SSM why are you voting no?

Hotblack Desiato · 13-05-2015 09:02AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

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".

It is simply idiotic to suggest that everything is fine, because a gay person has the option to marry a random straight person, rather than the person they love.

Why should gay relationships be regarded as inferior in law and not receive constitutional protection?

Sheldons Brain · 13-05-2015 09:05AM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why should gay relationships be regarded as inferior in law and not receive constitutional protection?

Because, as a class, gay relationships only involve adults and not children resulting from the the relationship, society has less need to involve itself in them.

Bannasidhe · 13-05-2015 09:06AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

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".

Public transport was also open to everyone so that is a silly rebuttal.

SireOfSeth · 13-05-2015 09:06AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

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".

...except for gay couples.

Hotblack Desiato · 13-05-2015 09:08AM

Pyrrhic wrote: »

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.

Grand.

But why should other people be prevented from doing something, just because you don't want to do it yourself?

Bannasidhe · 13-05-2015 09:08AM

Pyrrhic wrote: »

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.

And if you find yourself in need of her acting as your next of kin - say a medical emergency- you may not live to regret that decision.

Hotblack Desiato · 13-05-2015 09:10AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Because, as a class, gay relationships only involve adults and not children resulting from the the relationship, society has less need to involve itself in them.

That's simply not true at all, what a slap in the face to the children being raised by gay couples.

roadrunner16 · 13-05-2015 09:15AM

Pyrrhic wrote: »

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.

The Constitution is just paper, money is just paper, Its not about the piece of paper its about the rights and procedures attached to the piece of paper. Matters such as inheritance, the legal guardian of a child in case of a death in the family will all be affected by this and for a lot of people a marriage is seen as a commitment it may not mean alot to you but its means alot to others , if you are indifferent I would advocate you vote yes as at the very least it will positively affect a large number of couples in the country.

Sheldons Brain · 13-05-2015 09:22AM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That's simply not true at all, what a slap in the face to the children being raised by gay couples.

No. Children being raised by gay couples are not children of the relationship, but adopted by at least one of the people involved. As has already been pointed out in this thread, this referendum is not about adoption.

Willfarman · 13-05-2015 09:24AM

joe912 wrote: »

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

How will it cost 20 mill?

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 09:25AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

No. Children being raised by gay couples are not children of the relationship, but adopted by at least one of the people involved. As has already been pointed out in this thread, this referendum is not about adoption.

Very sheltered view of the world SB. Plenty of gay people have children from previous relationships and are raising them in new relationships, no adoption involved.

seamus · 13-05-2015 09:29AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

No. Children being raised by gay couples are not children of the relationship, but adopted by at least one of the people involved. As has already been pointed out in this thread, this referendum is not about adoption.

Ah the old biological parents argument.

Children deserve equal protection regardless of how many of their parents are biologically related to them.

Irish society spent the past 100 years shunning children who were not being raised by their biological parents and look how that turned out.

It is in society's best interests to ensure that families are protected, regardless of how many children may or may not exist in those relationships, regardless of the source of those children and regardless of the gender or status of the parent(s). And indeed regardless of whether a second parent exists at all.

To do otherwise is to claim that families with two biological parents are somehow superior or more deserving of protection than others. Which has been proven false.

Gavster1982 · 13-05-2015 09:48AM

A generation ago such a referendum, where it staged, would have been roundly defeated. Very few if any of the people on here would have voted yes, we're they voting age at the time.

This raises the question, was the country homophobic then? Or is it simply a case that homosexuals were happy to live in the shadows?

Homosexuality is not a minority in my opinion, nor should it be given that distinction or allowed to play that card.

However I do see why the yen vote is most likely. For me I'm on the fence.

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 09:55AM

Gavster1982 wrote: »

This raises the question, was the country homophobic then?

Yes it was. Many people committed suicide, or hid it and lived a lie. I know an old man who is gay who married a woman and had children. He has been miserable his whole life, never able to be himself.

Sodomy was a crime up to 1993 so no man was going to want to be "caught" being homosexual.

The country was more entrenched in religious viewpoints in the past also so it simply wouldnt have been acceptable.

But of course people were still homosexual, clandestine meetings and relationships. It was easier for women, no fear of criminal charges and generally speaking society is far more accepting of two girls out for a walk linking arms or giving each other a hug or a kiss upon greeting/goodbye. Lesbians could hide in plain sight more easily.

Bannasidhe · 13-05-2015 09:55AM

Gavster1982 wrote: »

A generation ago such a referendum, where it staged, would have been roundly defeated. Very few if any of the people on here would have voted yes, we're they voting age at the time.

This raises the question, was the country homophobic then? Or is it simply a case that homosexuals were happy to live in the shadows?

Homosexuality is not a minority in my opinion, nor should it be given that distinction or allowed to play that card.

However I do see why the yen vote is most likely. For me I'm on the fence.

Yes, it was pretty homophobic so most of us got the hell out of Dodge.

Ummm... out of interest... how do you define 'minority'...

LordNorbury · 13-05-2015 09:56AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

I do not have equal rights that are on exact parity with a woman, I've already explained this to you! I might have equal rights in society and in law, I might be an equal citizen in terms of article 40 of the constitution but there is a limit to how equal I can ever be to a woman, and what causes that limit is me being a different gender to a woman, so on that very simple basis, I can never realistically argue for the equal right that a woman has to carry & bear a child, to be made available to me, because in that regard, I will never have that right that a woman has! It's simple biology that you appear to be in complete denial about.

In respect of what I have set out above, as a society we have created an institution called marriage that is a family centred institution and this is defined in the constitution.

You attempting to invoke the very small minority of couples who don't or can't conceive children, doesn't alter the simple and unavoidable fact that for the vast vast majority of couples who marry & conceive children and live as a family together and who enjoy the protection of the institution of marriage as it is currently provided for in the constitution, this is what marriage is. It is two parents and their biological children.

I see no reason whatsoever to fundamentally change the basic constitutional nature of what marriage actually is, in order to accommodate some utterly fúcked up politically correct modern day concept of equality, where two men who cannot conceive children by virtue of their homosexuality, are now to be equated exactly and identically to a male female couple who can have children.

That might sound extreme but as I said, I have the humility to accept that as a male, I will never have the right to bear a child, it's just simple basic biology. No amount of lobbying or me banging on about it or me going around bawling on live TV that I'm being "discriminated against" and that "I'm bring oppressed" and putting on the crocodile tears on the SixOne news, or asking Pantibliss to get up on stage and tell the world that I'm being treated as a second class citizen because I'm not being afforded my equal right to bear a child, a right that a woman has, will ever change that.

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 09:58AM

^^ Nowhere is it defined in the constitution that marriage is about children. My childless marriage is just as protected constitutionally as one where there are children. The above is simply untrue.

joe912 · 13-05-2015 09:59AM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Grand.

But why should other people be prevented from doing something, just because you don't want to do it yourself?

Or why should somebody who signs a bit of paper saying that they will stay together until they sign another bit of paper to say they are splitting up have any more rights than a couple who don't feel the need to sign any bits of paper

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 10:00AM

joe912 wrote: »

Or why should somebody who signs a bit of paper saying that they will stay together until they sign another bit of paper to say they are splitting up have any more rights than a couple who don't feel the need to sign any bits of paper

Um, thats a different referendum. We're not voting on whether we should have marriage generally.

Bannasidhe · 13-05-2015 10:03AM

joe912 wrote: »

Or why should somebody who signs a bit of paper saying that they will stay together until they sign another bit of paper to say they are splitting up have any more rights than a couple who don't feel the need to sign any bits of paper

Because that is how the people who wrote the Constitution in the 1930s wanted it -and they put it to the people and the people voted for it...well, not the sign another piece of paper (and wait many many years) part but we, the people voted on that in the 1990s, redefined marriage to include a get out clause, and popped that clause in the Constitution.

LordNorbury · 13-05-2015 10:08AM

MrWalsh wrote: »

^^ Nowhere is it defined in the constitution that marriage is about children. My childless marriage is just as protected constitutionally as one where there are children. The above is simply untrue.

Yes a "family" can be a male - female, OR can be male - female with children. The constitution states that the family is the fundamental building block of society. The constitution being an intergenerational document, what do you think it means when it states that "the family is the fundamental unit of our society"??? Our "society" being something that has an intergenerational meaning, insofar as the people in society today are clearly and obviously descended from the people who were around when the constitution was created?

billythefish99 · 13-05-2015 10:08AM

LordNorbury wrote: »

this is what marriage is. It is two parents and their biological children.

Thats just stupid.

FreudianSlippers · 13-05-2015 10:12AM

This:

LordNorbury wrote: »

this is what marriage is. It is two parents and their biological children.

And this:

LordNorbury wrote: »

Yes a "family" can be a male - female, OR can be male - female with children.

Don't seem to mesh up.

I asked before, if my partner (female) and I (male) get married and don't/can't have children, are we not a "family" or should we not be allowed to be "married" since "marriage is 2 parents and biological children?

Marriage is a legal construct by which 2 consenting parties agree to simultaneously waive and undertake certain rights/obligations to each other. It is nothing more and nothing less.

joe912 · 13-05-2015 10:20AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And if you find yourself in need of her acting as your next of kin - say a medical emergency- you may not live to regret that decision.

Let me get this straight or single people with know known next of kin left to die in a medical emergency. If this is true it would be a lot more beneficial to legislate to correct that than give couples a right to sign a marriage certificate

LordNorbury · 13-05-2015 10:27AM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This:

And this:

Don't seem to mesh up.

I asked before, if my partner (female) and I (male) get married and don't/can't have children, are we not a "family" or should we not be allowed to be "married" since "marriage is 2 parents and biological children?

Marriage is a legal construct by which 2 consenting parties agree to simultaneously waive and undertake certain rights/obligations to each other. It is nothing more and nothing less.

But look at it in the context of my previous post. Article 41.1.1 of our constitution states:

ARTICLE 41
1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

It is fairly obvious in my view, that the meaning of the word "society" has to be intergenerational. If you accept that, then you accept an implied meaning that society sustains itself through the generations, by procreation. That one generation of society creates the next generation of society, that is what allows us to have a continuation of the "society" that is mentioned in article 41.1.1. It is that meaning of family in my view, that is protected by the institution of marriage in our constitution, notwithstanding the fact that a man and a woman can marry and can decide not to have children or can find themselves unable to create children.

Article 41.1.1 must mean something and if my interpretation of what it means is fundamentally wrong, then maybe as a man who practices law, you might give me your view on the substantive meaning of article 41.1.1.

seamus · 13-05-2015 10:28AM

joe912 wrote: »

Let me get this straight or single people with know known next of kin left to die in a medical emergency. If this is true it would be a lot more beneficial to legislate to correct that than give couples a right to sign a marriage certificate

No. Her point is that the poster's blanket refusal to get married means that in the event of a serious illness no partner of his will ever be given NOK rights, regardless of how affectionate or serious they are. Next of kin rights will fall to an immediate family member, and in the event that he has none, the state will decide for him. Even if he has a partner of 15 years standing there beside him.

No, a piece of paper does not define your relationship as any more or less loving than another, but it does prove to the state that the relationship exists and therefore imbues the rights necessary to defend that relationship.

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 10:29AM

LordNorbury wrote: »

Yes a "family" can be a male - female, OR can be male - female with children. The constitution states that the family is the fundamental building block of society. The constitution being an intergenerational document, what do you think it means when it states that "the family is the fundamental unit of our society"??? Our "society" being something that has an intergenerational meaning, insofar as the people in society today are clearly and obviously descended from the people who were around when the constitution was created?

The constitution leaves it to legislation to define what is a family. There are a myriad of different family configurations. The constitution is supposed to be a set of guiding principles. Words change meaning over time. Society changes over time.

A family deserving of constitutional protection may have been viewed by society as simply a heterosexual married couple with children in the past, but that view is no longer appropriate today.

Marriage is about two people agreeing to take on certain rights and responsibilities under law to each other - its nothing to do with having children.

Bannasidhe · 13-05-2015 10:30AM

joe912 wrote: »

Let me get this straight or single people with know known next of kin left to die in a medical emergency. If this is true it would be a lot more beneficial to legislate to correct that than give couples a right to sign a marriage certificate

Legally the only way a not close blood relation can be your next-of-kin is via marriage - I am unclear what the situation with Civil Partnership is so perhaps someone can clarify that- but in the case of an unmarried (or civil partnered?) couple there is no legal right to make decisions or grant permission for medical treatment (among other things like inherit property).

If a Doctor says 'we need to do xxx but even then there is a risk so we need consent from next of kin' (to cover our asses so we don't get sued if it goes pearshaped)- cohabiting partner can't sign it - on fact hospital may refuse to let them sign it (as they would be covered if it went pearshaped).

Same for children of unmarried couples - unless there is legal guardianship in place - non-biological parent cannot give consent as legally they are a stranger to the child.

Now, a lot of the children stuff has been covered by the Children and Family Relationship Act but for unmarried adults it's a minefield of what is and is not possible/covered etc.

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 10:31AM

LordNorbury wrote: »

It is fairly obvious in my view, that the meaning of the word "society" has to be intergenerational. If you accept that, then you accept an implied meaning that society sustains itself through the generations, by procreation. That one generation of society creates the next generation of society, that is what allows us to have a continuation of the "society" that is mentioned in article 41.1.1. It is that meaning of family in my view, that is protected by the institution of marriage in our constitution, notwithstanding the fact that a man and a woman can marry and can decide not to have children or can find themselves unable to create children.

Article 41.1.1 must mean something and if my interpretation of what it means is fundamentally wrong, then maybe as a man who practices law, you might give me your view on the substantive meaning of article 41.1.1.

Well thats just silly.

Same sex marriage is not going to stop people procreating - do you think all the heterosexuals will stop having children because people of the same sex are getting married?

Bit of straw grasping perhaps?

aaakev · 13-05-2015 10:39AM

Im voting yes, never a question of it but i asked a guy in work who i work closely with what his thoughts were. He said he is voting no, i guessed that because he is quite religious but his reasons were horrible. He said and i quote,

"Its against gods law, they are dirty f***in b***ards the lot of them choosing to be like that, they only want kids to abuse them and them getting married will make a mokery of your marriage and mine and your brainwashed if you think any different"!

He was so passionate about it that i was shocked! This guy is mid 40s with 3 kids the oldest of which is only in 1st year so i asked him what if one of his kids turned out to be gay? He said it will jever happen because they know right from wrong :rolleyes:

This chap is very involved in his church and says all his friends and people he speaks to are of the same opinion. Id say alot of the no side have the same opinion but are just not saying it

SSM why are you voting no?

Comments