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…78101213…88

Comments

  • #272
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,566 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Mod: this is a thread for people to say why they are voting no. It is not the general discussion on the referendum. Feel free to try to change peoples minds if you can. But if you can't dont bait them.

    Mr. Walsh infracted for backseat modding. This is after being told to just stop calling people a troll in the other thread.

    Feel free to open a new thread demonstrating the legal basis of your view etc.


  • #273
    joe912
    Closed Accounts Posts: 267 ✭✭joe912


    A few reasons
    A slap in the face for the government
    Sick of the condescending nature of the yes side
    What is the point of getting married, which in reality it is only signing a piece of paper to say that you are making a long term commitment until the divorce comes through
    Married couples should have no legal benefits over other partnership who don't feel the need to sign a piece of paper


  • #274
    sunshine and showers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,027 ✭✭✭sunshine and showers


    joe912 wrote: »
    A few reasons
    A slap in the face for the government
    Sick of the condescending nature of the yes side
    What is the point of getting married, which in reality it is only signing a piece of paper to say that you are making a long term commitment until the divorce comes through
    Married couples should have no legal benefits over other partnership who don't feel the need to sign a piece of paper

    Are you serious? You're basing your vote on the rights and futures of a section of the population of our country on your dislike of the Government?

    Further, the fact that YOU don't like marriage and don't think it's worth much isn't really relevant. You're not being asked to get married. Or about getting rid of marriage for that matter. Or even your opinion on marriage and its benefits over non-marriage.

    Sorry if this goes against mod post, but those are pretty damn weak reasons to vote no. The first is a god damn slap in the face to democracy.


  • #275
    secman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 7,233 ✭✭✭secman


    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.

    The referendum result whether it's a yes or a no will have no impact whatsoever on adoption. This is according to the head of the adoption agency and the judge heading the referendum commission. You really ought to get your facts right before making your decision. Ignorance can be a dangerous thing.


  • #276
    crazy_kenny
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 413 ✭✭crazy_kenny


    secman wrote:
    The referendum result whether it's a yes or a no will have no impact whatsoever on adoption. This is according to the head of the adoption agency and the judge heading the referendum commission. You really ought to get your facts right before making your decision. Ignorance can be a dangerous thing.


    The EU commission of human rights may decide differently if gay people are allowed to marry.


  • Advertisement
  • #277
    secman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 7,233 ✭✭✭secman


    crazy_kenny wrote: »
    The EU commission of human rights may decide differently if gay people are allowed to marry.

    On what basis ? irrespect of the referendum result, single people, straight or gay and Straight or gay couples can apply for adoption. On every single decision, the non successful applicants are made up of a mixture of the above. Everyone has a right to apply but don't have a right to be successful.


  • #278
    CaveCanem
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 150 ✭✭CaveCanem


    I'm a 'don't know' thus far. Both sides are thrashing around with fistfuls of non-sequiturs and false analogies.

    The argument based on an older 'infertile couples' being able to marry for example, misses one of the basic pillars of marriage, sexual exclusivity. The woman may not have the capability of producing babies but by getting married the man is agreeing not to covertly father children with other women. Therefore marriage still functions well as a protector against children with no known father to take responsibility for them.

    Same sex marriage will always require a parent of any children to be either unknown to the wider community or simply outside the family unit. This contradicts the function of marriage to keep track of paternity/bloodline within the community.


  • #279
    languagenerd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,201 ✭✭✭languagenerd


    CaveCanem wrote: »
    I'm a 'don't know' thus far. Both sides are thrashing around with fistfuls of non-sequiturs and false analogies.

    The argument based on an older 'infertile couples' being able to marry for example, misses one of the basic pillars of marriage, sexual exclusivity. The woman may not have the capability of producing babies but by getting married the man is agreeing not to covertly father children with other women. Therefore marriage still functions well as a protector against children with no known father to take responsibility for them.

    Same sex marriage will always require a parent of any children to be either unknown to the wider community or simply outside the family unit. This contradicts the function of marriage to keep track of paternity/bloodline within the community.

    To be fair, I don't think the argument based on older/infertile couples is anyone's main argument for voting yes. It's usually brought up to rebut the point that some no-voters make, saying that gay people should not be allowed to get married because they cannot have children.

    I understand what you're saying about one function of marriage being to protect the bloodline. But I'm not sure if that's the main function of marriage these days. (Feel free to disagree) Many people who have children are not married. There are also DNA tests, birth certs and ways of proving paternity nowadays that weren't there when marriage, as we know it, was first written into law.

    And there are many other functions of marriage nowadays too: it makes the couple a family in the eyes of the law (with or without children), it allows spouses to be each other's next-of-kin in a medical emergency, it gives them rights to be considered as a couple with a shared income when it comes to applying for grants or loans, it protects a spouse from losing their family home if the other were to die bankrupt, it protects a deserted spouse from homelessness and, in the simplest function, it allows couples to present themselves to the world as a single loving entity.

    And then, just like you say that marriage has traditionally been a protectof for children with no known father, it would also protect any children of gay parents (they exist and will exist even if this doesn't pass) in the same way a heterosexual step-parent can choose to do by becoming the official guardian of their spouse's child. It means that a non-biological parent who may have raised the child from infancy can look after them in the absence of the other, give consent for emergency medical procedures when the other isn't there, visit them in hospital when it's "family only", attend school functions and sign legal documents for them.

    While, yes, the function of marriage that you mention may not be applicable in a homosexual marriage, I believe that it's the right thing to do to extend all the other functions and rights to gay couples in loving relationships. It won't change anything for straight couples who are already married and won't take anything away from them. Why shouldn't gay couples benefit from the same legal recognition, the next-of-kin rights and the ability to be seen as a couple by law? It just seems unfair to me that, as a straight woman, I could pick a random guy off the street tomorrow and apply for a marriage license with him immediately, yet a gay couple who have been in a strong, stable relationship for 20 years aren't entitled to. Which would be the best for society?


  • #280
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,235 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    crazy_kenny wrote: »
    The EU commission of human rights may decide differently if gay people are allowed to marry.
    What are you talking about? There is no such thing as the The EU Commission of Human Rights

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #281
    joe912
    Closed Accounts Posts: 267 ✭✭joe912


    sunshine and showers wrote: »
    Are you serious? You're basing your vote on the rights and futures of a section of the population of our country on your dislike of the Government?

    Further, the fact that YOU don't like marriage and don't think it's worth much isn't really relevant. You're not being asked to get married. Or about getting rid of marriage for that matter. Or even your opinion on marriage and its benefits over non-marriage.

    Sorry if this goes against mod post, but those are pretty damn weak reasons to vote no. The first is a god damn slap in the face to democracy.

    This is the condescending nature I spoke of. I was originally not going to vote knowing that the yes is guaranteed to win, coupled with the fact that I had no strong opinion on the subject. Thanks to the yes sides conduct I will now make the effort and vote no.


  • Advertisement
  • #282
    Willfarman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭Willfarman


    If a woman has a child and marries another woman, does her wife have more legal standing than the child's father?


  • #283
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    joe912 wrote: »
    This is the condescending nature I spoke of. I was originally not going to vote knowing that the yes is guaranteed to win, coupled with the fact that I had no strong opinion on the subject. Thanks to the yes sides conduct I will now make the effort and vote no.

    By that token, I assume you were originally going to vote yes because gay people on boards were being called paedophiles and child abusers?


  • #284
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,210 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    joe912 wrote: »
    This is the condescending nature I spoke of. I was originally not going to vote knowing that the yes is guaranteed to win, coupled with the fact that I had no strong opinion on the subject. Thanks to the yes sides conduct I will now make the effort and vote no.

    Sorry dude but if you are voting no on such an important issue that will affect millions of people just to "stick it to the man" (no pun intended) then that's a pretty lame and even childish excuse.


  • #285
    Willfarman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭Willfarman


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Sorry dude but if you are voting no on such an important issue that will affect millions of people just to "stick it to the man" (no pun intended) then that's a pretty lame and even childish excuse.

    How will it affect millions??


  • #286
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,235 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Willfarman wrote: »
    How will it affect millions??

    Future populations

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #287
    joe912
    Closed Accounts Posts: 267 ✭✭joe912


    Jenny Thalia wrote: »
    By that token, I assume you were originally going to vote yes because gay people on boards were being called paedophiles and child abusers?

    And I am sure some of them are. Just the same as straight people. For me marriage is a religious ceremony if you believe in that sort of thing. This should not involve the government. Married couples and their children should have no legal advantages over other committed couples who don't feel the need to perform a religous ceremony to let others know they are in a stable committed relationship.


  • #288
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,210 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Willfarman wrote: »
    How will it affect millions??

    Well there are the many thousands that will want to get married over the next few thousand years, Plus all of their families. You're right....probably billions.


  • #289
    joe912
    Closed Accounts Posts: 267 ✭✭joe912


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Sorry dude but if you are voting no on such an important issue that will affect millions of people just to "stick it to the man" (no pun intended) then that's a pretty lame and even childish excuse.

    But for me its not important. If people think that gay marriage will end homophobia or help make gay couples more accepted to some parts of the community, then I fear they couldn't be more wrong. I hope I am wrong but I would imagine it will just polarise the situation.


  • #290
    secman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 7,233 ✭✭✭secman


    joe912 wrote: »
    This is the condescending nature I spoke of. I was originally not going to vote knowing that the yes is guaranteed to win, coupled with the fact that I had no strong opinion on the subject. Thanks to the yes sides conduct I will now make the effort and vote no.

    Nothing is guaranteed at all, this referendum deserves to be voted on criteria rather than to get at the government. I was firmly rooted in every NO camp when it came to gay issues, never realising that I was the father of one straight child and one gay child. Fast forward 20 or so years and I look at my kids and say how can I treat them differently. . I just could not do that.... I had to change my spots and thankfully I did, such an eye opener event for me. My daughter has a loving partner and we have a beautiful grandson. All I want now is for them to have the same constitutional rights that we have, I wouldn't swap my marriage for a civil partnership, I would be reducing our constitutional protection.


  • #291
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭professore


    joe912 wrote: »
    But for me its not important. If people think that gay marriage will end homophobia or help make gay couples more accepted to some parts of the community, then I fear they couldn't be more wrong. I hope I am wrong but I would imagine it will just polarise the situation.

    You could say the same about slavery or women's rights.


  • Advertisement
  • #292
    Willfarman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,239 ✭✭✭Willfarman


    Well it's not an important issue that will affect millions. It affects the happiness of a relatively small percentage of the population at no cost to anyone else,

    and to take the time and trouble to go and vote against making some people happy at no cost to yourself is a nasty hateful thing to do.

    But rather than a vote on having an adolescent president we should have being legislating for fathers rights. Some terrible cases that I am familiar with where scorned spiteful ex wives and ex partners punishing fathers and fathers families by limiting access to children. Punishing kids as much as anything.


  • #293
    joe912
    Closed Accounts Posts: 267 ✭✭joe912


    Willfarman wrote: »
    Well it's not an important issue that will affect millions. It affects the happiness of a relatively small percentage of the population at no cost to anyone else,

    and to take the time and trouble to go and vote against making some people happy at no cost to yourself is a nasty hateful thing to do.

    But rather than a vote on having an adolescent president we should have being legislating for fathers rights. Some terrible cases that I am familiar with where scorned spiteful ex wives and ex partners punishing fathers and fathers families by limiting access to children. Punishing kids as much as anything.

    incorrect at 20 million plus to the taxpayer. strange that as time goes by less and less straight couples feel the need to get married. yet it seems to be a priority for gay couples. one would have to presume once the legal entitlement is there then the desire to marry will disappear


  • #294
    joe912
    Closed Accounts Posts: 267 ✭✭joe912


    professore wrote: »
    You could say the same about slavery or women's rights.

    you could but I don't see any comparison


  • #295
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    joe912 wrote: »
    For me marriage is a religious ceremony if you believe in that sort of thing. This should not involve the government.

    The religious ceremony of marriage does not involve the government. The constitution guarantees you your religious freedoms. The referendum is about civil marriage.
    Married couples and their children should have no legal advantages over other committed couples who don't feel the need to perform a religous ceremony to let others know they are in a stable committed relationship.

    If you are talking about married couples (who have only partaken in the religious ceremony), you are correct, they have no legal advantages - as they are not married in the eyes of the state. However, if you are talking about (heterosexual) married couples (who have partaken in a civil marriage, i.e., they have a marriage certificate), they do have legal advantages. The referendum is about allowing homosexual couples to have a civil marriage too.


  • #296
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,204 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Willfarman wrote: »
    If a woman has a child and marries another woman, does her wife have more legal standing than the child's father?

    Too many variables in that question so short answer is it would be exactly the same as if the woman married a man.

    It all depends on if the biological father of the child is legally recognised - if the woman was married to him that happens automatically, if they were not married then it depends on if they were cohabiting (that is covered in the Children and Family Relationship Act) or have joint Guardianship, if it was a one night stand and he fecked off...then what legal standing??


  • #297
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    languagenerd wrote: »
    While, yes, the function of marriage that you mention may not be applicable in a homosexual marriage, I believe that it's the right thing to do to extend all the other functions and rights to gay couples in loving relationships.

    I think so too, I think this should be called "Civil Partnership".


  • #298
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 41,277 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    I think so too, I think this should be called "Civil Partnership".

    Sit down at the back Rosa, sure aren't you lucky you were let on the bus at all?

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



  • #299
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Sit down at the back Rosa, sure aren't you lucky you were let on the bus at all?

    This is an invalid comparison. Marriage is open to everyone, if people do not wish to avail of it and want to engage in other arrangements then these too should have legal protection, which can reasonably be called "Civil Partnership".


  • #300
    jelenka
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 130 ✭✭jelenka


    I do not believe in marriage, I am not married and it doesn't affect me in the slightest.
    I have a partner and kids and we are a family, regardless of any laws or our different surnames.
    I don't really see an issue of not being married or not being a wife by law.
    A am not voting as I decided that only people that have really deep beliefs in either a yes or a no side will decide the outcome.
    I do understand that there needs to be equality and recognition for gay couples , but the fact that yes voters are so unwilling to understand the no voters ( calling them homophobes, painting over and ripping off the no posters, calling them ignorant and stupid etc.) thats pretty low.Everyone is entitled to their opinion and a vote is going to decide the outcome.


  • Advertisement
  • #301
    Pyrrhic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 110 ✭✭Pyrrhic


    I won't be voting personally. It doesn't affect me in any way.

    My opinion is that marriage is literally a piece of paper and it does not define a couples affection for each other nor their status as a couple.

    If I find myself in a serious relationship in the future and my partner is pressurizing me into getting married, then I will know she is not the one.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement
Advertisement