SSM why are you voting no?

gravehold · 12-05-2015 07:08PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

No. The referendum has no impact on the capacity of gay people to adopt. Gay people have for years been entitled to adopt as single individuals. The Children and Family Relationships Act 2015, all ready passed by the Oireachtas and signed by the President provides that gay people may now adopt as couples.

This is entirely serperate from the referendum but please don't just take my word for it...

irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/adoption-process-to-remain-same-regardless-of-vote-authority-chief-1.2208714[/url]

Can't that act be abolished by a future government if they wish, while if the yes vote win they get constitutional protection which means they won't be able to stop gay people adopting as a married family

jobbridge4life · 12-05-2015 07:24PM

gravehold wrote: »

Can't that act be abolished by a future government if they wish, while if the yes vote win they get constitutional protection which means they won't be able to stop gay people adopting as a married family

No because adoption is not a constitutionally protected it right. It is governed by legislation... hence the legislation....

I mean for god's sake the authority themselves have clearly stated there will be NO CHANGE as a result of the result of the referedum either way. It is beyond baffling peoples willingness to just ignore all the evidence presented before them.

K-9 · 12-05-2015 07:27PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

I couldn't give a fiddlers where she is from, it is irrelevant to me where she comes from. She is saying that to call a child born with male genitalia, a boy, or a girl born with female genitalia, a girl, she has stated that to do that, is to gender stereotype that child. She is one step away from saying that in fact we actually should remove the child's genitalia immediately after birth until it has had a chance to decide what gender is chooses to be!

This is what we are going to be opening up marriage to if we vote yes, this kind of crazy and insane politically correct bullshít that has no place in a civilised society.

I know a hetrosexual married couple with those views. What are you going to do about it?

gravehold · 12-05-2015 07:29PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

No because adoption is not a constitutionally protected it right. It is governed by legislation... hence the legislation....

I mean for god's sake the authority themselves have clearly stated there will be NO CHANGE as a result of the result of the referedum either way. It is beyond baffling peoples willingness to just ignore all the evidence presented before them.

Yes but once married both gay and straight couple will have to be treated the same under discrimination laws, but if no wins they they are still just cp so if the government remove the new act they won't be able to adopt again.

But if yes wins they are married and cannot be discriminated in the selection when adopting.

Granted it all hinges on a no and a conservative goverment abloshing the new act. But if he votes no there is still a chance to stop gay couples adopting in the future which won't be possible if yes passes

K-9 · 12-05-2015 07:35PM

fiachr_a wrote: »

Two lesbians get married, a man volunteers to get one pregnant, and the baby's born. The lesbian couple raise the kid as their own. After a few years they get divorced. The father of the child voted yes in the referendum but now has to pay child maintenance.

Welcome to Irish family law!

I'm not sure if a judge would order child maintenance in that case.

2 married women or men would be subject to some pretty archaic and crazy divorce laws too, but we aren't voting on divorce or family law reform.

jobbridge4life · 12-05-2015 07:37PM

gravehold wrote: »

Yes but once married both gay and straight couple will have to be treated the same under discrimination laws, but if no wins they they are still just cp so if the government remove the new act they won't be able to adopt again.

But if yes wins they are married and cannot be discriminated in the selection when adopting.

Granted it all hinges on a no and a conservative goverment abloshing the new act. But if he votes no there is still a chance to stop gay couples adopting in the future which won't be possible if yes passes

That is utter fiction and given that I have already pointed you towards the Adoption Authority's own Chief clearly stating that NO CHANGE will follow from the results of this referendum, whether that is a yes or a no, I can only assume you are deliberately lying.

Bannasidhe · 12-05-2015 07:42PM

K-9 wrote: »

Welcome to Irish family law!

I'm not sure if a judge would order child maintenance in that case.

2 married women or men would be subject to some pretty archaic and crazy divorce laws too, but we aren't voting on divorce or family law reform.

According the the Referendum Commission

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/

My understanding it that the highlighted bit means the donor signs away all parental rights - same as one does when putting a child up for adoption which is in effect what they are kinda doing - so cannot be sued for maintenance as they will not legally be a parent.

To go after the donor for maintenance in those circumstances would be like going after a biological mother who gave the child up for adoption for maintenance.

Maintenance would be decided between the two legally recognised parents in the same way as maintenance is decided between two parents now.

gravehold · 12-05-2015 07:49PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

That is utter fiction and given that I have already pointed you towards the Adoption Authority's own Chief clearly stating that NO CHANGE will follow from the results of this referendum, whether that is a yes or a no, I can only assume you are deliberately lying.

Yes with this goverment but the new act is not constutuionally protected and if a conservative goverment want to remove it in the future they cannot.

It's one of the main reasons is so important cause without consititunal protect the ability for CP and adoption can just be removed in a blink of the eye.

If the no voter is unhappy with gay couples adopting he is best to vote no and hedge his bets thats the next goverment will side with his world view and might abolish the new childrens act

LordNorbury · 12-05-2015 08:10PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

In fairness, it never crossed my mind that I would change your views. I don't argue with you because I think you're open to change; I argue with you because there may be people who have yet to fully make up their mind which way to vote, and I wanted to make it clear that your arguments have no basis in logic, reason, or anything other than a desire to discriminate against same-sex couples. I've repeatedly pointed out that this is a total straw man. You don't magically get to have your arguments become true by repeating them and ignoring the rebuttals.

Nobody is demanding the right to have children. Children have nothing to do with the referendum. The question of whether or not same-sex couples can be parents has been dealt with separately by the Oireachtas. You know this, because it has been pointed out to you repeatedly. I've also rebutted the procreation argument. There is no requirement that a family consist of a couple who can procreate. None. You can arm-wave that away to your heart's content as a "minority", but I'll repeat again: there is no requirement for a married couple to be able to procreate. None. I haven't ignored them, I've rebutted them. You, in turn, have ignored most of the questions you've been asked, or refused to accept that your reasoning is flawed.

You've "rebutted" nothing, you've just kept banging out the same big huge lie at the very centre of the yes campaign, which is a total denial that we are going to be admitting 300,000 gay couples into a legal institution that we have up until now, treated favourably purely on the basis that they form the manner in which we have procreated and provided a future basis for the continuity of our society. You refuse to admit this big lie, you just keep banging out the total and utter irellevancy that two 90 year old straight people are allowed to marry and they can't conceive so therefore it follows that 300,000 gay people who can never conceive children that they are both biologically related to by a simple fact of biology & nature, can then be shoehorned on that basis into the institution of marriage. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!!!

Just look at what you are defending, a campaign with a person at the very front of the campaign who is a man one day and is then designating him/herself as a woman the very next day, who changes their gender designation with the Irish weather, according to what you are arguing, this doesn't matter, this doesn't create any concerns in your mind with regard to how a child might be led into the same muddled field of total gender confusion as the person I'm referring to above, because in your mind, that persons right to be a family and to bring children into that family, and to have the state vindicate all the rights of that family via a constitutional commitment that will extend to that family, is all that matters. Nothing else matters in your view, all that matters is that we can all pat ourselves on the back and say that we are all now equal, even though most people with a brain can see that we are not all equal in the biological sense of the meaning of the phrase "equal"!

For example I cannot bear a child because I'm a male, I don't have a womb or ovaries so it is a biological impossibility that I am EQUAL to a woman in terms of my ability to carry & bear a child. You don't hear me demanding and obsessing that I am afforded absolute & total equality with a woman, because I have the cop on to understand that such equality is a biological impossibility!

MrWalsh · 12-05-2015 08:47PM

gravehold wrote: »

Can't that act be abolished by a future government if they wish, while if the yes vote win they get constitutional protection which means they won't be able to stop gay people adopting as a married family

This is the same nonsense you are peddling all over boards.ie, it's been answered and refuted half a dozen times by now.

BoJack Horseman · 12-05-2015 08:48PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

You don't hear me demanding and obsessing that I am afforded absolute & total equality with a woman

What curious anti-logic.

MrWalsh · 12-05-2015 08:48PM

gravehold wrote: »

Yes with this goverment but the new act is not constutuionally protected and if a conservative goverment want to remove it in the future they cannot.

It's one of the main reasons is so important cause without consititunal protect the ability for CP and adoption can just be removed in a blink of the eye.

If the no voter is unhappy with gay couples adopting he is best to vote no and hedge his bets thats the next goverment will side with his world view and might abolish the new childrens act

Ifs buts and mights. You've been solidly refuted on this many times by now and told to knock it off by moderators. Seriously?

gravehold · 12-05-2015 08:49PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

This is the same nonsense you are peddling all over boards.ie, it's been answered and refuted half a dozen times by now.

If there is a no vote why can't a conservative goverment revoke the new act and set it back to how it was before? Cause they can in the blink of an eye they can stop gay couples adopting again.

MrWalsh · 12-05-2015 08:50PM

gravehold wrote: »

If there is a no vote why can't a conservative goverment revoke the new act and set it back to how it was before? Cause they can in the blink of an eye they can stop gay couples adopting again.

Why would they?

Can we deal in realities and not maybes please.

If my Aunty had balls she'd be my uncle. It's not relevant to this referendum.

gravehold · 12-05-2015 08:51PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Ifs buts and mights. You've been solidly refuted on this many times by now and told to knock it off by moderators. Seriously?

If they are against gay couples adopting it's their best chance to get the outcome they want in the future. Voting yes would just mean it gets constitutonal protection why would they want to do thay when they are against gay couples adopting

gravehold · 12-05-2015 08:54PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Why would they?

Can we deal in realities and not maybes please.

If my Aunty had balls she'd be my uncle. It's not relevant to this referendum.

Wow very transphobic women can have balls too.

The point is a no means they might get the outcome they want in the future but yes means it becomes constitutionally protected.

A vote for no and a maybe is better then nothing for them

MrWalsh · 12-05-2015 09:17PM

gravehold wrote: »

Wow very transphobic women can have balls too.

The point is a no means they might get the outcome they want in the future but yes means it becomes constitutionally protected.

A vote for no and a maybe is better then nothing for them

Adoption is not constitutionally protected and this referendum will not constitutionally protect it.

Can you please stop this muddying the water of what the referendum is about?

The referendum is about marriage. Adoption is not mentioned in the constitution. No matter what the outcome of this referendum, adoption will not change.

This is not debate. This is you repeating the same refuted point over and over. You have trolled this site with this nonsense for nearly 50 posts now!

gravehold · 12-05-2015 09:22PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Adoption is not not constitutionally protected and this referendum will not constitutionally protect it.

Can you please stop this muddying the water of what the referendum is about?

The referendum is about marriage. Adoption is not mentioned in the constitution. No matter what the outcome of this referendum, adoption will not change.

This is not debate. This is you repeating the same refuted point over and over. You have trolled this site with this nonsense for nearly 50 posts now!

Yes but yex makes them a married couple with discrimination laws stopping them from being seen as different then straight couples when adopting which will be constitutionally protected.

This i ca ramification of a yes vote that the childrens act cannot be revoked and gay couples stopped being allowed to adopt.

MrWalsh · 12-05-2015 09:23PM

gravehold wrote: »

Yes but yex makes them a married couple with discrimination laws stopping them from being seen as different then straight couples when adopting which will be constitutionally protected.

This i ca ramification of a yes vote that the childrens act cannot be revoked and gay couples stopped being allowed to adopt.

Adoption is not constitutionally protected and this referendum will not constitutionally protect it.

Can you please stop this muddying the water of what the referendum is about?

The referendum is about marriage. Adoption is not mentioned in the constitution. No matter what the outcome of this referendum, adoption will not change.

This is not debate. This is you repeating the same refuted point over and over. You have trolled this site with this nonsense for nearly 50 posts now!

Seriously, can a moderator not stop this blatant nonsense?

gravehold · 12-05-2015 09:27PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Adoption is not not constitutionally protected and this referendum will not constitutionally protect it.

Can you please stop this muddying the water of what the referendum is about?

The referendum is about marriage. Adoption is not mentioned in the constitution. No matter what the outcome of this referendum, adoption will not change.

This is not debate. This is you repeating the same refuted point over and over. You have trolled this site with this nonsense for nearly 50 posts now!

Seriously, can a moderator not stop this blatant nonsense?

If no wins a goverment can stop gay couples adopting fact if they revoked the current act as they are not married

If yes wins and the act is revoked they can still adopt cause they are married.

Being married with the constitutional protection makes it so it's a secondary ramification of a yes vote. People need to think what being married also brings, it's not just a big party on a day.

MrWalsh · 12-05-2015 09:30PM

gravehold wrote: »

If no wins a goverment can stop gay couples adopting fact if they revoked the current act as they are not married

If yes wins and the act is revoked they can still adopt cause they are married.

Being married with the constitutional protection makes it so it's a secondary ramification of a yes vote. People need to think what being married also brings, it's not just a big party on a day.

Again:

Adoption is not constitutionally protected and this referendum will not constitutionally protect it.

Can you please stop this muddying the water of what the referendum is about?

The referendum is about marriage. Adoption is not mentioned in the constitution. No matter what the outcome of this referendum, adoption will not change.

This is not debate. This is you repeating the same refuted point over and over. You have trolled this site with this nonsense for nearly 50 posts now!

I genuinely cannot believe you are still spouting this. It is INCORRECT.

oscarBravo · 12-05-2015 09:32PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

You've "rebutted" nothing, you've just kept banging out the same big huge lie at the very centre of the yes campaign, which is a total denial that we are going to be admitting 300,000 gay couples into a legal institution that we have up until now, treated favourably purely on the basis that they form the manner in which we have procreated and provided a future basis for the continuity of our society.

But it's not purely on that basis. Procreation happens without marriage; marriage happens without procreation.

The courts have confirmed that a married couple without children constitutes a family for the purposes of constitutional protection. It doesn't matter how much you want a family to be defined by the ability to procreate - you can stamp your little feet and hold your breath and scream and scream and scream until you're sick - but none of that will change the fact that the ability or otherwise to have children are an irrelevant tangent to this debate.

You refuse to admit this big lie, you just keep banging out the total and utter irellevancy that two 90 year old straight people are allowed to marry and they can't conceive so therefore it follows that 300,000 gay people who can never conceive children that they are both biologically related to by a simple fact of biology & nature, can then be shoehorned on that basis into the institution of marriage. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!!!

OK, so explain it to me. Assume I'm very slow, and explain it to me in small words: why is it OK to discriminate against a same-sex couple who can't conceive, while not being OK to discriminate against an opposite-sex couple who can't conceive?

Just look at what you are defending, a campaign with a person at the very front of the campaign who is a man one day and is then designating him/herself as a woman the very next day, who changes their gender designation with the Irish weather, according to what you are arguing, this doesn't matter, this doesn't create any concerns in your mind with regard to how a child might be led into the same muddled field of total gender confusion as the person I'm referring to above, because in your mind, that persons right to be a family and to bring children into that family, and to have the state vindicate all the rights of that family via a constitutional commitment that will extend to that family, is all that matters.

What are you talking about?

Nothing else matters in your view, all that matters is that we can all pat ourselves on the back and say that we are all now equal, even though most people with a brain can see that we are not all equal in the biological sense of the meaning of the phrase "equal"!

It's my turn to explain something to you (again) as simply as I know how:

People can have equal rights without being identical in every way.

You can be a woman and have equal rights to a man.

You can be a black person and have equal rights to a white person.

You can be disabled and have equal rights to an able-bodied person.

You can be a young, fertile married couple and have equal rights to an older, infertile married couple.

Being different doesn't make you lesser. All we're voting on is to allow same-sex couples the same rights as opposite-sex couples. If you insist that same-sex couples can't possibly have the same rights as opposite-sex couples just because they're not the same, can you explain why this difference, alone among the others I've outlined, uniquely justifies discrimination?

For example I cannot bear a child because I'm a male, I don't have a womb or ovaries so it is a biological impossibility that I am EQUAL to a woman in terms of my ability to carry & bear a child. You don't hear me demanding and obsessing that I am afforded absolute & total equality with a woman, because I have the cop on to understand that such equality is a biological impossibility!

So you wouldn't have a problem with women having civil rights that are denied to you?

gravehold · 12-05-2015 09:34PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Again:

Adoption is not constitutionally protected and this referendum will not constitutionally protect it.

Can you please stop this muddying the water of what the referendum is about?

The referendum is about marriage. Adoption is not mentioned in the constitution. No matter what the outcome of this referendum, adoption will not change.

This is not debate. This is you repeating the same refuted point over and over. You have trolled this site with this nonsense for nearly 50 posts now!

I genuinely cannot believe you are still spouting this. It is INCORRECT.

It's the marriage that gives the protection, being married has ramifications outside of just a wedding day, it gives you that 160 changes that the yes side posts, saying it effects noting other then a wedding day is being dishonest.

Hotblack Desiato · 12-05-2015 09:34PM

constance tench wrote: »

I have highlighted for your benefit, the flaws in your reasoning.

You've highlighted some words, but failed utterly to make any point at all.
What was the point you were trying to make?

LordNorbury wrote: »

Nobody is saying that gay people or their relationships are inferior

On the contrary this is the basis of the No argument. If gay relationships are not inferior then there is no justification for not allowing equal constitutional recognition.
Nobody is disputing that gay relationships are not different. But different is not the same thing as inferior.
To an extent, all couples' relationships are different. What matters is that they are treated equally under the law.

LordNorbury wrote: »

we are going to be admitting 300,000 gay couples into a legal institution

You've repeated this nonsense umpteen times.
First off, there are not 6 million people in Ireland.
Second, the 10% of the population are gay argument is almost certainly a large overestimate
Third, not every gay person in Ireland is in a relationship - or necessarily wants to be.
Fourth, by no means every gay couple will want to marry if we do vote Yes.

The numbers are irrelevant anyway, but you are resorting to made-up numbers to try to scare people.

MrWalsh · 12-05-2015 09:36PM

gravehold wrote: »

It's the marriage that gives the protection, being married has ramifications outside of just a wedding day, it gives you that 160 changes that the yes side posts, saying it effects noting other then a wedding day is being dishonest.

Again:

Adoption is not constitutionally protected and this referendum will not constitutionally protect it.

Can you please stop this muddying the water of what the referendum is about?

The referendum is about marriage. Adoption is not mentioned in the constitution. No matter what the outcome of this referendum, adoption will not change.

This is not debate. This is you repeating the same refuted point over and over. You have trolled this site with this nonsense for nearly 50 posts now!

I genuinely cannot believe you are still spouting this. It is INCORRECT. Marriage gives no constitutional protection to adoption.

Hotblack Desiato · 12-05-2015 09:38PM

gravehold wrote: »

If no wins a goverment can stop gay couples adopting fact if they revoked the current act as they are not married

They can, and do, stop couples adopting all the time, right now.

Couples are turned down all the time, for various reasons, in order to ensure that the adoptive parents chosen are those in the best interests of the child.

Nobody has a right to adopt. Nobody is going to be given the right to adopt, whether we vote Yes or No. The referendum is irrelevant to adoption. Adoption is not mentioned in the constitution at all.

gravehold · 12-05-2015 09:38PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Again:

Adoption is not constitutionally protected and this referendum will not constitutionally protect it.
.

But being married is and that is where if married they cannot be discriminatied against if a future government tried to revoked the children and family act.

It's being married that give the protection

OttoPilot · 12-05-2015 09:39PM

Why didn't we get a referendum on gay couples adopting? That's a much more important topic in my opinion. I think it's scary the government can legislate for something as important as that without consulting the public!

At the end of the day marriage and civil partnership are the exact same thing bar the actual word so anyone who gets too worked up over either side is oversensitive. I'll vote yes but it won't make any difference to gay peoples lives if it passes and may even antagonize the small portion of the public who still openly discriminate against them.

gravehold · 12-05-2015 09:40PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They can, and do, stop couples adopting all the time, right now.

Nobody has a right to adopt. Nobody is going to be given the right to adopt.

Couples are turned down all the time, for various reasons.

If they where turned down and the only reason was they where a gay couple when married it would be in the courts as a discrimination case asap

MrWalsh · 12-05-2015 09:40PM

gravehold wrote: »

But being married is and that is where if married they cannot be discriminatied against if a future government tried to revoked the children and family act.

It's being married that give the protection

You're really not getting this are you?

Again:

Adoption is not constitutionally protected and this referendum will not constitutionally protect it.

Can you please stop this muddying the water of what the referendum is about?

The referendum is about marriage. Adoption is not mentioned in the constitution. No matter what the outcome of this referendum, adoption will not change.

This is not debate. This is you repeating the same refuted point over and over. You have trolled this site with this nonsense for nearly 50 posts now!

I genuinely cannot believe you are still spouting this. It is INCORRECT. Marriage gives no constitutional protection to adoption.

SSM why are you voting no?

Comments