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

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 12-05-2015 11:46AM

floggg wrote: »

Knock yourself out

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/General%20Scheme%20of%20the%20Marriage%20Bill%202015.pdf/Files/General%20Scheme%20of%20the%20Marriage%20Bill%202015.pdf

Unfortunately, the published scheme doesn't really cover the scope of potential change. For instance, it seems to follow a pattern of replacing the terms "husband" and "wife" with "spouse" in such enactments as it covers. Does this mean that gender terms will never be used in legislation? Does it mean a gendered term will never be taken as applying to either spouse?

It specifically doesn't cover the example I've given of the presumption of paternity. Now, it could bring that specific section into line with a simple insertion of a phrase "except in the case of same sex marriages" or somesuch. But would that conflict with the phrase "without distinction" that's used in the Amendment?

Lt J.R. Bell · 12-05-2015 11:48AM

smash wrote: »

The most obvious practical every day example is taxation.

Wrong

Taxation support actually has been provided for in Civil Partnership Act , more than what de facto couples get

http://www.revenue.ie/en/personal/circumstances/civil-partnership.html

And, what about Taxation? Since it's "obvious", what kind of benefits

Try again, since it's so obvious

Roger_007 · 12-05-2015 11:50AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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'

You still can't come up with a scenario where couples would be treated differently. (I don't know where you are going with insurance thing, you probably watched too much of Fr Ted.........small = far away.......).

SireOfSeth · 12-05-2015 11:50AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

All?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteen...ion_of_Ireland

Before the referendum, a draft Family Law (Divorce) Bill was published to illustrate how the Constitutional provisions would be implemented if the amendment were passed.

There's nothing procedurally wrong with what they're doing; but I'd prefer a different approach.

Why didn't you say? Here you go...
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Genera...ill%202015.pdf

K4t · 12-05-2015 11:51AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

They are either are homophobic or they are not homophobic.

Nope. People can be tolerant of homosexuality and homosexuals and yet still be homophobic, thus blurring the lines of speech surrounding the issue. Iona, the Catholic Church and others are most definitely homophobic but they themselves are allowed to disguise it through their very own qualifications such as "We have nothing against gay people" and "We support gay people and their rights" and so on.

Tenz · 12-05-2015 11:51AM

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.

Irrational is a strong word. I think these people consider the families and relationships that they know best, and they perceive there to be times in those relationships when a child 'needed their mammy' or 'needed their daddy'. They attach more importance to this evidence that they can see 'with their own two eyes', than they attach to evidence proferred by 'experts' whom they would suspect of subscribing to a politically correct viewpoint in an effort to safeguard their jobs, reputations etc.
Its not irrational to think like this. It is maybe a non-academic way of thinking, but it is not irrational.

Irrational is simultaneously believing that a) breast is best, b) a child deserves the best and, c) two gay men can care for a child as well as a heterosexual couple.
These 3 things are incompatible.

I should add that personally, on balance, I would probably vote yes to gay adoption, if I were asked. I would add gender of caregiver to the list of minutae which have a minimal impact on a child's development, along with breastfeeding and c-sections. But I understand that some people do not believe these to be trivial matters, and they have every right to air their opinions without being labelled irrational.

Huntergonzo · 12-05-2015 11:52AM

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

If that's the case then surely it's down to the interviewers to call them on their lies and state categorically that they're merely going off topic and stating unfounded opinion. Equal airtime is fair, but you must be made stick to the issue, manipulation should not be acceptable because sadly people do seem to fall for it, it's another product of religious indoctrination of children = they're taught to believe and accept things with 0 evidence.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 12-05-2015 11:52AM

SireOfSeth wrote: »

Why didn't you say? Here you go...
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Genera...ill%202015.pdf

I think the close attention Yes posters are paying to the discussion is illustrated by the fact I just addressed this three posts before yours.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Unfortunately, the published scheme doesn't really cover the scope of potential change. For instance, it seems to follow a pattern of replacing the terms "husband" and "wife" with "spouse" in such enactments as it covers. Does this mean that gender terms will never be used in legislation? Does it mean a gendered term will never be taken as applying to either spouse?

It specifically doesn't cover the example I've given of the presumption of paternity. Now, it could bring that specific section into line with a simple insertion of a phrase "except in the case of same sex marriages" or somesuch. But would that conflict with the phrase "without distinction" that's used in the Amendment?

Zubeneschamali · 12-05-2015 11:52AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It specifically doesn't cover the example I've given of the presumption of paternity. Now, it could bring that specific section into line with a simple insertion of a phrase "except in the case of same sex marriages" or somesuch.

What is your specific issue with this law? Can you give us some hypothetical example of where anyone will ever care about this presumption of paternity?

The only case I can come up with is a woman who divorces a man, marries a woman and gives birth within 10 months of the divorce. The presumption would then be that the former husband was the father, unless they can show on the balance of probabilities that he is not.

Given that the woman and man have lived apart for four of the previous five years (per the stupid Constitution), and the woman will presumably have some idea how she became pregnant, I don't think disproving this presumption will be a problem. Or maybe he is the father, and it is not an issue.

BlitzKrieg · 12-05-2015 11:53AM

Flying home on the 22nd to vote Yes, so my involvement in the referendum has mostly been the sidelines watching online, and anything involving the internet is mostly depressing but my boss was over last weekend, she knows how to cheer me up, came back with a bunch of Yes stickers for me.

Bannasidhe · 12-05-2015 11:55AM

Roger_007 wrote: »

You still can't come up with a scenario where couples would be treated differently. (I don't know where you are going with insurance thing, you probably watched too much of Fr Ted.........small = far away.......).

Mate - if you want me to do research my rate is €50 an hour plus expenses.

Here are the relevant Acts - off you go

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0024/sched.html

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1972/en/act/pub/0030/

Lt J.R. Bell · 12-05-2015 11:56AM

K4t wrote: »

Nope. People can be tolerant of homosexuality and homosexuals and yet still be homophobic, thus blurring the lines of speech surrounding the issue. Iona, the Catholic Church and others are most definitely homophobic but they themselves are allowed to disguise it through their very own qualifications such as "We have nothing against gay people" and "We support gay people and their rights" and so on.

Why don't those who are calling the shots then just say, they are homophobic, rather than "oh , they appear to be homophobic, at least" ?

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 12-05-2015 11:56AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What is your specific issue with this law? Can you give us some hypothetical example of where anyone will ever care about this presumption of paternity?

It's simply an example of where the law is currently, and coherently, gendered. I've already pointed out how it could be addressed - albeit while introducing a distinction between SSM and straight marriage.

I simply want to know how this will be dealt with post amendment; simple and obvious question, no answer available. A question that should be known and addressed, as a matter of course.

EDIT: Just to make it clear, it's currently convenient for married couples to have this presumption - and it reflects the reality that by and large straight married couples have children together. And, yes, the law specifically provides for the possibility that paternity can be disputed - it only makes a presumption where there is no dispute, which is convenient for straight married couples.

Maybe this convenience will no longer be possible, if all distinctions between straight and SS marriage are removed. Maybe it will, and consequently some distinctions will remain. I just want to know.

osarusan · 12-05-2015 12:01PM

Tenz wrote: »

Irrational is a strong word. I think these people consider the families and relationships that they know best, and they perceive there to be times in those relationships when a child 'needed their mammy' or 'needed their daddy'. They attach more importance to this evidence that they can see 'with their own two eyes', than they attach to evidence proferred by 'experts' whom they would suspect of subscribing to a politically correct viewpoint in an effort to safeguard their jobs, reputations etc.
Its not irrational to think like this. It is maybe a non-academic way of thinking, but it is not irrational.

It is absolutely irrational to ignore documented and verified evidence (and even believe that this evidence is deliberately concocted for selfish reasons) and instead go with gut feeling.

Tenz wrote: »

Irrational is simultaneously believing that a) breast is best, b) a child deserves the best and, c) two gay men can care for a child as well as a heterosexual couple.
These 3 things are incompatible.

I want to get your argument straight here. Because neither male in a SSM relationship can breastfeed, you think it invalidates the claim that two gay men can care for a child as well as a heterosexual couple?

K4t · 12-05-2015 12:01PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Why don't those who are calling the shots then just say, they are homophobic, rather than "oh , they appear to be homophobic, at least" ?

Because it's blurred as I said. They're not "God hates fags" homophobic but they are still homophobic. Being tolerant of black people, having black friends, supporting equal rights for black people but opposing interracial marriage, means I am still a racist. Just not a massive one, and one who can disguise or hide my racism through arguments relating to tradition and even hypothetical ones about surrogacy and adoption if I so wish etc.

SireOfSeth · 12-05-2015 12:02PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think the close attention Yes posters are paying to the discussion is illustrated by the fact I just addressed this three posts before yours.

Saw that. I was giving you the opportunity to read it a second time. Surely you can find more fringe issues. I'm sure you'd much prefer that... rather than focusing on the issue whether you are happy to allow gay couples to get married the same as the rest of us. Speaking of which... would you be happy for SSM to be allowed?

Lt J.R. Bell · 12-05-2015 12:03PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Mate - if you want me to do research my rate is €50 an hour plus expenses.

Here are the relevant Acts - off you go

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0024/sched.html

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1972/en/act/pub/0030/

Eh, that doesn't answer the poster's question at all.

The links provided by you deal with the positive things brought by the CIvil Partnership Act , which amended a lot of legislation, affecting every day life , that now includes gay people who register their relationship in a civil registrar.

In light of that, the poster asked, what are the essential differences , in practical environment, for married people and people in a Civil Partnerships

It is the gay community that are hanging on to the notion about 160 differences, copying and pasting legislation issues (much of which aren't really big deals at all!) and not explaining their practical significances .It's up to ye guys to actually spell it out to the dissenters or the don't knows .

Zubeneschamali · 12-05-2015 12:06PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It's simply an example of where the law is currently, and coherently, gendered. I've already pointed out how it could be addressed

As I have pointed out twice now, the latest time at length and in detail, there is no need to change this section at all. It will work exactly as written for same sex or opposite sex marriage.

SireOfSeth · 12-05-2015 12:06PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Eh, that doesn't answer the poster's question at all.

The links provided by you deal with the positive things brought by the CIvil Partnership Act , which amended a lot of legislation, affecting every day life , that now includes gay people who register their relationship in a civil registrar.

In light of that, the poster asked, what are the essential differences , in practical environment, for married people and people in a Civil Partnerships

It is the gay community that are hanging on to the notion about 160 differences, copying and pasting legislation issues (much of which aren't really big deals at all!) and not explaining their practical significances .It's up to ye guys to actually spell it out to the dissenters or the don't knows .

This might help you with what it practically means to gay couples (and to anyone who supports human rights in general)...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSz549OpU74

TheChizler · 12-05-2015 12:08PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Why don't those who are calling the shots then just say, they are homophobic, rather than "oh , they appear to be homophobic, at least" ?

Nobody knows what goes on in anybody else's head, but you can make an informed guess about them based on their actions and appearances. Would you prefer it if people were making direct claims about people being homophobic? I'm guessing if they did there would be a lot more claims of bullying and feed the persecution complex that seems to be common on the No side.

El Weirdo · 12-05-2015 12:09PM

But surely the fact that there is even 1 difference (the name), never mind 160, is enough to see that it is not equal.

What is the problem with gay couples being afforded the exact same rights as a heterosexual couple?

SireOfSeth · 12-05-2015 12:10PM

El Weirdo wrote: »

But surely the fact that there is even 1 difference (the name), never mind 160, is enough to see that it is not equal.

What is the problem with gay couples being afforded the exact same rights as a heterosexual couple?

+1

Tenz · 12-05-2015 12:12PM

osarusan wrote: »

It is absolutely irrational to ignore documented and verified evidence and instead go with gut feeling.

I want to get your argument straight here. Because neither male in a SSM relationship can breastfeed, you think it invalidates the claim that two gay men can care for a child as well as a heterosexual couple?

No. Read the rest of my post. I personally don't think that. But it is bizarre that the same people who feel that the gender of a child's parents is inconsequential, while they simultaneously believe breastfeeding to be some sort of holy grail. It goes to show that people will subscribe to the politically correct viewpoint almost without question. Even when two PC views clash fundamentally.

Breastfeeding is best. Baaaaa! Yes of course it is.
Homesexual couples make great parents. Two daddies is as good as a mammy and daddy. Baaaaaa! Of course it is.

Now... What is equally irrational is the amount of time I'm spending posting here instead of living my life!!
Read my posts and you'll understand my viewpoint. Just trying to get people to think outside the box a little.

Not a NSA agent · 12-05-2015 12:12PM

El Weirdo wrote: »

But surely the fact that there is even 1 difference (the name), never mind 160, is enough to see that it is not equal.

What is the problem with gay couples being afforded the exact same rights as a heterosexual couple?

Terrible things will happen but I will not go into detail of explaining these terrible things even though if they were truly terrible I would tell you so you wouldn't vote yes.

As GCU brought up, if a woman get pregnant her wife will be assumed to be the father!

K4t · 12-05-2015 12:13PM

El Weirdo wrote: »

But surely the fact that there is even 1 difference (the name), never mind 160, is enough to see that it is not equal.

What is the problem with gay couples being afforded the exact same rights as a heterosexual couple?

They'd prefer Civil Partnerships were afforded MORE rights than marriage rather than allow them to marry. It's the association and the very idea of being equal that they fear. Pathetic.

osarusan · 12-05-2015 12:16PM

Tenz wrote: »

Even when two PC views clash fundamentally.

Breastfeeding is best. Baaaaa! Yes of course it is.
Homesexual couples make great parents. Two daddies is as good as a mammy and daddy. Baaaaaa! Of course it is.

There is absolutely no fundamental clash between these views.

The argument you seem to be advancing is this: if you argue that a same sex couple can raise a child as well as a heterosexual couple, then you must believe that they can do so just as well in every instance of parenting, and if it possible to find one where they cannot do so equally well, the argument is invalidated.

This argument is just silly.

Enjoy living your life.

El Weirdo · 12-05-2015 12:17PM

K4t wrote: »

They'd prefer Civil Partnerships were afforded MORE rights than marriage rather than allow them to marry. It's the association and the very idea of being equal that they fear. Pathetic.

Exactly. And if anyone that thinks like that argues that they're not a homophobe, then they're talking bollocks.

I'm sorry but it has to be said. There's no tip-toeing around it.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 12-05-2015 12:18PM

SireOfSeth wrote: »

Speaking of which... would you be happy for SSM to be allowed?

? Sure why would anyone need my permission?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

As I have pointed out twice now, the latest time at length and in detail, there is no need to change this section at all. It will work exactly as written for same sex or opposite sex marriage.

I don't think you have, and I'm not sure the wording is coherent without a change as it assumes every wife has or had a husband. Plus, it's a distinction between SSM and straight marriage, and apparently there's meant to be no distinction.

Vivisectus · 12-05-2015 12:18PM

Tenz wrote: »

Irrational is a strong word. I think these people consider the families and relationships that they know best, and they perceive there to be times in those relationships when a child 'needed their mammy' or 'needed their daddy'. They attach more importance to this evidence that they can see 'with their own two eyes', than they attach to evidence proferred by 'experts' whom they would suspect of subscribing to a politically correct viewpoint in an effort to safeguard their jobs, reputations etc.
Its not irrational to think like this. It is maybe a non-academic way of thinking, but it is not irrational.

Irrational is simultaneously believing that a) breast is best, b) a child deserves the best and, c) two gay men can care for a child as well as a heterosexual couple.
These 3 things are incompatible.

I should add that personally, on balance, I would probably vote yes to gay adoption, if I were asked. I would add gender of caregiver to the list of minutae which have a minimal impact on a child's development, along with breastfeeding and c-sections. But I understand that some people do not believe these to be trivial matters, and they have every right to air their opinions without being labelled irrational.

You do not need to believe in contradictory things to be irrational. You can simply believe things for emotional reasons without having sufficient evidence. There is then no rational reason to hold that belief, and it is fair to call such a belief irrational.

And it is not unreasonable to label some of the very obvious rationalizations for low-grade homophobia that get thrown up when gay parenting is discussed as irrational.

And sure - they have every right to voice irrational opinions. Just like others have the right to point out why they feel these opinions don't hold water. They get to label gay parents as somehow lacking, their opponents get to label that as an irrational point of view. You just have to respect people, opinions you can judge according to their merit.

TheChizler · 12-05-2015 12:20PM

Tenz wrote: »

But it is bizarre that the same people who feel that the gender of a child's parents is inconsequential, while they simultaneously believe breastfeeding to be some sort of holy grail. It goes to show that people will subscribe to the politically correct viewpoint almost without question. Even when two PC views clash fundamentally.

Breastfeeding is best. Baaaaa! Yes of course it is.
Homesexual couples make great parents. Two daddies is as good as a mammy and daddy. Baaaaaa! Of course it is.

Who are these same people specifically? Are the majority of Yes advocates claiming that breast is best? When did that become an issue? I think you may be confusing things seen to be the domain of the 'PC liberal left'.

Your points regarding breastfeeding, childbirth etc. are all medical issues, and they may or may not have medical benefits, I don't know and don't think this is the place to discuss it, there are already enough distractions. But same sex parenting's effectiveness (or the inconsequentialness of parents' gender as you put it) in raising healthy children is backed up by the overwhelmingly vast majority of studies and meta-analysis' on the subject. People are arguing this on the basis of evidence.

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

Comments