Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

SSM why are you voting no?

1…6791112…88

Comments

  • #242
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    OttoPilot wrote: »
    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.

    Childrens and family act can be overturned in a heartbeat, make it an issues for you td next election if the no vote wins


  • #243
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    gravehold wrote: »
    Childrens and family act can be overturned in a heartbeat, make it an issues for you td next election if the no vote wins

    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.


  • #244
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    You're really not getting this are you?

    Again:

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

    Married straight couple and married gay couple you cannot discriminate.

    Married staright couple cp gay couple with the childrens and families act revoked, married couple are the only ones who can adopt like it was last month cp couple cannot adopt.


  • #245
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    gravehold wrote: »
    Married straight couple and married gay couple you cannot discriminate.

    Married staright couple cp gay couple with the childrens and families act revoked, married couple are the only ones who can adopt like it was last month cp couple cannot adopt.

    Restating it a hundred times doesn't make it right? What will it take for you to accept the truth? The referendum commission have come out and said adoption is not affected by this referendum!!

    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.


  • #246
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,866 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    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.

    Just clear this up for me: your argument seems to be that we should vote "no" because a "yes" vote would remove the government's right to discriminate against same-sex couples?

    You're arguing that you want the right to discriminate against homosexuals?

    Seriously?


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    Restating it a hundred times doesn't make it right? What will it take for you to accept the truth? The referendum commission have come out and said adoption is not affected by this referendum!!

    .

    And it won't but it can be but the next goverment as long as gay people can't marry then married staight couples can be given priority again


  • #248
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Just clear this up for me: your argument seems to be that we should vote "no" because a "yes" vote would remove the government's right to discriminate against same-sex couples?

    You're arguing that you want the right to discriminate against homosexuals?

    Seriously?

    Yes basically, if you want the next government to be able to discriminate against gay couple adopting you have to vote no now.

    Now you get it being married has wider ramifications then just the wedding day


  • #249
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    languagenerd wrote: »
    Here's a straight couple that actually did the same when it came to raising their child: http://m.thestar.com/#/article/life/parent/2013/11/15/remember_storm_we_check_in_on_the_baby_being_raised_genderneutral.html?referrer=

    Because of this, are we going to ban all straight marriages in case those couples become parents and raise their children like this?

    Come on, that's a weak argument and has absolutely nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

    There is no merit in any argument that takes the actions of a small minority of current marriages and extends that to the proposed admission of a group all of whom have that characteristic.

    This is a bit like the learner driver forum where you routinely get posts along the lines of "I know a bad driver who did the test, hence because of this one example nobody should have to do the test". This is a fallacy.


  • #250
    Mr Peebs
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 14 ✭Mr Peebs


    I am voting No because I feel this tinkering with the constitution is pandering to the politically correct liberal brigade. Remember the pro life wording inserted in 1983 and all the unforeseen consequences ? It's very likely there will be similar outcomes with this if it passes.


  • #251
    OttoPilot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 540 ✭✭✭OttoPilot


    gravehold wrote: »
    Childrens and family act can be overturned in a heartbeat, make it an issues for you td next election if the no vote wins

    But it won't be because no td will run against gay rights and most tds either follow party policy or run on local issues.

    The biggest issue with potential no voters is that gay couples might be able to adopt. So why wasn't this controversial issue put to the people in the first place? This would ensure a guaranteed yes because it would put the matter to rest!


  • Advertisement
  • #252
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    gravehold wrote: »
    And it won't but it can be but the next goverment as long as gay people can't marry then married staight couples can be given priority again

    Gravehold, there is something seriously wrong with you.

    You have been told the same thing dozens of times.

    You just repeat the same incorrect point each time.

    I have never, in years of using message forums, come across such an obtuse stubborn refusal to accept the truth.

    You are incorrect. End of.


  • #253
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,866 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    gravehold wrote: »
    Yes basically, if you want the next government to be able to discriminate against gay couple adopting you have to vote no now.
    It's refreshing, in a sad sort of way, to have someone come out and argue for a "no" vote on the explicit basis of wanting to deny people equal rights because of their sexuality.


  • #254
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    OttoPilot wrote: »
    But it won't be because no td will run against gay rights and most tds either follow party policy or run on local issues.

    The biggest issue with potential no voters is that gay couples might be able to adopt. So why wasn't this controversial issue put to the people in the first place? This would ensure a guaranteed yes because it would put the matter to rest!

    While true it might not happen next election it could happen, it didn't need a referendum so no need to vote but that is also what makes it easy to overturn if there is demand to do so.


  • #255
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It's refreshing, in a sad sort of way, to have someone come out and argue for a "no" vote on the explicit basis of wanting to deny people equal rights because of their sexuality.

    It's a pity their argument is incorrect though!


  • #256
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    It's refreshing, in a sad sort of way, to have someone come out and argue for a "no" vote on the explicit basis of wanting to deny people equal rights because of their sexuality.

    If you are against gay adoption it's the stance you need to take, you have to be for leaving it so a future government can discriminate again. Once gay couples get constitutonal protection of marraige that option is gone.

    But at least you can at least see what I am saying rather then just say I am wrong when what I am saying can happen.


  • #257
    languagenerd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,201 ✭✭✭languagenerd


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    There is no merit in any argument that takes the actions of a small minority of current marriages and extends that to the proposed admission of a group all of whom have that characteristic.

    This is a bit like the learner driver forum where you routinely get posts along the lines of "I know a bad driver who did the test, hence because of this one example nobody should have to do the test". This is a fallacy.

    I know - that's my point! LordNorbury found one gay woman whose parenting he didn't agree with and used her as an example of why gay people shouldn't get married. I found a straight couple who parent the same way and asked him if he'd want to ban straight marriage because of that one example (as, by his logic, he should). The point was to show why that argument was not valid.

    All these threads just go around in circles though. We can debate gay adoption, gender-neutral parenting and the lives of goldfish as much as we like, they will still have NOTHING to do with this referendum.


  • #258
    OttoPilot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 540 ✭✭✭OttoPilot


    gravehold wrote: »
    While true it might not happen next election it could happen, it didn't need a referendum so no need to vote but that is also what makes it easy to overturn if there is demand to do so.

    Problem is there is rarely ever enough demand for change, even if most people agree/disagree with something

    I mean look at this election, it's a certain yes, most people would agree with it fully, but I don't remember big campaigns by yes voters demanding a referendum in the past few years.

    Abortion is another thing most people want to legislate for (in certain circumstances, there is definitely huge demand) but do you think people will do anything about it? No

    I guess this is more a rant about a lazy electorate than a govt failure but given Irish peoples lack of enthusiasm for protesting I think the govt should consult the people more often on important topics even if a referendum isn't required...


  • #259
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    gravehold wrote: »
    If you are against gay adoption it's the stance you need to take, you have to be for leaving it so a future government can discriminate again. Once gay couples get constitutonal protection of marraige that option is gone.

    But at least you can at least see what I am saying rather then just say I am wrong when what I am saying can happen.

    You are wrong. If the Children and Family Relationships Act was revoked it would be revoked for everyone, straight, gay, couples, married etc..

    If some weird future dystopian government wanted to discriminate against gay adoption in a future Act they could do so regardless of same sex marriage by simply legislating for adoption for heterosexuals only and not even mentioning marriage.

    You are trying to make some weird massively homophobic incorrect argument that depends on future governments doing very unlikely things in order to allow future discrimination.

    Do you not see how wrong you are? Let me guess, no.

    You are totally incorrect, and still spouting incorrect rubbish.


  • #260
    languagenerd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,201 ✭✭✭languagenerd


    gravehold wrote: »
    If you are against gay adoption it's the stance you need to take, you have to be for leaving it so a future government can discriminate again. Once gay couples get constitutonal protection of marraige that option is gone.

    But at least you can at least see what I am saying rather then just say I am wrong when what I am saying can happen.

    Gravehold, I understand your point now but the Child and Family Act won't be repealed that easily. No political party is against it and the agencies it created are already up and running. Don't forget that the Act also gives straight couples (married or longterm cohabiting) the ability to adopt. If it were repealed NOBODY would be able to adopt. And anyway, gay people could adopt before that as a single applicant. The marriage referendum won't change that. The Adoption Board and the Referendum Commission have said it won't affect adoption at all.

    (Adoption is not a "right" anyway: lots of couples and single applicants are turned down by the Adoption Board as they are not considered suitable. The authorities will always place the child with the people/person most suitable to look after him/her and stringent tests are always done. Gay couples who are allowed to adopt have also gone through these tests and proven their ability to give a child a safe and loving home.)


  • #261
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    OttoPilot wrote: »
    Problem is there is rarely ever enough demand for change, even if most people agree/disagree with something

    I mean look at this election, it's a certain yes, most people would agree with it fully, but I don't remember big campaigns by yes voters demanding a referendum in the past few years.

    Abortion is another thing most people want to legislate for (in certain circumstances, there is definitely huge demand) but do you think people will do anything about it? No

    I guess this is more a rant about a lazy electorate than a govt failure but given Irish peoples lack of enthusiasm for protesting I think the govt should consult the people more often on important topics even if a referendum isn't required...

    There seems to be a demand for change this referendum, so you are getting a chance to vote and express your feelings on the issues, depending on the outcome you can then lobby your td's for changes too.


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,304 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Bear with me as the thread gets reviewed.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #263
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,304 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    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.


    Mod:

    Do not post in any threads about the referendum until further notice, unfortunately it seems you can't post without making it personal and ignoring a mod warning, which we don't hand out lightly.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #264
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,304 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    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.<br />
    <br />
    It's being married that give the protection
    <br />
    <br />
    If mods think somebody is repeatedly posting untruths and propaganda, despite repeated rebuttals and clarifications, we can ban from the forum for the length of the election campaign.<br />
    <br />
    If you want to make statements about adoption please provide a reputable source along with it, that would be statute or respected authorities in the area.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #265
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    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. 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!!!
    You forgot infertile people and those that just don't wish to have kids too, surely you disagree with those marriages also. Add that into the figure of elderly people and just menopausal women getting married and I'm pretty sure we would have quite a large number of marriages where procreation is not on the cards, either by choice or not.

    But that doesn't appear to bother you too much?


  • #266
    sunshine and showers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,027 ✭✭✭sunshine and showers


    Oh sorry, silly me, I forgot about the fertility test one had to take in order to be granted a marriage licence.


  • #267
    constance tench
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 862 ✭✭✭constance tench


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

    Could it be possible you failed to read it?
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057423427&page=6


  • #268
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 41,282 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Nope, not that.

    I'm partial to your abracadabra
    I'm raptured by the joy of it all



  • #269
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    To clarify my reasoning of one possible outcome if a no vote comes to fruition as asked.

    Here is the past/current adoption guidelines till the childrens and families act comes into for
    aai.gov.ie/index.php/domestic-adoption/faq-domestic-adoption.html
    From that only a married couple can adopt so therefore only a straight male/female couple atm

    Act can be revoked and the childrens and families one is no different
    wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeal

    If the no vote wins constitution stays the same and gay couples cannot get married so are still discriminated as a couple ie they are lesser then married couples. If a future government revoked the childrens act or altered it then it would go back to the guidelines posted above meaning once again only a married couple can adopt as a couple.

    Now this is pretty unlikely to happen as governments at the moment would receive backlash but it's not impossible. Obviously if yes won then as the gay couple is married they can still adopt as per the adoption rules above.

    I hope this clarifies the though process and shows why a no could lead to discrimination on adoption again even if unlikely but is still possible


  • #270
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    sunshine and showers wrote: »
    Oh sorry, silly me, I forgot about the fertility test one had to take in order to be granted a marriage licence.

    Surely LordNorbury would agree it should be mandatory prior to any marriage being granted.


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    constance tench
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 862 ✭✭✭constance tench


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Nope, not that.


    That is the same point when highlighting your subsequent post, is it possible you failed to see that?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement