SSM why are you voting no?

CaveCanem · 13-05-2015 10:39AM

MrWalsh wrote: »

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.

That's a slightly bizarre conceptualisation of marriage and family. All of the rights and responsibilities conferred by marriage are entirely for the protection and welfare of the children that may likely result as they are entirely vulnerable and have no voice, not for the advantage or happiness of adults. If marriage was to afford rights and responsibilities and increase the happiness of adults then divorce would always have been part and parcel of the contract.

oscarBravo · 13-05-2015 10:43AM

LordNorbury wrote: »

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.

You seem to be confusing "rights" with "abilities".

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.

Yes. And, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, and as you've ignored repeatedly, a family as defined in the constitution doesn't require children, let alone the ability to have them.

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

You can repeat that bare-faced lie as often as you like - it won't magically become true.

It also betrays a fundamental weakness in your argument, that it's built on such an obvious falsehood.

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.

Yet again you're deliberately conflating "being identical" with "having equal rights".

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.

Yet again, you're confusing rights with abilities.

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

Why should two parties who enter into a contract enjoy the protections of contract law when two parties who don't enter into a contract don't?

Bit of a silly question, don't you think?

oscarBravo · 13-05-2015 10:45AM

CaveCanem wrote: »

All of the rights and responsibilities conferred by marriage are entirely for the protection and welfare of the children that may likely result...

That is simply factually untrue.

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 10:45AM

CaveCanem wrote: »

That's a slightly bizarre conceptualisation of marriage and family. All of the rights and responsibilities conferred by marriage are entirely for the protection and welfare of the children that may likely result as they are entirely vulnerable and have no voice, not for the advantage or happiness of adults. If marriage was to afford rights and responsibilities and increase the happiness of adults then divorce would always have been part and parcel of the contract.

Interesting, a new poster.

Nope - nowhere in the constitution is marriage defined as being about children.

Nothing to do with the protection and welfare of children.

I suggest you educate yourself.

LordNorbury · 13-05-2015 10:45AM

MrWalsh wrote: »

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?

There is no logical reason to extend the right to marry to people who can never conceive a family of their own. Not one single person who is arguing for equal rights for same sex people to marry, managed to be born from a same sex couple, who they are arguing for an equal constitutional right now to marry.

One thing is becoming clear to me in this debate, and it is this... Some people, and I am one of them, believe and associate family and children, as being in the majoritive sense, absolutely central to the institution of marriage, and the yes side invoking a 90 year old male female couple who are beyond childbearing age and who decide to marry, will not and can not change that.

The yes side just don't seem to "get it" that someone who believes this and who has this simple view of what a family is really all about in relation to how society is and how society actually has to be, if it is to continue to be a society, and for that to be possible, in has to be intergenerational, meaning that procreation has to be central to what we are protecting when we are protecting what a family is in our constitution, is simply not going to be bullied into voting for SSM on the basis of accommodating a modern day politically correct version of "equality" that they simply do not believe in.

On that basis, marriage in my view is no place for same sex partnerships, in fact it is absolutely perpendicular to what family and marriage are actually about.

oscarBravo · 13-05-2015 10:46AM

LordNorbury wrote: »

There is no logical reason to extend the right to marry to people who can never conceive a family of their own.

We already do. Why are you being so deeply dishonest about this?

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 10:47AM

LordNorbury wrote: »

Some people, and I am one of them, believe and associate family and children, as being in the majoritive sense, absolutely central to the institution of marriage,

Thanks for sharing. The constitution doesnt agree with you.

Huntergonzo · 13-05-2015 10:48AM

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!

johnnyskeleton · 13-05-2015 10:49AM

aaakev wrote: »

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

To be fair, I don't think that is representative of the majority of practising Catholics. A few may think like that but other than the sort of Westborogh Baptist Church or that Enoch Burke guy, there are few Christian denominations that are that outright hostile to homosexuality.

The unfortunate thing is that a lof of those who are tolerant to homosexuality are still going to vote no to "protect marriage". I guess there are none so blind as those who will not see, to quote Dean Swift.

Godge · 13-05-2015 10:51AM

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.

There are people who acknowledge that SF economic policies are mad but they are voting SF at the next election to "stick it to the government".

To some people that is as important an issue.

LordNorbury · 13-05-2015 10:52AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

We already do. Why are you being so deeply dishonest about this?

Yet again you are comparing apples and oranges. A straight couple who marry and discover they cannot conceive children even though they both have the necessary reproductive organs but due to some medical issue or possibly no issue is present it is just their age and on that basis, cannot conceive, this is NOT THE SAME THING as sticking together two people of the same sex and pretending that they can have a family. These are two very fundamentally different things, maybe to you they are not but to me they are most definitely not the same thing, so please start respecting that on thread.

CaveCanem · 13-05-2015 10:53AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

That is simply factually untrue.

Marriage is older than the constitution and any existing legislation, it goes back further than the Agnatic kinship system that most if not all western societies emerged from. The institution was designed to allow the biological children of a man and a woman to be assigned to their the father's kinship in patrilineal systems or the mothers kinship in matrilineal systems. That's why the family is considered superior to the constitution and legislature, it existed long before them and cannot be redefined by them.

There is definitely a need for a bit of education on this issue, we can agree on that.

LordNorbury · 13-05-2015 10:55AM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

To be fair, I don't think that is representative of the majority of practising Catholics. A few may think like that but other than the sort of Westborogh Baptist Church or that Enoch Burke guy, there are few Christian denominations that are that outright hostile to homosexuality.

The unfortunate thing is that a lof of those who are tolerant to homosexuality are still going to vote no to "protect marriage". I guess there are none so blind as those who will not see, to quote Dean Swift.

They just see it differently to you, having a different perspective from a different angle does not make one blind. :cool:

adtaustin · 13-05-2015 10:56AM

I’m voting NO and i’ll explain why…

In my eyes, marriage is a religious and contractual agreement which has existed for centuries. In a country which is founded and goverened predominantly christian principles, I think it is only right to preserve marriage in accordance with this faith.

Marriage in our society has exclusively been the union of man and woman for religious, legal and moral reasons. It creates a legal relationship between father and child (the mothers legal relationship originates pre-birth), it creates a legal bond between a man and woman (kinship status, right to possessions etc), and creates a covenant between Man (couple) and God (not only in religious weddings, but people chose to recognise this if the have a civil wedding). In my opinion these three factors only need to exist between the union of opposite sexes.

Children naturally are made by the sexual union of a male and female, although i’m aware that this may be done in a test tube, it still requires the assistance of a male and female at some stage. The product of this occurrence i.e. the child, has in my opinion, the unequivocal right to be raised by and have a relationship with both parents. I believe that a child should only ever be conceived on the basis that, at the time of conception the parents have the intention to raise that child together. I understand that other factors may arise that render this not an option, but then i believe when at all possible, that the child should be raised knowing and loving both parents. When the parents fail the child, or when the union of both parents is not an option, i firmly believe that it is the responsibility of the primary care giver to provide surrogate parents of each sex. Therefore in my opinion, same sex couples requiring the same rights as married couples for children is mute, as I don’t believe this is necessary.

We have civil partnerships. These themselves recognise the union of same sex couples and give them the same rights as a married couple in regards to kinship and other legal matters. In the eyes of the law, civil partners are treated equal to married couples.

The main religions groups promote heterosexual marriage and heavily condemn homosexual union. It is difficult for people who have made the choice for same sex unions to be compatible with mainstream religious groups. Religion is steeped in traditions and history and certainly more conservative religions are not going to change their view on this subject. Therefore I believe that on the whole SSM is mainly incompatible with religion and therefore on balance not featured in same sex unions considerations.

In conclusion, I believe on a legal and civic level, civil partnerships provide the same rights as marriages ensuring equality is provided to all citizens. Marriage itself goes further. Same sex couples cannot naturally produce a child without intervention of the opposite sex, and same sex couples' views and lifestyles are incompatible with mainstream religion. Therefore it is impossible to try and gain equality in areas where as a union, you are incompatible to the functions or views of the areas of where you desire equality.

Therefore Marriage should in my opinion remain the union of a man and woman and civil partnerships should remain to recognise the union of SSC.

I know my view will be highly controversial and that maybe this will be misconstrued as homophobic. This isn’t however the case. A lot of thought has gone in to my view point taking in to consideration the views and concerns of many of my friends the are homosexual or bi.

LordNorbury · 13-05-2015 10:56AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

We already do. Why are you being so deeply dishonest about this?

All through this thread you have been relying upon reproductive defects with straight people and their ability to reproduce being absent in a small number of cases, to argue that we should shoe horn in SSM on that basis, it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me.

Penny Tration · 13-05-2015 10:58AM

When the no side mention procreation, and the yes side counter this with infertile people, why are the no side assuming all infertile people are simply older people who have been through the menopause?

I'm infertile and I'm 26. Not 96.

So, should I be allowed to marry? Nobody has yet answered me that.

LordNorbury · 13-05-2015 10:58AM

I have to say, this referendum being passed is by no means a done deal. Practically everyone I have spoken to is not prepared to vote yes for a genderless meaning of marriage on 23rd May, this referendum could well be in trouble, not that it matters I suppose because if it doesn't pass the first time we'll just be told to vote again until it is finally over the fence.

Godge · 13-05-2015 10:59AM

Huntergonzo wrote: »

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!

The one thing Ger Brennan cannot be accused of is homophobia. He was the first captain of a GAA male football team to publicly thank the girlfriends and boyfriends of the team for their support.

He sets out his view in this article. While I don't agree with him, his views are measured and thought-out and therefore deserve respect.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/referendum/dublin-football-star-ger-brennan-why-im-voting-no-31217917.html

This bit was quite prophetic in how he saw responses like yours to his article.

"I very nearly decided not to write this piece. I know I'll be targeted for it and labeled for it. It would have been easier to keep my mouth shut and not rock the boat. But I'm sick of the accusations being flung around that if you vote 'No' you are homophobic. I know I'm not homophobic; my gay friends and family can attest to that. I am voting "No" because I don't want our Constitution to deny that it is a good thing for a child to have a mother and a father."

seamus · 13-05-2015 11:03AM

CaveCanem wrote: »

Marriage is older than the constitution and any existing legislation

That's completely and utterly irrelevant. This is how society works, this is how the law works. When you create new laws and new constitutions, what existed previously is rescinded.

How a marriage may have been defined by a specific society for some fleeting point in hundreds of thousands of years of human history is not relevant to how we think about it now.

The argument from tradition has always been a logical fallacy because it assumes that tradition is both worth protecting and inherently "more right" than current thinking.

eviltwin · 13-05-2015 11:07AM

To the No voters, is there any changes or clauses that could be made that would make you support SSM?

adtaustin · 13-05-2015 11:08AM

Godge wrote: »

I am voting "No" because I don't want our Constitution to deny that it is a good thing for a child to have a mother and a father."

I couldn't agree more!

eviltwin · 13-05-2015 11:08AM

Godge wrote: »

The one thing Ger Brennan cannot be accused of is homophobia. He was the first captain of a GAA male football team to publicly thank the girlfriends and boyfriends of the team for their support.

He sets out his view in this article. While I don't agree with him, his views are measured and thought-out and therefore deserve respect.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/referendum/dublin-football-star-ger-brennan-why-im-voting-no-31217917.html

This bit was quite prophetic in how he saw responses like yours to his article.

"I very nearly decided not to write this piece. I know I'll be targeted for it and labeled for it. It would have been easier to keep my mouth shut and not rock the boat. But I'm sick of the accusations being flung around that if you vote 'No' you are homophobic. I know I'm not homophobic; my gay friends and family can attest to that. I am voting "No" because I don't want our Constitution to deny that it is a good thing for a child to have a mother and a father."

That doesn't mean anything. You don't have to be openly hostile to discriminate.

Bannasidhe · 13-05-2015 11:11AM

CaveCanem wrote: »

Marriage is older than the constitution and any existing legislation, it goes back further than the Agnatic kinship system that most if not all western societies emerged from. The institution was designed to allow the biological children of a man and a woman to be assigned to their the father's kinship in patrilineal systems or the mothers kinship in a matrilineal systems. That's why the family is considered superior to the constitution and legislature, it existed long before them and cannot be redefined by them.

There is definitely a need for a bit of education on this issue, we can agree on that.

Except in the Gaelic Brehon system it made no difference to children if their parents were married or not as there was no concept of illegitimacy, women named the father of their child who was not necessarily their husband, if the named father accepted (no records found yet of any refusals but this doesn't mean it didn't happen) the child was accepted into the father's clann and given equal (or preferable) status to his 'legitimate' children.

You might have heard of a chap named Shane O Neill? Well, Shane was the eldest surviving legitimate son of Conn Bacach Uí Neill first earl of Tyrone but there was another son - Matthew - whose mother had named Conn as the father when Matthew was around 10 years old who became Conn's heir to the Earldom. Matthew's son Hugh succeeded to the Earldom. Even if Matthew was Conn's son (and it's a coincidence that Matthew's mother suddenly remembered who the daddy was around the same time as Conn became powerful...) the earldom passed down an illegitimate line while there were legitimate heirs living.

In Gaelic Ireland marriage was about political alliances not biological inheritance or land acquisition - it was all about having a family-in-law to guard your back and help fight your battles. Nothing else.

If you are going to use what happened in 'most' societies as an argument it undermines your argument somewhat when the society our ancestors lived in were not among the 'most'... far from it in fact.

Godge · 13-05-2015 11:13AM

adtaustin wrote: »

I couldn't agree more!

That was Ger Brennan's quote, not mine. I am voting Yes.

Huntergonzo · 13-05-2015 11:14AM

Godge wrote: »

The one thing Ger Brennan cannot be accused of is homophobia. He was the first captain of a GAA male football team to publicly thank the girlfriends and boyfriends of the team for their support.

He sets out his view in this article. While I don't agree with him, his views are measured and thought-out and therefore deserve respect.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/referendum/dublin-football-star-ger-brennan-why-im-voting-no-31217917.html

This bit was quite prophetic in how he saw responses like yours to his article.

"I very nearly decided not to write this piece. I know I'll be targeted for it and labeled for it. It would have been easier to keep my mouth shut and not rock the boat. But I'm sick of the accusations being flung around that if you vote 'No' you are homophobic. I know I'm not homophobic; my gay friends and family can attest to that. I am voting "No" because I don't want our Constitution to deny that it is a good thing for a child to have a mother and a father."

Can you not see the absolute ridiculousness of his last line though, does he think if Yes wins all of a sudden children won't have a mother and a father and is he not aware of single parents in this country (don't give me this nonsense of 'special circumstances'). Does he not know that if No wins homosexual couples can still adopt a child and that all the children's right groups in this country are supporting a Yes vote, which in fairness makes his whole argument redundant, also he can claim what he likes, but he can't claim to be in favour of equality when he only really believes in equality 'to an extent'.

I'm not necessarily calling him homophobic but he is more likely an example of someone who Stephen Weinberg was talking about when he said = “in the ordinary moral universe, the good will do the best they can, the worst will do the worst they can, but if you want to make good people do wicked things, you’ll need religion”.

LordNorbury · 13-05-2015 11:14AM

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

When the no side mention procreation, and the yes side counter this with infertile people, why are the no side assuming all infertile people are simply older people who have been through the menopause?

I'm infertile and I'm 26. Not 96.

So, should I be allowed to marry? Nobody has yet answered me that.

There is a very big difference between two people who marry and wish to conceive a family but find that they can't, and a same sex couple who nature has determined as a matter of fundamental design, should never be able to procreate by virtue of their same sex. Some people on thread think that this is the exact same thing, they believe that "family" has no real meaning in terms of article 41.1.1 of the constitution and that "society" has no real meaning in terms of article 41.1.1 of the constitution and that everything set out there should be completely disregarded in the name of the "equality" that is now being demanded. Some people simply do not believe that a same sex couple and a straight couple possess the same capabilities to reproduce so therefore both should not have the same access to the constitutional protections afforded to the family as set out in the constitution.

If I was infertile I'd actually be seriously offended at the notion of a section of society who are not actually infertile at all but who cannot conceive within their own relationship for a completely different set of reasons, (because they are of the same sex), invoking my medical situation in an attempt by them to lay down a basis for a change the law in relation to them.

My infertility or reproductive disability and their inability to procreate for themselves which are down to a completely unrelated set of reasons, I would find that association being made by them to be highly offensive to me.

CaveCanem · 13-05-2015 11:16AM

seamus wrote: »

That's completely and utterly irrelevant. This is how society works, this is how the law works. When you create new laws and new constitutions, what existed previously is rescinded.

How a marriage may have been defined by a specific society for some fleeting point in hundreds of thousands of years of human history is not relevant to how we think about it now.

The argument from tradition has always been a logical fallacy because it assumes that tradition is both worth protecting and inherently "more right" than current thinking.

Sure, that's a valid point of view. Posters for a yes vote should then read 'we want to change what marriage and family means' and yes campaigners should make clear to the public that they want marriage in Ireland to mean something different than marriage as it is understood across most of the rest of the world. Maybe even a name change would be appropriate so this can be understood and not confused with what marriage has always meant before. That would be an honest campaign.

Instead we are told 'we don't want to change what marriage means, we just want to widen the criteria to include more people', people that marriage was not intended to protect ie. The interests and happiness of adults.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 13-05-2015 11:17AM

Godge wrote: »

The one thing Ger Brennan cannot be accused of is homophobia. He was the first captain of a GAA male football team to publicly thank the girlfriends and boyfriends of the team for their support.

He sets out his view in this article. While I don't agree with him, his views are measured and thought-out and therefore deserve respect.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/referendum/dublin-football-star-ger-brennan-why-im-voting-no-31217917.html

This bit was quite prophetic in how he saw responses like yours to his article.

"I very nearly decided not to write this piece. I know I'll be targeted for it and labeled for it. It would have been easier to keep my mouth shut and not rock the boat. But I'm sick of the accusations being flung around that if you vote 'No' you are homophobic. I know I'm not homophobic; my gay friends and family can attest to that. I am voting "No" because I don't want our Constitution to deny that it is a good thing for a child to have a mother and a father."

I have to say, I hugely admire his courage in stating his position publicly. It would be so easy to just stay silent, and not get a torrent of abuse.

On the other hand, I see some C of I Bishops and a Catholic theologian are advocating a Yes Vote, joining the near consensus of people who matter. I find myself thinking of that moment in 1984 when, suddenly, everyone has to accept that "We've always been at war with Eastasia".

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 11:18AM

adtaustin wrote: »

I’m voting NO and i’ll explain why…

In my eyes, marriage is a religious and contractual agreement which has existed for centuries. In a country which is founded and goverened predominantly christian principles, I think it is only right to preserve marriage in accordance with this faith. This referendum is only about civil marriage, religious marriage doesnt change.

Marriage in our society has exclusively been the union of man and woman for religious, legal and moral reasons. It creates a legal relationship between father and child (the mothers legal relationship originates pre-birth), it creates a legal bond between a man and woman (kinship status, right to possessions etc), and creates a covenant between Man (couple) and God (not only in religious weddings, but people chose to recognise this if the have a civil wedding). In my opinion these three factors only need to exist between the union of opposite sexes. Marriage is nothing to do with having children. The constitution disagrees with your interpretation.

Children naturally are made by the sexual union of a male and female, although i’m aware that this may be done in a test tube, it still requires the assistance of a male and female at some stage. The product of this occurrence i.e. the child, has in my opinion, the unequivocal right to be raised by and have a relationship with both parents. I believe that a child should only ever be conceived on the basis that, at the time of conception the parents have the intention to raise that child together. I understand that other factors may arise that render this not an option, but then i believe when at all possible, that the child should be raised knowing and loving both parents. When the parents fail the child, or when the union of both parents is not an option, i firmly believe that it is the responsibility of the primary care giver to provide surrogate parents of each sex. Therefore in my opinion, same sex couples requiring the same rights as married couples for children is mute, as I don’t believe this is necessary. Child creation will still happen with eggs and sperm, we are not voting on changing biology. Lots of children are conceived when a drunk bloke shoots his load in a dark alleyway and barely knows the partner. No intention to conceive there.

We have civil partnerships. These themselves recognise the union of same sex couples and give them the same rights as a married couple in regards to kinship and other legal matters. In the eyes of the law, civil partners are treated equal to married couples. Absolutely incorrect. No constitutional protection. 160 differences between the two. Please educate yourself.

The main religions groups promote heterosexual marriage and heavily condemn homosexual union. It is difficult for people who have made the choice for same sex unions to be compatible with mainstream religious groups. Religion is steeped in traditions and history and certainly more conservative religions are not going to change their view on this subject. Therefore I believe that on the whole SSM is mainly incompatible with religion and therefore on balance not featured in same sex unions considerations. The referendum is about civil marriage not religious marriage. Religions can be happy to marry people to turkeys if they wish.

In conclusion, I believe on a legal and civic level, civil partnerships provide the same rights as marriages ensuring equality is provided to all citizens. They dont. Marriage itself goes further. Same sex couples cannot naturally produce a child without intervention of the opposite sex, and same sex couples' views and lifestyles are incompatible with mainstream religion. So what? Therefore it is impossible to try and gain equality in areas where as a union, you are incompatible to the functions or views of the areas of where you desire equality. What?

Therefore Marriage should in my opinion remain the union of a man and woman and civil partnerships should remain to recognise the union of SSC. So you want to continue to discriminate?

I know my view will be highly controversial and that maybe this will be misconstrued as homophobic. This isn’t however the case. A lot of thought has gone in to my view point taking in to consideration the views and concerns of many of my friends the are homosexual or bi. What else could it be but homophobic to want to discriminate on people on the basis of sexuality?

Theres so much factually incorrect in this its hard to know where to start - so inline responses. Another new poster, not a bit odd....

Huntergonzo · 13-05-2015 11:18AM

adtaustin wrote: »

I couldn't agree more!

And if you vote No guess what? Children will STILL have their biological parents (they won't vanish) and homosexual couples will STILL be eligible to apply to adopt a child. Now that we've cleared that up what is the No side really about?

SSM why are you voting no?

Comments