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

QuinDixie · 12-05-2015 10:55AM

I will vote yes.
This children and adoption talk is bizarre.
the No side cannot say they dislike gay people, they need some argument to justify their No vote, however nonsensical.

I do not agree with surrogacy or adoption, due to the links of money and crime gangs,
but that is not the issue we are voting on.

Huntergonzo · 12-05-2015 10:56AM

As a matter of interest what specific lies have the No campaign told because I haven't been following the campaigns all that closely, I've just had the misfortune of listening to members of Iona on the radio and seen a few YouTube ads and all they did was try to scare people, which rings massive alarm bells for me, I think if you're trying to build up fear you're generally up to something.

So have they told any lies in particular that has been conclusively refuted? and have they dogmatically stuck to those lies?

Tenz · 12-05-2015 10:56AM

TheChizler wrote: »

Is there a general desire for these things to be part of the constitution? Otherwise the only way you could vote for them is during a general election. Did many of these crop up during the constitutional convention?

Perhaps we should consider using referenda to decide issues of great importance to the people of Ireland, and not limit their use to issues requiring constitutional amendments.

Dan_Solo · 12-05-2015 10:57AM

floggg wrote: »

We would bankrupt if we had to do this on everything and anything people wanted their say on.

Not if we had e-voting machines.

One eyed Jack · 12-05-2015 10:58AM

floggg wrote: »

You know not liking Panti, or not being moved, inspired or impressed by the speech, which was watched by millions and gained worldwide acclaim, is fine.

There are lots of great speeches and performers I don't really like all that much.

But when you keep banging on about it for a couple of hours, that's when it's clearly far beyond personal distaste. I'm not saying its because she's in drag (I'm not saying its not either - I honestly don't know), but at a certain point it moves far beyond disinterest.

To be this irritated by a speech calling for acceptance and inclusion is unhealthy.

Am I allowed address this now seeing as, y'know, it's a couple of hours later and all (when I work on your time, then you'll have every right to complain about the expediency, or indeed the effort or length of my posts, but until then... well...).

First off - no, I don't like the alter-ego, Panti Bliss, but thanks for your permission. You're right, I wasn't moved, nor inspired, nor anything else, by someone bleating about how their insecurity with themselves was turned into oppression as though everyone else were actively engaged in passing judgement upon them. I get where she was coming from. Fine. I just don't particularly care, I don't see what was so great about it, but if other people can identify with it and it makes them feel better about themselves - good for them.

Second - I didn't bang on about it for a couple of hours. I made a single comment, that when he spoke as Rory O' Neill, I was able to take him seriously, because he didn't look so ridiculous. Other people chose to read far too much into my comment as though I had some issues with drag entertainers or whatever. I don't, never have, never will. I chose to correct them because I don't like when people read too much into what I say and try and extrapolate an entirely different meaning. I wasn't banging on about anything, and in just the same way as it gets tiresome for someone who is homosexual to constantly feel they have to justify themselves, well, quelle surprise - they're no different than anyone else. I get tired of having to justify myself too when other people make assumptions about me or try to put words in my mouth, or judge me based on their own prejudices.

Thirdly - If you had read my posts, you wouldn't have to speculate about whether it's because she's in drag or not. It IS because she's in drag. It's because to me she looks ridiculous - trying to get across a serious message while painted up like a hot mess in a conservative outfit. If you're gonna do drag, do it. Don't make a half-assed job of it and expect people should take you seriously.

Fourthly - as much as you'd like to make out I was irritated by a speech calling for acceptance and inclusion, maybe we weren't listening to the same person. All I heard was someone given a captive audience having a good old whine. There was nothing inspirational about bemoaning feeling like society is oppressing you. That's the same society that you want to be a part of. Forget this idea of calling for 'acceptance', and instead focus on 'participation' in that society. The world doesn't stop because you have issues. Everyone in society has issues. That's who a society is made up of. That's what diversity actually is. If you want acceptance in society, there's no better way to gain acceptance in society than to be seen to be participating in that society.

To be calling for acceptance from society, while at the same time you want to exclude yourself from society - that's what's actually unhealthy!

Now, having said all that - I let it go about the "doorstep canvassing challenge" because I said to myself the further I got into it with you, the more you were gonna twist my words and try and make out I was this, that and the other, and that's not fine. But I graciously stepped out and let it go, and I'm gonna do it again now after this, so please, as you said floggg - let's both of us not bang on about this one for another day. I have neither the time, nor the patience for it any more tbh, and I'd just as soon get this thread back to discussing what actually matters, which is the upcoming referendum on civil marriage equality.

Tenz · 12-05-2015 11:01AM

floggg wrote: »

But those aren't issues which should rightly be put to a referendum.

Referenda are for constitutional changes only.

The changes to the adoption laws aren't constitutional issues, and so it would not be appropriate to ask the public directly.

Our system of government means we get to indirectly have our say on these things through the representatives we elect to the legislature - who must then try to legislate in accordance with their electoral mandate and in line with the constitution.

Think about it - a State couldn't function if it had to ask the masses for consent on every change. It took years of effort just to get this Referendum on the table, months and months of canvassing, and millions of euros to fund both campaigns.

We would bankrupt if we had to do this on everything and anything people wanted their say on.

Perhaps, but can we really say we live in a democracy when we only ever get to vote join matters which are comparatively trivial. And a choice between tweedle drum and tweedle dee in a general election doesn't constitute a meaningful democracy in my opinion. In the case of gay adoption, all the major parties support the idea, so what choice do you have?

Bannasidhe · 12-05-2015 11:03AM

P_1 wrote: »

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

Do the Bishops know that?

walkingshadow · 12-05-2015 11:03AM

Any new polls coming soon?

TheChizler · 12-05-2015 11:03AM

QuinDixie wrote: »

I will vote yes.
This children and adoption talk is bizarre.
the No side cannot say they dislike gay people, they need some argument to justify their No vote, however nonsensical.

I do not agree with surrogacy or adoption, due to the links of money and crime gangs,
but that is not the issue we are voting on.

For most though I don't think it's that simple, never underestimate your opposition. I think for many the anti gay sentiment is a hangover from years ago, they don't actively dislike them but are uncomfortable with the idea in a general sense (but be ok with people they know personally), or have a sense of unease about giving the same rights on paper to this labeled group that for years they have been conditioned to dislike. A lot of people don't like changing from ideas they have grown up with. This manifests itself with homophobic actions but I wouldn't label them necessarily as homophobic internally, at least intentionally. It takes a lot of bravery and willingness to challenge your beliefs, which unfortunately a lot of people don't have.

VinLieger · 12-05-2015 11:05AM

Huntergonzo wrote: »

So have they told any lies in particular that has been conclusively refuted? and have they dogmatically stuck to those lies?

That the referendum has anything to do with children or the result will affect them in anyway.

That children are better off with exactly one mother and one father as opposed to just a loving parent/parents/guardians/siblings/grandparents

That a yes result will fundamentally change all marriages that were previously entered into before the referendum

Thats just off the top of my head im sure im missing a few

Kiwi in IE · 12-05-2015 11:06AM

floggg wrote: »

The argument is so demonstrably bull**** too - if infertile heterosexuals don't have a right to be provided with a baby/surrogacy by the State, why would homosexuals?

It's a bull**** argument that even the Iona legal opinion debunked.

Well OH and I are currently undergoing fertility treatment. Saving hard so we have enough for a couple of €5000 per fresh cycle rounds of IVF. Apparently as a heterosexual married couple we have a constitutional right to procreate so therefore it seems the state should be paying for it. Free babies for married couples. We might have to look into claiming ours.

Dan_Solo · 12-05-2015 11:07AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Am I allowed address this now seeing as, y'know, it's a couple of hours later and all (when I work on your time, then you'll have every right to complain about the expediency, or indeed the effort or length of my posts, but until then... well...).

First off - no, I don't like the alter-ego, Panti Bliss, but thanks for your permission. You're right, I wasn't moved, nor inspired, nor anything else, by someone bleating about how their insecurity with themselves was turned into oppression as though everyone else were actively engaged in passing judgement upon them. I get where she was coming from. Fine. I just don't particularly care, I don't see what was so great about it, but if other people can identify with it and it makes them feel better about themselves - good for them.

Second - I didn't bang on about it for a couple of hours. I made a single comment, that when he spoke as Rory O' Neill, I was able to take him seriously, because he didn't look so ridiculous. Other people chose to read far too much into my comment as though I had some issues with drag entertainers or whatever. I don't, never have, never will. I chose to correct them because I don't like when people read too much into what I say and try and extrapolate an entirely different meaning. I wasn't banging on about anything, and in just the same way as it gets tiresome for someone who is homosexual to constantly feel they have to justify themselves, well, quelle surprise - they're no different than anyone else. I get tired of having to justify myself too when other people make assumptions about me or try to put words in my mouth, or judge me based on their own prejudices.

Thirdly - If you had read my posts, you wouldn't have to speculate about whether it's because she's in drag or not. It IS because she's in drag. It's because to me she looks ridiculous - trying to get across a serious message while painted up like a hot mess in a conservative outfit. If you're gonna do drag, do it. Don't make a half-assed job of it and expect people should take you seriously.

Fourthly - as much as you'd like to make out I was irritated by a speech calling for acceptance and inclusion, maybe we weren't listening to the same person. All I heard was someone given a captive audience having a good old whine. There was nothing inspirational about bemoaning feeling like society is oppressing you. That's the same society that you want to be a part of. Forget this idea of calling for 'acceptance', and instead focus on 'participation' in that society. The world doesn't stop because you have issues. Everyone in society has issues. That's who a society is made up of. That's what diversity actually is. If you want acceptance in society, there's no better way to gain acceptance in society than to be seen to be participating in that society.

To be calling for acceptance from society, while at the same time you want to exclude yourself from society - that's what's actually unhealthy!

Now, having said all that - I let it go about the "doorstep canvassing challenge" because I said to myself the further I got into it with you, the more you were gonna twist my words and try and make out I was this, that and the other, and that's not fine. But I graciously stepped out and let it go, and I'm gonna do it again now after this, so please, as you said floggg - let's both of us not bang on about this one for another day. I have neither the time, nor the patience for it any more tbh, and I'd just as soon get this thread back to discussing what actually matters, which is the upcoming referendum on civil marriage equality.

I'm sorry you spent so much time typing this (and me reading it) but none of it is within a million miles of a case to vote either way TBH.

Roger_007 · 12-05-2015 11:11AM

floggg wrote: »

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".

I think that you have answered my question in a roundabout way.
There truth seems to be that there is no practical difference between civil partnership and marriage.
The so called constitutional protection for marriage was cancelled out by the introduction of divorce.
The recent Child and Family legislation has addressed any other differences.
All unions between should properly be regarded by the state as civil partnerships. The 'institution' of marriage is really a religious term which the state should not be involved in at all.

Tenz · 12-05-2015 11:14AM

TheChizler wrote: »

For most though I don't think it's that simple, never underestimate your opposition. I think for many the anti gay sentiment is a hangover from years ago, they don't actively dislike them but are uncomfortable with the idea in a general sense (but be ok with people they know personally), or have a sense of unease about giving the same rights on paper to this labeled group that for years they have been conditioned to dislike. A lot of people don't like changing from ideas they have grown up with. This manifests itself with homophobic actions but I wouldn't label them necessarily as homophobic internally, at least intentionally. It takes a lot of bravery and willingness to challenge your beliefs, which unfortunately a lot of people don't have.

Generally true I think. But I would add one thing. Almost all of the older generation I've spoken to say something along the lines of ...

"I don't care what two consenting adults do. Let them marry if they want. Nothing to do with me. But will they be allowed to adopt children? I think a child is better off with a mother and a father"

They're not homophobic, irrational, overly religious, or insane. They just have concerns about a child being raised by two daddies or two mammies. And I think its genuinely amusing how many people dismiss these concerns out of hand, while simultaneously shouting 'breast is best!!', and 'too posh to push!'. How you could feel the minutae of a child's medical delivery, and first method of feeding are matters of weighty concern, but the gender of a child's primary caregivers is totally inconsequential, baffles me.

Huntergonzo · 12-05-2015 11:15AM

VinLieger wrote: »

That the referendum has anything to do with children or the result will affect them in anyway.

That children are better off with exactly one mother and one father as opposed to just a loving parent/parents/guardians/siblings/grandparents

That a yes result will fundamentally change all marriages that were previously entered into before the referendum

Thats just off the top of my head im sure im missing a few

You see to me those just look like unfounded, conservative and obviously biased opinions, how are they allowed to build an entire campaign based on unfounded opinions (some apparently have even been proven wrong).

Also the one about it fundamentally changing marriages, I had to laugh at that one, what are they afraid of, that their wives are suddenly going to grow penises or husbands going to grow vaginas if Yes wins, how on earth would a Yes vote 'change' their marriages???

smash · 12-05-2015 11:15AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

First off - no, I don't like the alter-ego, Panti Bliss, but thanks for your permission. You're right, I wasn't moved, nor inspired, nor anything else, by someone bleating about how their insecurity with themselves was turned into oppression as though everyone else were actively engaged in passing judgement upon them. I get where she was coming from. Fine. I just don't particularly care, I don't see what was so great about it, but if other people can identify with it and it makes them feel better about themselves - good for them.

You completely took that speech up wrong then. It isn't insecurity for no reason, and it in't everyone judging him/her. It's insecurity brought on by bullying and abuse from a minority. A minority that is well hidden in society because it could be anyone at all who holds a prejudice, for no valid reason.

So consider someone standing waiting to cross a road, minding their own business, listening to some music and generally just enjoying life. People pass, and everyone's normal... everyone's just doing their own thing. Then suddenly a car drives by and someone shouts abuse out of nowhere. Why did it happen? What did the person do wrong? What gave away the fact that they're 'different'? and why are they hated for it? Why have they had the abuse thrown at them and then the subsequent attention drawn to them?

Gay people don't feel better about the speech, it brings up bad memories. It re-enforces the hatred they meet regularly. But the speech is true and it needs to not just be heard, it needs to be listened to. If you don't like pani then close your eyes and don't look. But please do listen!

I know people who have encountered this. It's not a rare thing, it's very prevalent. It's disgusting! I've sat with a family member who's nearly been in tears over it.

The worst part is like you say, you just don't care! A lot of people have this attitude because they'll never experience it themselves.

Bannasidhe · 12-05-2015 11:19AM

Roger_007 wrote: »

I think that you have answered my question in a roundabout way.
There truth seems to be that there is no practical difference between civil partnership and marriage.
The so called constitutional protection for marriage was cancelled out by the introduction of divorce.
The recent Child and Family legislation has addressed any other differences.
All unions between should properly be regarded by the state as civil partnerships. The 'institution' of marriage is really a religious term which the state should not be involved in at all.

No - divorce did not cancel out the Constitutional protection. The only way to do that is via a Referendum to have the clause(s) protecting marriage removed.

Divorce redefined marriage far more than SSM will becuase it gave a 'get out' clause. Marriage is no longer til death. Man can take it asunder.

Because Marriage is deemed in the Constitution to be the foundation of the family the courts have interpreted this to mean married = family and only married = family so only married gets Constitutional protection for their family - whether or not they have children.

People in a civil partnership are not Constitutionally or in the eyes of the courts a family - that is a huge difference as it means they do not have Constitutional protection.

VinLieger · 12-05-2015 11:25AM

Huntergonzo wrote: »

You see to me those just look like unfounded, conservative and obviously biased opinions, how are they allowed to build an entire campaign based on unfounded opinions (some apparently have even been proven wrong).

Also the one about it fundamentally changing marriages, I had to laugh at that one, what are they afraid of, that their wives are suddenly going to grow penises or husbands going to grow vaginas if Yes wins, how on earth would a Yes vote 'change' their marriages???

They are shouting and screaming these lies enough to confuse the undecided's, its a huge issue thank's to the ridiculous BAI rule giving both sides equal airtime regardless of the blatant lies one side is spewing

Zubeneschamali · 12-05-2015 11:27AM

Roger_007 wrote: »

The 'institution' of marriage is really a religious term

No, it really isn't, it is a legal term with a bunch of associated laws and precedents. Civil marriage is older than our Constitution, or our State.

A desire to abolish it because the Gays got their paws on it is just more fear of the other.

Bannasidhe · 12-05-2015 11:29AM

VinLieger wrote: »

They are shouting and screaming these lies enough to confuse the undecided's, its a huge issue thank's to the ridiculous BAI rule giving both sides equal airtime regardless of the blatant lies one side is spewing

and the complete lack of any kind of standards in public discourse regulation.

We can sanction TDs who call another TD a hypocrite in the Dáil but lies, misinformation and scaremongering are par for the course in any kind of election/referendum campaign with no sanctions.

osarusan · 12-05-2015 11:30AM

Tenz wrote: »

Generally true I think. But I would add one thing. Almost all of the older generation I've spoken to say something along the lines of ...

"I don't care what two consenting adults do. Let them marry if they want. Nothing to do with me. But will they be allowed to adopt children? I think a child is better off with a mother and a father"

They're not homophobic, irrational, overly religious, or insane. They just have concerns about a child being raised by two daddies or two mammies. And I think its genuinely amusing how many people dismiss these concerns out of hand, while simultaneously shouting 'breast is best!!', and 'too posh to push!'. How you could feel the minutae of a child's medical delivery, and first method of feeding are matters of weighty concern, but the gender of a child's primary caregivers is totally inconsequential, baffles me.

When it comes down to the reasoning (or lack of it) for their position, they often seem to be homophobic at least.

I don't think these concerns are dismissed out of hand either - they are pointed at the vast amount of research indicating that when it comes to raising children in a safe and supportive environment, gender is not a significant factor, and it is also pointed out that there are plenty of perfectly normal children out there who have been raised by same sex couples.

Finally, the issue of adoption isn't even relevant to the marriage equality referendum. But No advocates continue to conflate the two. Certainly, in light of what they must ignore to stick to their position, they are irrational.

It is only when people dismiss all this (as Ronan Mullen did last night, saying he couldn't trust the head of the adoption board as he was an arm of the government, or farcical words to that effect) that people begin to dismiss them out of hand.

Roger_007 · 12-05-2015 11:33AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

..........................

People in a civil partnership are not Constitutionally or in the eyes of the courts a family - that is a huge difference as it means they do not have Constitutional protection.

My original question was can anyone give a practical everyday example of how civil partnership differs from marriage.
In what circumstances would the courts treat the two as being different?
Does anyone have a practical example?

Nobody has yet come up with an answer. Therefore I have to conclude that there is NO practical difference. It's all just terminology.

Lt J.R. Bell · 12-05-2015 11:35AM

Roger_007 wrote: »

I think that you have answered my question in a roundabout way.
There truth seems to be that there is no practical difference between civil partnership and marriage.
The so called constitutional protection for marriage was cancelled out by the introduction of divorce.
The recent Child and Family legislation has addressed any other differences.
All unions between should properly be regarded by the state as civil partnerships. The 'institution' of marriage is really a religious term which the state should not be involved in at all.

Divorce has not, in any way, "cancelled out" the Constitutional Protection for Marriage.

Married people still enjoy some important preferential treatment; tax , social welfare, property rights

They have more rights compared to gays. And, hetrosexual couples have little or no rights for anythings, AS A UNIT, (not individually) .

So essentially, right now (Civil Partnership), and later if gays get marriage, gay couples, even if they don't have children of their own, have better legal protections than a hetrosexaul non married couple who have children ..

However, from a Child's point of view, they can't be discriminated against because they are a child born into a marriage or born out of wedlock

smash · 12-05-2015 11:38AM

Roger_007 wrote: »

My original question was can anyone give a practical everyday example of how civil partnership differs from marriage.
In what circumstances would the courts treat the two as being different?
Does anyone have a practical example?

Nobody has yet come up with an answer. Therefore I have to conclude that there is NO practical difference. It's all just terminology.

The most obvious practical every day example is taxation.

ixoy · 12-05-2015 11:39AM

Roger_007 wrote: »

My original question was can anyone give a practical everyday example of how civil partnership differs from marriage.
In what circumstances would the courts treat the two as being different?
Does anyone have a practical example?[\quote]
Hospital visitation rights I believe. It's not properly defined that a civil partnership enables you to next of kin visitation rights that married couples enjoy.

It's all just terminology.

No. With divorce you can end your marriage only. The government can't interfere. Civil partnership, not enjoying constitutional protection, is subject to blanket change, including complete dissolution of all partnerships without any referendum required.

Lt J.R. Bell · 12-05-2015 11:40AM

Roger_007 wrote: »

My original question was can anyone give a practical everyday example of how civil partnership differs from marriage.
In what circumstances would the courts treat the two as being different?
Does anyone have a practical example?

Nobody has yet come up with an answer. Therefore I have to conclude that there is NO practical difference. It's all just terminology.

While, I would love to agree with you 100%, there are some differences which the Civil Partnership Act has not provided for. But, I fail to see why this can't be amended. (ie property rights) One poster is getting pissy about reference to "family home" and only being referred to as "shared home" (but more or less same protections )

Ask I already pointed out, after going through that coloured chart about the so called 160 differences, earlier, some of them are either artificial or simply would not in any way concern them, ever,

There are one or two issues about children and the rights of the gay non biological parent. But, those issues maybe be dealt with more clearly with the few family law legislation which will be more gay friendly (on a practical level))

Bannasidhe · 12-05-2015 11:40AM

Roger_007 wrote: »

My original question was can anyone give a practical everyday example of how civil partnership differs from marriage.
In what circumstances would the courts treat the two as being different?
Does anyone have a practical example?

Nobody has yet come up with an answer. Therefore I have to conclude that there is NO practical difference. It's all just terminology.

I have to conclude that you don't understand what it means to have your family Constitutionally protected...or not.

Think of it as:

Married = fully comprehensive insurance with wind screen cover, no claims bonus protection, breakdown assist, and no quibble replacement of same model same year car

Civil Partnership = 3rd Party fire and theft.

Gay couple are not allowed to take out the fully comp.

You also seem unaware that the Family Courts are held 'in camera' so it is near impossible (without doing a hell of a lot of research) to 'give every day examples'

El Weirdo · 12-05-2015 11:41AM

Roger_007 wrote: »

Therefore I have to conclude that there is NO practical difference. It's all just terminology.

Even if that was the case (it isn't), why have the same thing but call it something different? That's a huge inequality, that basically says, "Your relationship isn't the same as mine".

Zubeneschamali · 12-05-2015 11:44AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

there are some differences which the Civil Partnership Act has not provided for. But, I fail to see why this can't be amended.

The reason CP is not the same as marriage already is that a bill stating simply "civil partners will enjoy all the same rights and responsibilities as married couples" would be unconstitutional, since it challenges the protected status of marriage.

So we'd need an amendment to do this "seperate but equal" status, and the only reason to do it would be to stop Gay germs getting on the word Marriage, which is an utterly ridiculous notion.

Lt J.R. Bell · 12-05-2015 11:44AM

osarusan wrote: »

When it comes down to the reasoning (or lack of it) for their position, they often seem to be homophobic at least.

I don't think these concerns are dismissed out of hand either - they are pointed at the vast amount of research indicating that when it comes to raising children in a safe and supportive environment, gender is not a significant factor, and it is also pointed out that there are plenty of perfectly normal children out there who have been raised by same sex couples. Certainly, in light of what they must ignore to stick to their position, they are irrational.

It is only when people dismiss all this (as Ronan Mullen did last night, saying he couldn't trust the head of the adoption board as he was an arm of the government, or farcical words to that effect) that people begin to dismiss them out of hand.

They are either are homophobic or they are not homophobic. You can not get away with allegations like "they often seem to be homophobic at least."

People who throw out that qualified statement still want the desired effect but are not sure if they are accurate. Why the qualified words ?

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

Comments