Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

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

1…5253555758…327

Comments

  • #1622
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    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 .

    I didn't answer the question put to me - *SNORT* coming from you that's priceless. Funny Lootenant Bell. :D

    Any chance you could properly answer my oft repeated question re: what harm you believe will come to children if they are adopted by a gay couple???


    As for 'finding every day examples' I charge €50 a hour plus expenses to conduct research - €60 ph for you.

    I find before starting out on a course of investigation it helps to familiarize one's self with the relevant information first - or in this case legally speaking 'What is marriage' and 'What is Civil Partnership' so the poster you are speaking for can build a solid foundation upon which to build his thesis I supplied links to that information for free, gratis and nuffink.


  • #1623
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    ? Sure why would anyone need my permission?

    I know. It's the saddest thing about this referendum. Thousands upon thousands of people will be voting to see if they're happy to give equal civil rights to a section of society that is currently oppressed. It's honestly depressing!


  • #1624
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,928 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    K4t wrote: »
    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.
    And in many cases, one who genuinely believes that they are not racist at all, and is shocked to have it suggested that they are.


  • #1625
    arayess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭arayess


    SireOfSeth wrote: »
    I know. It's the saddest thing about this referendum. Thousands upon thousands of people will be voting to see if they're happy to give equal civil rights to a section of society that is currently oppressed. It's honestly depressing!

    or as others may see it...
    do they wish to redefine marriage within the state?

    We are continually told by the yes folks that it's not about anything other than marriage. It's a definition of marriage yes or no.
    simple as.


  • #1626
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Tenz wrote: »
    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?

    To found your own party. To lobby your elected representatives and make the case to change their mind. To campaign publicly. In other words the same choice as any individual in this democracy has on any matter. That a particular opinion happens to be so unpopular none of the parties support is perfectly legitimate. Not every random opinion deserves representation in the Dail.

    Seriously I worry about the effect this referendum is having on peoples concept of democracy. Suddenly people feel entitled to vote on every aspect of strangers lives? Why no vote on arresting single mothers? And this 'balance' nonsense is just ridiculous.


  • Advertisement
  • #1627
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    arayess wrote: »
    or as others may see it...
    do they wish to redefine marriage within the state?

    We are continually told by the yes folks that it's not about anything other than marriage. It's a definition of marriage yes or no.
    simple as.

    Correct.


  • #1628
    mrkiscool2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,159 ✭✭✭mrkiscool2


    arayess wrote: »
    or as others may see it...
    do they wish to redefine marriage within the state?

    We are continually told by the yes folks that it's not about anything other than marriage. It's a definition of marriage yes or no.
    simple as.
    That's exactly what it is though? There is nothing more to it! It's not about adoption, religion, taking rights away from heterosexual couples. It's just about redefining marriage so people can marry whoever the fcuk they want.


  • #1629
    Dan_Solo
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    arayess wrote: »
    or as others may see it...
    do they wish to redefine marriage within the state?

    We are continually told by the yes folks that it's not about anything other than marriage. It's a definition of marriage yes or no.
    simple as.
    But so what? I'm most happy to redefine marriage or rewrite the whole definition from scratch if that's what it takes to produce equality.


  • #1630
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    Nobody has yet to explain what is wrong with redefining marriage. Even when this redefinition leaves marriage unchanged.


  • #1631
    mrkiscool2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,159 ✭✭✭mrkiscool2


    Not a NSA agent wrote: »
    Nobody has yet to explain what is wrong with redefining marriage. Even when this redefinition leaves marriage unchanged.
    +1

    The amount of strawman's being used by the No side to avoid actually debating this is hilarous. If I was doing interviews I would simple ask the person representing the No side "Do you have an issue with homosexuals" and push them until they answered the question. Most of them are clearly homophobic people (not the people who are going to vote no-even if it is an awful thing to do-the people campaigning for a no.)


  • Advertisement
  • #1632
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    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.

    No, it doesn't, and no, it isn't. I'll spell it out for you, below, but you don't actually care, so you needn't pretend to read it.

    It really doesn't matter anyhow, since if you were correct and a clarifying amendment were needed, we have a Legislature on hand to amend it, just as they will amend the other laws set out in the proposals linked above.

    This is actually what we pay TDs to do: legislate.

    46.—(1) Where a woman gives birth to a child—

    (a) during a subsisting marriage to which she is a party, or

    (b) within the period of ten months after the termination, by death or otherwise, of a marriage to which she is a party,

    then the husband of the marriage shall be presumed to be the father of the child unless the contrary is proved on the balance of probabilities.

    So, we are dealing with a woman giving birth to a child during a marriage, or soon after a marriage ends. We can disregard two guys married to each other.

    Woman in marriage for more than 10 months: does she have a husband? If so, he is presumed father. No husband, no presumption of paternity.

    Woman in marriage for less than 10 months: does she have a husband? If so, he's presumed to be the father. If not, was she in a previous marriage to a husband within previous 10 months? No? Presumption does not apply.

    Woman in same sex marriage who was married to a man within previous 10 months (man dead or divorced) - man is presumed to be father unless proof is presented that he is not. No big deal that I can see.

    This law is not a distinction between SSM and opposite sex marriage, the law applies equally. The only difference is that in the case of a marriage of two women, there is no husband, so the husband cannot be presumed to be the father, and in a marriage of two men, there is no woman to give birth, so the law cannot apply.


  • #1633
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    Depressing and heart warming at the same time...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1rEygc8EYE


  • #1634
    StewartGriffin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭StewartGriffin


    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?

    Absolutely None. But that question should have been the start middle and end of the campaign. Instead someone decided to build in weak points like the "160 differences," lay it out on a messy spreadsheet and hope no one can be clever or patient enough to pick it apart. We all, on both sides, owe much respect to Lieutenant Bell and GCU for their enlightening work here.

    Building a political campaign is like building any structure, if one of the roof supports is weak, like the "160 differences," then no matter how solid the rest are, the entire structure is in danger of collapse.


  • #1635
    TheChizler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,539 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    arayess wrote: »
    or as others may see it...
    do they wish to redefine marriage within the state?

    We are continually told by the yes folks that it's not about anything other than marriage. It's a definition of marriage yes or no.
    simple as.
    Well the constitution doesn't define marriage at all, it doesn't go into the legal intricacies of tax, ownership, rights etc. The definition of marriage is a matter of law. All we're being asked to do is clarify who can access it. The definition of marriage that the courts determined could only be applied to opposite gender couples would also be applied to same gender couples if there's a yes. The government can change this definition any time if there's a majority but that's not we're voting on, or influenced by what we're voting on.

    (I will concede that the it's being constitutionally defined in one way, that it will be between two people, but nobody seems to care about that, except gravehold)


  • #1636
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,647 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    StewartGriffin wrote: »
    Absolutely None. But that question should have been the start middle and end of the campaign. Instead someone decided to build in weak points like the "160 differences," lay it out on a messy spreadsheet and hope no one can be clever or patient enough to pick it apart. We all, on both sides, owe much respect to Lieutenant Bell and GCU for their enlightening work here.

    Building a political campaign is like building any structure, if one of the roof supports is weak, like the "160 differences," then no matter how solid the rest are, the entire structure is in danger of collapse.
    So when the No side ask why we need marriage equality when we already have civil partnership, the Yes side should just leave it and not bother countering with the 160 differences?

    Do you know how a debate works?


  • #1637
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,928 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    StewartGriffin wrote: »
    Absolutely None. But that question should have been the start middle and end of the campaign. Instead someone decided to build in weak points like the "160 differences," lay it out on a messy spreadsheet and hope no one can be clever or patient enough to pick it apart. We all, on both sides, owe much respect to Lieutenant Bell and GCU for their enlightening work here.

    Building a political campaign is like building any structure, if one of the roof supports is weak, like the "160 differences," then no matter how solid the rest are, the entire structure is in danger of collapse.

    What are you on about?

    You agree that if there is even one difference, then there should be absolutely no problem with same sex couples getting exactly the same rights, but then argue that if there 160, and some of them seem like 'weak points', that weakens the case for equality?

    That doesn't make sense.


  • #1638
    StewartGriffin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭StewartGriffin


    El Weirdo wrote: »
    Do you know how a debate works?
    osarusan wrote: »
    What are you on about?

    The problem is that many on the Yes side don't know how a CAMPAIGN works. Doesn't matter how worthy or righteous the cause, the thing has to be run like a proper political campaign if you want to win. Leave the emotions at home and listen to the social scientists.

    Inserting a weak sub-argument, like the 160 differences has been proven to be, gives voters a reason to suspect weakness in the entire argument.


  • #1639
    Peist2007
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Peist2007


    StewartGriffin wrote: »
    The problem is that many on the Yes side don't know how a CAMPAIGN works. Doesn't matter how worthy or righteous the cause, the thing has to be run like a proper political campaign if you want to win. Leave the emotions at home and listen to the social scientists.

    Inserting a weak sub-argument, like the 160 differences has been proven to be, gives voters a reason to suspect weakness in the entire argument.

    Each individual point supporting SSM isnt a campaign in itself nor does it need to be nor was it ever presented as thus. I would prefer to have 160 reasons supporting my supported campaign than be relying on fear and blatant lies.

    "I have no points whatsoever but you have too many. So i win" - yeah, good lad.

    Why dont the no's just admit they dont like gays, are a little backward and be done with it? My head hurts with all of the directions they are pulling us.

    PS. Ronan Mullen last night. If there was ever a poster boy for middle ireland's backwardness it was that lying muppet last night.


  • #1640
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    StewartGriffin wrote: »
    The problem is that many on the Yes side don't know how a CAMPAIGN works. Doesn't matter how worthy or righteous the cause, the thing has to be run like a proper political campaign if you want to win. Leave the emotions at home and listen to the social scientists.

    Inserting a weak sub-argument, like the 160 differences has been proven to be, gives voters a reason to suspect weakness in the entire argument.

    You do realise that the most if not all the people you are pretending to debate/discuss with here are individuals and not tied to any group pushing the yes campaign?


  • #1641
    TheChizler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,539 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    StewartGriffin wrote: »
    The problem is that many on the Yes side don't know how a CAMPAIGN works. Doesn't matter how worthy or righteous the cause, the thing has to be run like a proper political campaign if you want to win. Leave the emotions at home and listen to the social scientists.
    If those advocating a No vote went by this then there would be no arguments.


  • Advertisement
  • #1642
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    traprunner wrote: »
    To all the No voters that have spotted a load of 'consequences' that the rest of us haven't.

    1. Have you contacted The Referendum Commission about them seeing that the information that they have released is incorrect?

    2. Have you contacted a solicitor/barrister to get the referendum stopped?

    Can't anyone answer this?


  • #1643
    Peist2007
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Peist2007


    StewartGriffin wrote: »
    Leave the emotions at home and listen to the social scientists.

    That what priests are called now?


  • #1644
    SummerSummit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 103 ✭✭SummerSummit


    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 difference is status in society. Why should one couple be different from another?? Even one minor difference is too much.


  • #1645
    StewartGriffin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭StewartGriffin


    Peist2007 wrote: »
    Why dont the no's just admit they dont like gays, are a little backward and be done with it? My head hurts with all of the directions they are pulling us.

    Your attitude is exactly what I'm talking about.

    Of all the Yes supporters on this thread, and there are a lot, how many made any genuine effort to coax a No voter towards the Yes side? I recall seeing it maybe twice.

    If the people vote NO to this referendum, a referendum which should pass by a landslide, you "Keyboard Campaigners" should hang your heads in shame.


  • #1646
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    StewartGriffin wrote: »
    If the people vote NO to this referendum, a referendum which should pass by a landslide, you "Keyboard Campaigners" should hang your heads in shame.

    I don't get ya. Why?


  • #1647
    StewartGriffin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭StewartGriffin


    TheChizler wrote: »
    If those advocating a No vote went by this then there would be no arguments.

    You don't need to win any arguments. You need to win the Vote.


  • #1648
    StewartGriffin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭StewartGriffin


    traprunner wrote: »
    I don't get ya. Why?

    Because you will have failed.


  • #1649
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    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 - I think you may be choosing to read things into my answer that aren't there. divorce didn't cancel the constitutonal protection. It remains in black and White in the text.

    And it means a CP can never be equal.

    And marriage isn't a religious term at all - in fact it wasn't traditionally a sacrament in the RCC. It was an explicitly civil matter.

    The church co-opted marriage, not the Stare.

    Nor is marriage exclusive to Christianity or any one faith. It is a concept shares by nearly all faiths and those of no faith.

    So no particular religion should have the right to determine others right to enter a marriage.

    And finally, the referendum doesn't give any option to replace civil marriage with civil partnership.

    It is simply to allow others to enter a civil marriage on equal terms to others. A yes vote is the only option available to provide equality and fairness.

    And a yes vote Will have zero impact on any religious formulation of marriage. In the same way the divorce referendum did not require the RCC or others to change their stance on divorce, this referendum will not require them to change their stance in same sex marriage or relationships.


  • #1650
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    StewartGriffin wrote: »
    Because you will have failed.

    Still don't get it. How did we fail? If one undecided person came on here and saw that the No campaign is all lies and they vote yes than I think it was a success.


  • Advertisement
  • #1651
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,647 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    StewartGriffin wrote: »
    Your attitude is exactly what I'm talking about.

    Of all the Yes supporters on this thread, and there are a lot, how many made any genuine effort to coax a No voter towards the Yes side? I recall seeing it maybe twice.

    If the people vote NO to this referendum, a referendum which should pass by a landslide, you "Keyboard Campaigners" should hang your heads in shame.
    This is a bullshit argument that is being used by homophobes to excuse their homophobia.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement