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

iDave · 13-05-2015 10:28AM

Missed a few pages of this, return and now I'm told I have to be worried my fiancée will eventually turn lesbian :pac:
Sweet merciful fcuk!!!

galljga1 · 13-05-2015 10:28AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Civil Partnership was brought into Law to deal with Gay Rights in areas where they have no business to be concerned with. This is being achieved and will continue to be achieved. Other family units have been ignored

THe legislative reform puts a fallacy to the notion of second class citizens.It also exposes the group's ignorance as to what "equality" really means

It is becoming more and more clear, what a self centred group the Yes Side are. Their refusal or inability to realise that children are very much extrinsically linked to Marriage, in light of the Constitutional's position of the family, just shows how unfit some of that side are to marriage.

Oh, and, nothing has been refuted with regard to children and marriage. This will be tested for the first time by the People of Ireland, on May 22nd .

Please elaborate and enlighten me with regard to the above high-lighted text.

galljga1 · 13-05-2015 10:30AM

iDave wrote: »

Missed a few pages of this, return and now I'm told I have to be worried my fiancée will eventually turn lesbian :pac:
Sweet merciful fcuk!!!

Is that not every mans dream?

iDave · 13-05-2015 10:35AM

galljga1 wrote: »

Is that not every mans dream?

Yes, I've even encouraged it

Lt J.R. Bell · 13-05-2015 10:37AM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

"Waaah waah waaah fathers' rights". It's not like we're going to legislate for making fathers feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Fathers, in particular non married fathers are merely looking for a better environment to be able to play a real role in the life of their child, when he breaks up with his partner. A bit more that feeling "all warm and fuzzy inside"

But, hey, go ahead, keep joking about. Expose the true side of the yes vote (some of whom are also non married fathers) Why on earth would any non married father , who now will have an extra load of people potentially skipping the que , support gay marriage? But hey, keep up the smart alex remarks , sure that will help the Yes side's cause .;)

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 10:37AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Civil Partnership was brought into Law to deal with Gay Rights in areas where they have no business to be concerned with.

What does this mean?

eviltwin · 13-05-2015 10:39AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Fathers, in particular non married fathers are merely looking for a better environment to be able to play a real role in the life of their child, when he breaks up with his partner. A bit more that feeling "all warm and fuzzy inside"

But, hey, go ahead, keep joking about. Expose the true side of the yes vote (some of whom are also non married fathers) Why on earth would any non married father , who now will have an extra load of people potentially skipping the que , support gay marriage? But hey, keep up the smart alex remarks , sure that will help the Yes side's cause .;)

So campaign to change it then. Maybe if unmarried father's got their arses in gear the way the gay community did they wouldn't be in that position. You don't further your own cause by denying rights to others.

galljga1 · 13-05-2015 10:39AM

MrWalsh wrote: »

What does this mean?

I am equally stumped. That whole post opened up so many questions but I also had to query this in particular. The mind boggles.

Huntergonzo · 13-05-2015 10:39AM

Just heard an interview by Dublin footballer Ger Brennan on Pat Kenny who's supporting a No vote, well they said it was Ger Brennan but it sounded near on identical to the same old lies and contradictions being spewed out by the Iona. He's worried about children, he's worried about parents special place in the constitution (well biological parents only when you get past all the murky nonsense), he thinks homosexuals should absolutely, 100% definitely, no questions asked be equal to heterosexual......EXCEPT!!!, haha I love when they say this, except when it comes to marriage.......so NOT equal then Ger.

I wonder if Ger is really just calling for a No votes because of his strong faith (and we know what the religious think about homosexuals), after all he is a religious teacher and was quoted previously as saying =“I am someone who believes strongly in Jesus Christ, I believe in God incarnate and I believe that Jesus is the example, the X-Factor, for people to follow their lives by."

Have your religion Ger, everyone is entitled to it but please keep it out of our constitution!

Ave Sodalis · 13-05-2015 10:39AM

galljga1 wrote: »

Knock yourself out.
http://www.marriagequality.ie/marriageaudit/

He knows them. In fact, he claims to know them so well that he thinks the rest of us don't know them and wants us all to jump through hoops discussing the pinikity things so he gets to insult people at any opportune moment.

galljga1 · 13-05-2015 10:44AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Fathers, in particular non married fathers are merely looking for a better environment to be able to play a real role in the life of their child, when he breaks up with his partner. A bit more that feeling "all warm and fuzzy inside"

But, hey, go ahead, keep joking about. Expose the true side of the yes vote (some of whom are also non married fathers) Why on earth would any non married father , who now will have an extra load of people potentially skipping the que , support gay marriage? But hey, keep up the smart alex remarks , sure that will help the Yes side's cause .;)

Please explain how the upcoming referendum negatively impacts fathers' rights.
Alternatively, get off your ar$e and do something positive about improving fathers' rights. You would probably have the support of most people in the yes camp.
Or maybe just whinge.

StewartGriffin · 13-05-2015 10:44AM

galljga1 wrote: »

Is that not every mans dream?

Not sure if gay men dream much about it.

Bannasidhe · 13-05-2015 10:45AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Fathers, in particular non married fathers are merely looking for a better environment to be able to play a real role in the life of their child, when he breaks up with his partner. A bit more that feeling "all warm and fuzzy inside"

But, hey, go ahead, keep joking about. Expose the true side of the yes vote (some of whom are also non married fathers) Why on earth would any non married father , who now will have an extra load of people potentially skipping the que , support gay marriage? But hey, keep up the smart alex remarks , sure that will help the Yes side's cause .;)

Skipping the queue?

Have you even read the Children and Family Relationship Act?

To speak of skipping the queue is an blatant attempt to act as if Same-Sex couples are going to get extra super duper rights above and beyond heterosexual ones.

The situation for unmarried fathers will not be impacted any differently depending on the gender of the biological mother's 'new' partner - it makes NO difference if the mother marries a man or a woman.

No one is claiming that unmarried fathers are properly protected in this country but it is blatantly untrue to suggest that SSM will mean a lesbian wife (as opposed to a heterosexual husband) would get to steal a poor unmarried father's child is pure BS.

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 10:46AM

galljga1 wrote: »

I am equally stumped. That whole post opened up so many questions but I also had to query this in particular. The mind boggles.

I think it means "gays eww".

Lt J.R. Bell · 13-05-2015 10:46AM

galljga1 wrote: »

Please elaborate and enlighten me with regard to the above high-lighted text.

No doubt this will fly over your head like a jet. But

Compare, the position pre and post 2010 of their (Same Secual couples) position and non married couples; compare the position of married couples and non married couples

in areas of ownership/non ownership of property, taxation/ employment , succession/probate.

There was a reason why these were bestowed to only Married Couples. They were the only groups who needed the protections (ie unit protection , not individual protection)

Today, Same Sex Couples have many of the same rights, unlike non married couples.

"no business..." That was simply stated that since only the married couple were the "fundamental unit of society" Same Sex Couples had no reason to be getting provisions equivalent to married people. De Facto couples haven't got anything after all (discrimination?)

I have already, on numerous occasions pointed out my stance about these legislative provisions for gay couples I don't oppose them

So, don't go trying to hang on to something that is not there. There was enough a a circus with another poster and his faux outrage and intentional misinterpretation yesterday

13-05-2015 10:46AM

iDave wrote: »

Missed a few pages of this, return and now I'm told I have to be worried my fiancée will eventually turn lesbian :pac:
Sweet merciful fcuk!!!

Indeed - but even tongue out of cheek I am still not getting the guys point. He built some scenario where a persons partner "turns" gay, ups and leaves to live with a same sex partner, takes the kids with them.

I would have three questions:

1) How is this any different to before the referendum.
2) How will a yes vote change it.
3) How is this any different to your partner going off with an opposite sex person and taking the kids with.

None of these were clear from the guys attack on Sonics post.

osarusan · 13-05-2015 10:47AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

The Civil Partnership Act has started to provide probate rights and property rights. More can be done.If the referendum was to loose, government, assuming they really do care about gays, would quickly start amending legislation to cater for gay families

Once that's achieved, there is no need for marriage. One more time, folks...

Why are you so keen to see equality-lite delivered through legislation only?

Just what is it about same sex marriage and its respective constitutional protection that bothers you so much?

floggg · 13-05-2015 10:48AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

And what Constitutional protection would that be, so? You have and will continue to have rights under Article 40 which sets out the majority of the fundamental rights. Your individual rights are protected

Legislation will provide protection of the family in the event of death and relationship breakdown, legislation does provide for taxation assistance.there are some limited cases where a non property owning gay partner can be protected similar to the family home protection act. De facto couples don't get that kind of protection

A number of new family law acts dealing specifically with childRen will also change some of the current legislation

So, like the refusal (of others) to point out the 160 differences, we are getting more talk about Constitutional differences,

Yet, if they look at the legislation now, and what could be done later, they will have very strong protections that will not prevent them from living their lives with worries they had 10 years ago.

Marriage and Definition in the Constitution. For the one millionth time.

Stop talking about the Constitution. You know little about the matter. Constitutional law is not just the text. It includes the case law. Without the case law, many of the modern rights now recognised probably would not have been accepted based on the text of the Constitution (or any Constitution)

The Superior Courts of this Country, and even the ECtHR have acknowledged, that the definition of "marriage" is , what we traditionally know it to be, man + woman.

Even a Labour Attorney General, has recognised that she can't ignore the Judicial Interpretation of the word marriage, hence the need for a referendum . You could bet your last euro that Labour would have guillotined new marriage laws where it not for the legal problem

So, stop this nonsense that the Constitution does not define marriage. It is plainly moronic

As we both know, the SC has never been asked whether the constitutional definition of marriage can or must include same sex marriage. So it is far from settled that constitutional marriage excludes same sex couples.

If a court isn't asked a question, the best we can do is speculate on what the answer would be.

We both also know that the SC has said a constitutional family, founded on marriage, includes married couples with or without children.

And we both also know that the SC has also determined that couples have the right to import and use contraceptives. The SC has also stated that the right of married couples to procreate is not absolute.

Those decisions should make clear that children are not a perquisite, requirement or entitlement of married couples, nor does marriage or a family depend on children for validity.

So if your going to condescend to people about Constitutional law, please actually know what you are talking about.

Jimoslimos · 13-05-2015 10:50AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

The Civil Partnership Act has started to provide probate rights and property rights. More can be done.If the referendum was to loose, government, assuming they really do care about gays, would quickly start amending legislation to cater for gay families

Once that's achieved, there is no need for marriage.

From an efficiency point of view there is no need for two pieces of legislation that effectively say the same same thing. Double the workload required when these inevitably need amending.

Mickeroo · 13-05-2015 10:53AM

Often reminded of this scene in South Park by some of the "reasoning" on here over the last few months, just without the humour.

Lt J.R. Bell · 13-05-2015 10:54AM

galljga1 wrote: »

Knock yourself out.
http://www.marriagequality.ie/marriageaudit/

WOw, ya, here is the thing.

I have already posted on that . I went through several individual entries on that list.While there are some legitimate arguments from the Yes side, I have pointed out that the many of the "differences" are either non existent or exaggerated . Another poster has also come to the conclusion that in most part, the argument about the differences are completely bogus

The reason I have invited you and your pals to discuss these individual differences is because, I know, and I would wager on it, most of you guys haven't an iota of a clue what ye are talking about. You and your pals after all, are trying to convince everyone that the Civil Partnership Act does not and can not go far enough; yet talk about being second class citizens and inequality.

Why vote yes to something that you don't know what you are voting on ? "Equality" another issue many of ye are ignoring what it means.

But, thanks for confirming what we (The No Side ) are beginning to suspect . And, for ye to have the nerve to suggest that the No side are highjacking issues .lol. Finally, when "relevant" issues are brought up, some people on the Yes Side simply would prefer to be dealing with the Iona shower again

Sonics2k · 13-05-2015 10:56AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Fathers, in particular non married fathers are merely looking for a better environment to be able to play a real role in the life of their child, when he breaks up with his partner. A bit more that feeling "all warm and fuzzy inside"

But, hey, go ahead, keep joking about. Expose the true side of the yes vote (some of whom are also non married fathers) Why on earth would any non married father , who now will have an extra load of people potentially skipping the que , support gay marriage? But hey, keep up the smart alex remarks , sure that will help the Yes side's cause .;)

Funnily enough, I agree with you on father's rights, but that is entirely separate to the SSM referendum, as has been said.

I'm separated from the mother of my kids, and did have to go to court to gain the full rights I should have by default, but once again. That has -nothing- to do with the referendum and deciding to vote against it because single fathers currently don't have great rights is genuinely a sickeningly petty thing to do.

This referendum is about treating LGBT couples the exact same we treat a straight couple in the eyes of the State, not religion, not scaremongering, but full blown equality.

TheChizler · 13-05-2015 10:57AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Stop talking about the Constitution. You know little about the matter. Constitutional law is not just the text. It includes the case law. Without the case law, many of the modern rights now recognised probably would not have been accepted based on the text of the Constitution (or any Constitution)

...

So, stop this nonsense that the Constitution does not define marriage. It is plainly moronic

This wouldn't be the attempts to shut down debate and abuse from the Yes side that I keep hearing about would it? Oh wait...

I'm being asked to vote on the constitution, I'm considered competent to understand what I'm being asked about. Seeing as you know so much about the matter if you can point out how marriage is defined in constitutional case law then I'll listen to you.

galljga1 · 13-05-2015 10:59AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

No doubt this will fly over your head like a jet. But

Compare, the position pre and post 2010 of their (Same Secual couples) position and non married couples; compare the position of married couples and non married couples

in areas of ownership/non ownership of property, taxation/ employment , succession/probate.

There was a reason why these were bestowed to only Married Couples. They were the only groups who needed the protections (ie unit protection , not individual protection)

Today, Same Sex Couples have many of the same rights, unlike non married couples.

"no business..." That was simply stated that since only the married couple were the "fundamental unit of society" Same Sex Couples had no reason to be getting provisions equivalent to married people. De Facto couples haven't got anything after all (discrimination?)

I have already, on numerous occasions pointed out my stance about these legislative provisions for gay couples I don't oppose them

So, don't go trying to hang on to something that is not there. There was enough a a circus with another poster and his faux outrage and intentional misinterpretation yesterday

SWOOOOSH, it's going out to sea. Such arrogance.

So, are you saying that same sex couples should enjoy the same rights as 'married' couples but that you have a problem with non married couples not enjoying these rights?

Maximus Alexander · 13-05-2015 10:59AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Fathers, in particular non married fathers are merely looking for a better environment to be able to play a real role in the life of their child, when he breaks up with his partner. A bit more that feeling "all warm and fuzzy inside"

But, hey, go ahead, keep joking about. Expose the true side of the yes vote (some of whom are also non married fathers) Why on earth would any non married father , who now will have an extra load of people potentially skipping the que , support gay marriage? But hey, keep up the smart alex remarks , sure that will help the Yes side's cause .;)

The mistake you make is thinking that I represent some kind of cause. I'm a dude, on a discussion forum, discussing something.

It's laughable that you can dismiss gay rights as them looking for 'warm and fuzzy' feelings on the one hand, and then push the rights of unmarried fathers on the other. How does the cognitive dissonance not make your head explode?

"Hey, screw the rights of this minority group - but while you're at it, recognize how important the rights of this other minority group are!"

How that could not lead you to realise that's it's important that we all stand up for all minority groups is beyond me.

But hey, carry on exposing the true side of fathers' rights campaigners. That will help the cause.

Lt J.R. Bell · 13-05-2015 11:01AM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

From an efficiency point of view there is no need for two pieces of legislation that effectively say the same same thing. Double the workload required when these inevitably need amending.

If Civil PArtnership came out in 2010 with everything, bells and whistles, it would likely not have got through the Oireachtas in one piece. This is Ireland , softly softly approach (not saying that is a good thing)

The "two pieces of legislation", meaning, the Civil Partnership would included "new provision" (ie Section 6 now inserts "civil partner"), which in turn results in a word /phrase etc to be amended in the parent act (eg Family Home Protection Act 1976) to include gays partnerships

Efficiency ? Dail Eireann?

VinLieger · 13-05-2015 11:02AM

As usual the WWN absolutely nails it http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/05/12/6-reasons-why-jesus-is-voting-yes-in-the-marriage-referendum/

Shrap · 13-05-2015 11:02AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

who now will have an extra load of people potentially skipping the que , support gay marriage?

Ha ha, really?! You honestly think that separated parents will now have more people to choose to marry if SSM passes?

My separation from my husband hasn't "turned me gay". Not that I haven't had the offers mind you, but I'm comfortable in my sexuality thanks, so have managed to stick to the gender I'm attracted to. Perhaps that seems strange to you?

LookingFor · 13-05-2015 11:03AM

The Ger Brennan things is worrying, if only because I'm seeing people on twitter with no record of talking about marref reeling in to applaud him on it.

Judging by the article and the radio interview he's been doing he's taken all this talking points from the Iona/MFM playbook, but wrapped in a 'i love my gay friends' ribbon. Very saddening, and he shouldn't go unchallenged just because he's protested that he's not homophobic. Homophobia isn't simply when a guy gets beat up on the street, Ger.

osarusan · 13-05-2015 11:03AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

While there are some legitimate arguments from the Yes side

Why are you advocating a No vote?

Why are you so keen to see equality (as you see it) delivered through legislation?

What is it about same sex marriage and consequent constitutional protection that worries you so much?

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

Comments