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

osarusan · 12-05-2015 02:24PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I spent most of Saturday night making a genuine effort when I could have been reading my grandkids a bed time story so don't even go there with this 'keyboard warrior' B.S.

Perhaps you have failed to notice that it tends to go:
I'm voting no because adoption.
Adoption has nothing to do with it because*detailed explanation follows*
Yes, well I think every child needs a mammy and daddy stands to reason.
Well, studies show *link to meta studies*.
I don't believe that. My gut tells me there are things only a mother can do.
What kind of things exactly?
STOP BULLYING ME!!!!

Followed by somebody else coming along and saying "I was going to vote Yes but after reading this I'm going to vote No."

Lt J.R. Bell · 12-05-2015 02:25PM

SireOfSeth wrote: »

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

As expected.

Wishy washy love me for who I am, human rights (which were not recognised by the ECtHR as a universal human right) does not answer the question put to the poster. In fact, no doubt he will spell it out (after the request of another poster), the last poster will get back to us on it, after all, he was willing to offer his services at a price. Rory didn't answer the question either

The question was, as stated by another poster, now with Civil Partnership, what are the Legal differences between that and Marriage. 160 legal differences were originally given. I have pointed out that many have been addressed, could be addressed later (that would be important as there are still problems) or will be addressed via the new family acts.

Peist2007 · 12-05-2015 02:26PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

As expected.

Wishy washy love me for who I am, human rights (which were not recognised by the ECtHR as a universal human right) does not answer the question put to the poster. In fact, no doubt he will spell it out (after the request of another poster), the last poster will get back to us on it, after all, he was willing to offer his services at a price. Rory didn't answer the question either

The question was, as stated by another poster, now with Civil Partnership, what are the Legal differences between that and Marriage. 160 legal differences were originally given. I have pointed out that many have been addressed, could be addressed later (that would be important as there are still problems) or will be addressed via the new family acts.

Do you want gay people to be able to marry each other?

ixoy · 12-05-2015 02:29PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

The question was, as stated by another poster, now with Civil Partnership, what are the Legal differences between that and Marriage. 160 legal differences were originally given. I have pointed out that many have been addressed, could be addressed later (that would be important as there are still problems) or will be addressed via the new family acts.

What conditions do you believe should merit a marriage? Granted only with the birth of a biological child? That could still happen in a same-sex marriage.

floggg · 12-05-2015 02:30PM

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 .

It has already been pointed out - the maintenance of an unnecessary and artifical distinction between the two institutions.

If one believes there is no real difference between the two, then forcing me to use the term "civil partner" to describe what is clearly my husband serves no purpose other than to make me feel different and unequal every time I introduce him.

That's a fairly big difference for me.

For those who believe there is no difference, there is no reason to vote any way than yes.

(Of course there are differences, including the a different procedure between divorce of a married couple and dissolution of a CP, non-applicability of the right of marital privilege preventing a person being compelled to testify against their spouse to civil partners and many others. But the absurdity of the separate but equal argument serves best to expose the discriminatory intent of proponents of that argument).

How Soon Is Now · 12-05-2015 02:35PM

This was never ever going to be an equal fair open referendum in which it could be debated openly and each side could have there say.

I dont even know why we bothered having one it should of just been passed and we could all get on with our lives.

Its one of the first times ive ever really noticed such an important issue that the public has to vote on where only one outcome is really at the end of the day being entertained.

Dont get me wrong i want it to pass i originally was going to vote yes *Im not voting now* but i think in fairness even if people have valid reasons to vote no they where never going to be aloud to be taken seriously.

MrWalsh · 12-05-2015 02:36PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

The question was, as stated by another poster, now with Civil Partnership, what are the Legal differences between that and Marriage. 160 legal differences were originally given. I have pointed out that many have been addressed, could be addressed later (that would be important as there are still problems) or will be addressed via the new family acts.

The most important difference is that they are different. Marriage is constitutionally protected. Civil partnership is not.

Anything addressed by an Act is not constitutionally protected.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 12-05-2015 02:37PM

floggg wrote: »

I have never heard a yes voter express a view either way on breast feeding.

In fairness, they tend not to say the two things at the same time.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0502/319273-breastfeeding-helps-fight-obesity-esri-report/

The research, which is part of the "Growing Up In Ireland" study, was carried out by the Economic and Social Research Institute. The findings show that children who have been breastfed for three to six months are 38% less likely to be obese at nine years of age, when compared to exclusively formula-fed children.

The study shows that those breastfed for six months or more are 51% less likely to be obese. <...>

Reacting to the findings, Minister for Children Frances Fitzgerald said that if the worrying trend of childhood obesity is to be reversed in Ireland, promoting and increasing rates of breast-feeding must become part of the Government's policy response.

Like yourself, I'm not making this the cornerstone of any case. Its for France Fitzgerald to square the pivotal role she sees for breast-feeding in child development with any other case she might be making.

Lt J.R. Bell · 12-05-2015 02:37PM

floggg wrote: »

You refer to other posters getting pissy, yet you are happy to give us all the rights of marriage just as long as we can't be called equal in name.

That's pissy.

So thats your conclusion. Well then, you fail to understand what was said

For a start, how could anyone begrudge a gay couple,from being barred (automatic law as oppose to having to make specific terms in a will) from each others property upon death of the other.? How could anyone begrudge a gay couple with legal measures for the non biological parent where the child's parent ( their partner dies) and there is no one else
Or how could one begrudge a couple protection of their child (from a former relationshi) where they break up?

I wouldn't begrudge that on a De facto couple. Don't hear them clamoring for more protections? Wouldn't they have a more fundamental role?

I don't see how that will affect or concern a married couple, thus an alleged attack on the institution of the Constitutional family. If such provisions were, then single mothers might not have got proper welfare protections. The deceased Judge Melia Carroll in 1992 (or 1993) had a brilliant statement on that. Some might wonder whether it's valid now when you hear stories of today - she,rightly,said, that she couldn't see how a young woman (remember 1992) would go out of her way to get pregnant, alone just to get a house etc. Funny, alot of people think that (wrongly)

Still different to a marriage and the Constitutional aspirations of the most fundamental unit in society. Nor should that be down graded aspirations can be maintained while other family units are being brought into the 21 st century

But, no no, some groups want the nicer ribbon on the box. Vanity?

floggg · 12-05-2015 02:38PM

Tenz wrote: »

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.

Vote yes for wet nurse jobs!

robbiezero · 12-05-2015 02:38PM

ixoy wrote: »

It would be unlosable if Iona and Pals weren't mis-directing so much though. Now people are convinced it's all about surrogacy and adoption.

Do you think the "Yes" campaign should be focusing not just on saying "Let's be equal" but clarifying - repeatedly - that these issues are unrelated and have been dealt with separately.

The Yes campaign should categorically state and be backed up by a body like the Referendum Commission etc that this constitutional change cannot and will never have any effect on children if that is the case.

Instead you get the likes of Simon Coveney on prime-time last night mumbling and stuttering and actually giving the impression that the No campaign were on to something. I thought it was a poor performance from him.

ixoy · 12-05-2015 02:40PM

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

Dont get me wrong i want it to pass i originally was going to vote yes *Im not voting now* but i think in fairness even if people have valid reasons to vote no they where never going to be aloud to be taken seriously.

If you want it to pass then why would you not vote "Yes" rather than abstain? Every vote will count.

TheChizler · 12-05-2015 02:43PM

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

Dont get me wrong i want it to pass i originally was going to vote yes *Im not voting now* but i think in fairness even if people have valid reasons to vote no they where never going to be aloud to be taken seriously.

What do you mean by take seriously? Do you mean by leaving flawed arguments go unchallenged? Way too much effort has been put into debunking illogical and irrelevant arguments by using reason and evidence. People have their right to an opinion and express it all the time, others have the right to challenge the basis for that opinion. If it can be shown that that opinion isn't based on reality then why should it be given any credence?

How Soon Is Now · 12-05-2015 02:44PM

ixoy wrote: »

If you want it to pass then why would you not vote "Yes" rather than abstain? Every vote will count.

Because from what ive seen and heard of the yes campaign the last few weeks/months and how they have went about everything im not fully behind them.

So really at the end of the day i support the idea of gay marriage but i dont like how its been mainly represented in this situation so im not voting and in fairness id be very VERY surprised if this goes any other way then a yes win.

efb · 12-05-2015 02:45PM

I don't buy the 'I was voting yes I'm not now' and yes posters made me vote no.

If you are voting No at least own it

smash · 12-05-2015 02:45PM

seamus wrote: »

RTE of course are complicit in this. There has not been a single debate in which a moderator from RTE has kept the discussion on topic. If RTE weren't afraid of the BAI and already cosy with the Iona institute, they would continually cut off "No" debaters whenever they mention children, adoption or surrogacy.

It's infuriating to watch these people getting air time for these debates. Just look at the advocates of a yes votes... There's so many organisations that you can choose to represent the side. Then look at the advocates of a no vote and they're the same people over and over. The same deep rooted religious clap trap.

If they can't find a credible representative then they shouldn't hold a debate. RTE should spell it out simply: We have numerous organisations ready to debate for the yes side and we have 3 or 4 for the no side. In the interest of keeping it equal we have cancelled the debate because the no side representatives have previously had their say and we can't just have the rest of the unheard yes side debating nobody.

Maximus Alexander · 12-05-2015 02:46PM

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

Because from what ive seen and heard of the yes campaign the last few weeks/months and how they have went about everything im not fully behind them.

So really at the end of the day i support the idea of gay marriage but i dont like how its been mainly represented in this situation so im not voting and in fairness id be very VERY surprised if this goes any other way then a yes win.

lol

floggg · 12-05-2015 02:47PM

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

+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.)

But they all have gay friends...*

Named Keith and Paddy.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 12-05-2015 02:48PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

You need to look at the section again.

Cutting to the essentials:

Where a woman gives birth to a child <...> during a subsisting marriage to which she is a party

You'll notice, that just applies to all currently married women.

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.

The phrase "husband of the marriage" assumes there is one. That's just incoherent. It's incoherent that every birth within an all-female marriage would be depending on the "balance of probabilities" provision. Because there's no balance of probabilities involved in that case - it is absolutely certain that the father is not a party to the marriage. And there is no ""husband of the marriage".

Now, that could be changed to "male spouse if there is one" or any such phrase. But it is currently ambiguous.

ixoy · 12-05-2015 02:48PM

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

Because from what ive seen and heard of the yes campaign the last few weeks/months and how they have went about everything im not fully behind them.

Can you give an example?

And even if you disagree with some of the tactics, do you honestly believe it's a good idea that your opinion of those campaigners, who are only a small fraction of the LGBT population affected by this - should be pushed onto all of them? Surely it's not fair on those others campaigning quietly or those not in a position too for whatever reason? You must know that the Yes side contains a wide spectrum of people, many with differing approaches and that because some shout more strongly doesn't mean they reflect the thoughts and approaches of everyone.

How Soon Is Now · 12-05-2015 02:48PM

TheChizler wrote: »

What do you mean by take seriously? Do you mean by leaving flawed arguments go unchallenged? Way too much effort has been put into debunking illogical and irrelevant arguments by using reason and evidence. People have their right to an opinion and express it all the time, others have the right to challenge the basis for that opinion. If it can be shown that that opinion isn't based on reality then why should it be given any credence?

The majority of people in modern Ireland want this to pass at least i hope so!.

I think thats been made very obvious over the last few months. My point is a lot of these people would never entertain the no side even if they did come out with valid reasons to not vote yes.

The reason it appears to be so one sided is because you dont get to see any logical reasons for why people are voting no but there has to be. It cant be as black and white as ''You cant vote no cause its wrong''. Nothing is ever that simple.

If and when this passes its going to be like most things in that there will be situations that arise that most of us never really taught about that is bound to affect more then just one type of person.

Lt J.R. Bell · 12-05-2015 02:49PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

The most important difference is that they are different. Marriage is constitutionally protected. Civil partnership is not.

Anything addressed by an Act is not constitutionally protected.

Yes, Civil Partnership whether it brings in all of the things that are really and genuinely needed, would not change the Constitutionality of that family.

But how would that concern the gays or harm them once they have legal protections for life, whether for them, their partner or their own biological children? What else do ye want? Gays, are officially and legally accepted now a days, just like the De facto couples who were once considered to be "living in sin"

De facto relationships are not Constitutionally protected. A grandmother raising her grandchild because of parents are either dead, ill or wasters, is not Constitutionally protected either. (frankly as you can see, I have an issue with the definition of Article 41 and it's inclusion of a married couple)

Going back to Equality, news flash. Equality actually accepts and sometimes had to treat people differently.You treat like for like, and dislikes differently

(of course, on the 22nd, whether the status quo is right or wrong, the people are being asked to consider changing it)

SireOfSeth · 12-05-2015 02:49PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

As expected.

Wishy washy love me for who I am, human rights (which were not recognised by the ECtHR as a universal human right) does not answer the question put to the poster. In fact, no doubt he will spell it out (after the request of another poster), the last poster will get back to us on it, after all, he was willing to offer his services at a price. Rory didn't answer the question either

The question was, as stated by another poster, now with Civil Partnership, what are the Legal differences between that and Marriage. 160 legal differences were originally given. I have pointed out that many have been addressed, could be addressed later (that would be important as there are still problems) or will be addressed via the new family acts.

Ohhhhhh. That's simple. There only needs to be one. Civil Partnership doesn't equal Marriage. Even if they were equal in all but name... They. Are. Not. Equal!

How Soon Is Now · 12-05-2015 02:50PM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

lol

Thats great!.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 12-05-2015 02:50PM

SireOfSeth wrote: »

Even if they were equal in all but name... They. Are. Not. Equal!

Are men and women equal?

Maximus Alexander · 12-05-2015 02:51PM

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

Thats great!.

Oh, you weren't joking??

Penn · 12-05-2015 02:52PM

floggg wrote: »

Wow. They figured out two men can't be presumed to have conceived. Slow claps all round.

As has been said from day one, regardless of whether there's 160 differences or none, as long same sex couples are denied the same recognition as their straight counter parts there is injustice and inequality.

Equal but different is not equal. It's as simple as that.

Bannasidhe · 12-05-2015 02:52PM

robbiezero wrote: »

The Yes campaign should categorically state and be backed up by a body like the Referendum Commission etc that this constitutional change cannot and will never have any effect on children if that is the case.

Do you mean the Referendum Commission should put out information like the quote below... which is from the Referendum Commission website... did you even check?

Relevant laws on adoption, guardianship, custody and maintenance of children
Adoption

Adoption is governed by the Adoption Act 2010: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0021/index.html

At present, a married couple may jointly adopt a child. A single person, whether heterosexual or homosexual, may adopt.

The Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 provides that civil partners and cohabiting couples who have lived together for three years will be eligible to adopt jointly. This Act was signed into law on 6 April 2015. The provisions on adoption are not yet in force but are expected to come into force in the near future.

Guardianship

The Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 is the main legislation dealing with guardianship http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1964/en/act/pub/0007/index.html

At present, a child’s guardian is a parent except in cases where a parent has appointed a testamentary guardian in the event of the parent’s death. The Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 provides that a step-parent, civil partner or cohabiting partner (of three years or more) will be able to apply to court to become the child’s guardian if they have had shared responsibility for the day-to-day care of the child for over two years.

A person will also be able to apply to court to become a guardian if she or he has provided day-to-day care for a child for a continuous period of more than a year and there is no parent or other guardian willing to take on these responsibilities. This means that, for example, grandparents or foster parents could apply.

Where one or both of a child’s parents are still living, court-appointed guardians will only be able to make such decisions as where the child lives when granted specific authority by the court to do so.

In situations of serious illness or injury, a parent or guardian with sole custody may nominate a temporary guardian who will be appointed by the court to take on the role of guardian temporarily. The court must be satisfied that the temporary guardian is suitable for the role and that the appointment is in the child’s best interests.

These provisions on guardianship are expected to be brought into effect in the near future.

Donor assisted births

The Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 deals with parentage in the cases of donor assisted births but not with surrogacy. While the Act has been passed, it is not intended to bring these particular provisions into effect for at least a year.

The Act provides that a mother’s spouse, civil partner or cohabiting partner will be able to become the second parent of a child provided certain conditions are met. One of these is that the birth mother and the intending second parent consent in advance that they will be the parents of any child born through donor-assisted human reproduction. The donor will also have to consent in advance that he or she is a donor and does not intend to be a parent of the child.

http://refcom2015.ie/marriage/

That is the limit to what the Referendum Commission can do by the way.

As for the Yes Campaign not countering the claims about children... seriously?
Exhausted from it... !

Zubeneschamali · 12-05-2015 02:53PM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Wishy washy love me for who I am, human rights

Hmm, how does that Bible bashing thing go?

John 13:34 I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another.

seamus · 12-05-2015 02:55PM

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

The reason it appears to be so one sided is because you dont get to see any logical reasons for why people are voting no but there has to be.

If there are, I'm sure they'll be entertained. I for one, would love to hear a relevant and logical reason to oppose this referendum rather than continually dealing with irrelevant or baseless opinion.

The funny thing about this particular referendum is that the loopholes and ambiguity have either been tied up beforehand (adoption, parental rights), or they already exist (people could get married to scam the system!).

So while there have certainly been many valid questions in relation to what this might mean, the proposal itself is so simple and straightforward that it has reduced all counter-arguments to, "I don't agree that gay people should be allowed to get married".

Whatever way it's played the only reason someone can have for opposing this amendment is if they personally dislike allowing two homosexual to get married.
There is no logical reason to oppose it, and by simple reduction, people who oppose it either don't understand it properly or have a personal dislike for gay relationships.

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

Comments