SSM why are you voting no?

gypsy79 · 12-05-2015 01:33PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Let's start slowly

At this time, Can a gay couple adopt a baby/child?

Questionable, my reading would that they can. Singles can

Not sure how decisions are made (ie if preference given to couples etc)

Timberrrrrrrr · 12-05-2015 01:35PM

gypsy79 wrote: »

Questionable, my reading would that they can. Singles can

Not sure how decisions are made (ie if preference given to couples etc)

OK

So if gay couples can adopt children now

what will change in relation to this if a no vote is successful?

what will change in relation to this if a yes vote is successful?

TheChizler · 12-05-2015 01:39PM

gypsy79 wrote: »

Questionable, my reading would that they can. Singles can

Not sure how decisions are made (ie if preference given to couples etc)

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0511/700309-same-sex-marriage-referendum/

Currently no preference is given. Even the Iona/Lolek Ltd. guy admitted that, as he questioned whether the government were precluded from creating preferences in the future.

galljga1 · 12-05-2015 01:43PM

gypsy79 wrote: »

Many reasons:

1)Not the most offensive part of said article
2)Could have been done without a referendum
3)Why rewrite a tiny part of a broken document to pander to minor groups
4)Been pissed off that governments keep using referendums as a ego builder
5)The constant bullying by the Yes side

1) If you mean article 41 is pretty much a joke, agreed.
2) Agreed but could also be changed back by a future govt without putting it to the people.
3) If you mean that the constitution needs a major re-write, agreed.
4) Maybe so, but I think that in this case, constitutional change is better than legislation.
5) To be honest, people on both sides are getting a bit p1$$ed off going over the same arguments over and over again. I would say (may be an understatement) gay people are closer to this as they are directly impacted, therefore some of them may appear a bit more aggressive on occasion. Having said that, some of the bile from the no side is totally unacceptable.

LordNorbury · 12-05-2015 01:45PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Let's start slowly

At this time, Can a gay couple adopt a baby/child?

Yes they can as we both know. 6 children were adopted last year into a new external family. We are about to give 300,000 same sex couples full family status on exactly the same constitutional terms that a male female married couple currently enjoy. That right extends to be a male-male or female-female family without children, or to be a male-male or female-female family with children. The problem here is that 300,000 gay couples will have the automatic and immediate constitutional right to be a family with (or without) children, it will not be possible to distuinigush between either type of couple, although only one category of couple will be able to conceive children.

oscarBravo · 12-05-2015 01:45PM

gypsy79 wrote: »

The constant bullying by the Yes side

I get really annoyed when the word "bullying" is cheapened by using it to mean "expressing views I disagree with".

oscarBravo · 12-05-2015 01:46PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

...it will not be possible to distuinigush between either type of couple...

You say this like it's axiomatically a bad thing.

You're saying, "this referendum will remove the legal right to discriminate against gays" like this is a bad thing.

Please: explain how it's a bad thing.

Penny Tration · 12-05-2015 01:47PM

My boyfriend told me recently that he wants to marry me in the future (I'm female, to clarify).

I assume that I should tell him our relationship is over and to go marry a woman who can bear his children because I cannot, so therefore I shouldn't be allowed have marriage or a family?

This procreation argument sickens me. It insults every single infertile man and woman in the country.

TheChizler · 12-05-2015 01:48PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

it will not be possible to distuinigush between either type of couple

Except maybe with your eyes?

Seriously, why the need to distinquish? Why should the constitution distinquish? I'd love to hear a connected, logically following, joined up argument but any argument I've heard has massive gaps with points that do not follow from one another.

Timberrrrrrrr · 12-05-2015 01:50PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

Yes they can as we both know. 6 children were adopted last year into a new external family. We are about to give 300,000 same sex couples full family status on exactly the same constitutional terms that a male female married couple currently enjoy. That right extends to be a male-male or female-female family without children, or to be a male-male or female-female family with children. The problem here is that 300,000 gay couples will have the automatic and immediate constitutional right to be a family with (or without) children, it will not be possible to distuinigush between either type of couple, although only one category of couple will be able to conceive children.

Why would you want to?

Also

If gay couples can adopt children now

what will change in relation to this if a no vote is successful?

what will change in relation to this if a yes vote is successful?

Godge · 12-05-2015 01:52PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

No - but by telling the apples that they can't have the same rights as the oranges, you are discriminating. Straw man. Nobody's claiming that straight and gay couples are the same; only that they should have the same rights.

You are claiming that gay couples should have lesser rights than straight couples. You tried to argue that this is because they can't conceive; that was debunked. You tried to argue that this is because they are "different"; that was debunked. Yeah, uppity gays. Why can't they just know their place as inferiors?

The problem with this argument is that it is based on the assumption that marriage is a right. A person may hold a view that marriage is not a right but something only inherently available to heterosexual couples.

To use the example, an apple may be green or red (married or single) but an orange can never be green.

This view of the world is not one I subscribe to (I am voting yes) but it can be a legitimately held view and therefore deserving of respect and also an argument to vote no.

Penny Tration · 12-05-2015 01:55PM

Godge wrote: »

The problem with this argument is that it is based on the assumption that marriage is a right. A person may hold a view that marriage is not a right but something only inherently available to heterosexual couples.

To use the example, an apple may be green or red (married or single) but an orange can never be green.

This view of the world is not one I subscribe to (I am voting yes) but it can be a legitimately held view and therefore deserving of respect and also an argument to vote no.

Just because the orange cannot be red or green, does not mean it should be treated as less deserving than the apples. That argument could also be used with white and black people.

And nope, that view absolutely does not deserve respect.

Godge · 12-05-2015 01:58PM

Godge wrote: »

The problem with this argument is that it is based on the assumption that marriage is a right. A person may hold a view that marriage is not a right but something only inherently available to heterosexual couples.

To use the example, an apple may be green or red (married or single) but an orange can never be green.

This view of the world is not one I subscribe to (I am voting yes) but it can be a legitimately held view and therefore deserving of respect and also an argument to vote no.

To further expand on this, Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

"(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

It does not say that marriage is a right for same-sex couples.

Godge · 12-05-2015 02:02PM

A further argument for voting no that I saw recently in a newspaper letter is that marriage has been about heterosexual couples for hundreds of years but civil partnership has only been for a few years and that we should wait a while further before making such a fundamental change.

Again not an argument I agree with but a legitimate argument for voting no.

Godge · 12-05-2015 02:04PM

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

And nope, that view absolutely does not deserve respect.

It is funny how some of the the people arguing for more tolerance and respect are often the ones who show little respect to others' views.

I don't agree with a lot of views but people deserve respect for holding them.

galljga1 · 12-05-2015 02:05PM

Godge wrote: »

To further expand on this, Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

"(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

It does not say that marriage is a right for same-sex couples.

That is true. It also does not say that marriage is not a right for same sex couples. Neither does our constitution.

LordNorbury · 12-05-2015 02:07PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

You say this like it's axiomatically a bad thing.

You're saying, "this referendum will remove the legal right to discriminate against gays" like this is a bad thing.

Please: explain how it's a bad thing.

It's actually considerably worse than that, what I'm being told is that I am not allowed concern myself with whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, I'm not allowed to discuss that or to associate any of that with this referendum, but in my view, these matters are deeply interconnected.

I'm being told that all these concerns have been separated out into a separate legislative act that now has nothing to do with (1) marriage and (2) family. I obviously disagree with that approach very fundamentally, hence why I'll be voting no on Friday week to something that I believe is deeply and fundamentally defective.

FreudianSlippers · 12-05-2015 02:10PM

If the argument is family (which I reject): Can anyone explain away the mountain of scientific research that has shown that children raised by SS parents are faring no worse off than those raised by heterosexual parents?

Penny Tration · 12-05-2015 02:12PM

Godge wrote: »

It is funny how some of the the people arguing for more tolerance and respect are often the ones who show little respect to others' views.

I don't agree with a lot of views but people deserve respect for holding them.

I respect their right to their opinions. Doesn't mean I should respect a discriminatory viewpoint.

galljga1 · 12-05-2015 02:13PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

Yes they can as we both know. 6 children were adopted last year into a new external family. We are about to give 300,000 same sex couples full family status on exactly the same constitutional terms that a male female married couple currently enjoy. That right extends to be a male-male or female-female family without children, or to be a male-male or female-female family with children. The problem here is that 300,000 gay couples will have the automatic and immediate constitutional right to be a family with (or without) children, it will not be possible to distuinigush between either type of couple, although only one category of couple will be able to conceive children.

Reading the above, I fail to see any argument for voting no.
Voting yes or no will not impact adoption.
Voting yes or no will not negatively impact any existing 'family'.
Not being able to distinguish between types of couples will not negatively impact anyone.
Voting yes or no will not alter the ability of any couple to conceive.

Please outline the negative impact because I just cannot see it.

FreudianSlippers · 12-05-2015 02:15PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

Yes they can as we both know. 6 children were adopted last year into a new external family. We are about to give 300,000 same sex couples full family status on exactly the same constitutional terms that a male female married couple currently enjoy. That right extends to be a male-male or female-female family without children, or to be a male-male or female-female family with children. The problem here is that 300,000 gay couples will have the automatic and immediate constitutional right to be a family with (or without) children, it will not be possible to distuinigush between either type of couple, although only one category of couple will be able to conceive children.

So, by your logic, if my girlfriend and I get married and can't/don't have children, we shouldn't be considered a family in the eyes of the law?

jobbridge4life · 12-05-2015 02:15PM

neemish wrote: »

I'm voting No because I don't agree with the wording. Simple as. I think that the constitution should be as wide as possible and then legislate for marriage within the Oireachtas.

With respect that is IMO a fairly poor basis for a no vote. You have an opportunity to widen the availability of marriage right now, to end this form of discrimination and to extend equality to thousands of your fellow countrymen, women and children. To vote no because it doesn't go far enough when there is no prospect of another referendum would be self-defeating in the extreme. It also defies logic to assume that the defeat of this referendum would encourage a Government to offer an even more liberal one.

oscarBravo · 12-05-2015 02:18PM

Godge wrote: »

The problem with this argument is that it is based on the assumption that marriage is a right. A person may hold a view that marriage is not a right but something only inherently available to heterosexual couples.

...

Godge wrote: »

To further expand on this, Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

"(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

It does not say that marriage is a right for same-sex couples.

...nor does it say that it's reserved for opposite-sex couples. It says "men and women"; it doesn't say "a man and a woman".

In fact, it contradicts the view espoused (not by you, I accept) in your earlier post that marriage is not a right.

Godge wrote: »

A further argument for voting no that I saw recently in a newspaper letter is that marriage has been about heterosexual couples for hundreds of years but civil partnership has only been for a few years and that we should wait a while further before making such a fundamental change.

That's not an argument, in the sense that there's no logical flow of reasoning in it. We should wait a while... for what?

LordNorbury wrote: »

It's actually considerably worse than that, what I'm being told is that I am not allowed concern myself with whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, I'm not allowed to discuss that or to associate any of that with this referendum, but in my view, these matters are deeply interconnected.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous it looks when you repeatedly claim that you're not allowed to discuss that which you're discussing?

Seriously: who told you you're not allowed to discuss it? Because they're wrong; you are.

I'm being told that all these concerns have been separated out into a separate legislative act that now has nothing to do with (1) marriage and (2) family. I obviously disagree with that approach very fundamentally, hence why I'll be voting no on Friday week to something that I believe is deeply and fundamentally defective.

Hang on, you're voting "no" to something that you've had explained to you is nothing to do with the part you have a problem with? How does that work?

billythefish99 · 12-05-2015 02:19PM

TheChizler wrote: »

Except maybe with your eyes?

Seriously, why the need to distinquish? Why should the constitution distinquish? I'd love to hear a connected, logically following, joined up argument but any argument I've heard has massive gaps with points that do not follow from one another.

The gaps are "homosexuality is icky". To be honest Ive more respect for people who come out and say it than those who pretend they arent thinking it and paint themselves as victims when people dont respect their bigotry.

Billy86 · 12-05-2015 02:20PM

Godge wrote: »

A further argument for voting no that I saw recently in a newspaper letter is that marriage has been about heterosexual couples for hundreds of years but civil partnership has only been for a few years and that we should wait a while further before making such a fundamental change.

Again not an argument I agree with but a legitimate argument for voting no.

What is valid about it though? Marriage for same sex couples was allowed for thousands of years originally, just like straight marriage.

gypsy79 · 12-05-2015 02:23PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

I get really annoyed when the word "bullying" is cheapened by using it to mean "expressing views I disagree with".

No the calling anyone who votes No as a homophobe is bullying. There are lots of reasons to vote No

galljga1 · 12-05-2015 02:23PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

It's actually considerably worse than that, what I'm being told is that I am not allowed concern myself with whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, I'm not allowed to discuss that or to associate any of that with this referendum, but in my view, these matters are deeply interconnected.

I'm being told that all these concerns have been separated out into a separate legislative act that now has nothing to do with (1) marriage and (2) family. I obviously disagree with that approach very fundamentally, hence why I'll be voting no on Friday week to something that I believe is deeply and fundamentally defective.

Who is telling you not to concern yourself, or discuss your concerns. That is exactly what you are doing and you are more than welcome to do so. Dare I say it, this is your constitutional right.

There is a separate act which has been passed covering among other things, adoption and surrogacy. You may disagree with the way this legislation has been handled but voting no in the referendum will not change this. If this is a protest vote, again this is your right but the reality of the fact is that this referendum is simply to extend the right to marriage to same sex couples or not, as the case may be..

jobbridge4life · 12-05-2015 02:25PM

gypsy79 wrote: »

No the calling anyone who votes No as a homophobe is bullying. There are lots of reasons to vote No

There are lots of reasons to deny your fellow citizens equality under the law... and they are?

billythefish99 · 12-05-2015 02:26PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

Yes they can as we both know. 6 children were adopted last year into a new external family. We are about to give 300,000 same sex couples full family status on exactly the same constitutional terms that a male female married couple currently enjoy. That right extends to be a male-male or female-female family without children, or to be a male-male or female-female family with children. The problem here is that 300,000 gay couples will have the automatic and immediate constitutional right to be a family with (or without) children, it will not be possible to distuinigush between either type of couple, although only one category of couple will be able to conceive children.

Why is that a problem?

galljga1 · 12-05-2015 02:27PM

gypsy79 wrote: »

No the calling anyone who votes No as a homophobe is bullying. There are lots of reasons to vote No

Please outline a few 'no' reasons.

SSM why are you voting no?

Comments