whether the referendum was required.

Secondly, adoption isn't a constitutionally protected institution, so the Oireacthas has far more lee way to change the adoption laws.

As marriage is referred to in the Constitution though, some people felt the state didn't have the same leeway.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sean O Rourke show now discussing the children of Catholic priests -apparently every child needs a Mammy and Daddy unless Daddy is a Catholic priests in which case deny everything on orders from HQ.

But Pope Francis did say that priests should be responsible for their children.
Think about that for a second - they have to be told and it took this long to tell them...

The church has no place in a debate in a secular republic

Tenz wrote: »

Forgot to mention that I had considered a no vote myself for these very reasons, but "on mature reflection", have decided to vote yes.

The surrogacy and adoption issues do bother me though, and it annoys me that we're not even being asked our opinion on this. However, voting no won't change anything in that respect. I suppose I wasn't asked about the bank bailout either, so I should just get used to the idea of living in an oligarchy.

The adoption question was answered last night, ultimately a good deal of the decision is tied in with the wishes of the birth mother.

Surrogacy should be decided on in another referendum, not this one