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

1hnr79jr65 · 13-05-2015 11:05AM

LookingFor wrote: »

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.

Its noted on the independent.ie that he is a religion teacher by trade but not mentioned by him in the article, just hes a GAA player. Love how he covers that one up.

irishfeen · 13-05-2015 11:08AM

I have to say I am not worried about this referendum ... I think it could be very close ... It certainly won't be anywhere near the 70% recent polls suggest.

If this fails it would be among the most embarrassing results in modern Irish history

The pull of the Catholic Church is still trying to pull us down as a nation..

aloyisious · 13-05-2015 11:08AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Most people who marry, are partly motived by a wish to have children with their partner, or perhaps reflecting that they have children with their partner.
This is true for zero percent of same sex relationships, so there is a material difference in the two things.

You mean "children BY their partner"?

If you don't, then same-sex couples with children must be seen as equal to people who have children with their partner, eg; a single or divorced person living with a divorced opposite-sex person with children, both couples entirely worthy of access to civil marriage.

ixoy · 13-05-2015 11:11AM

There seems to be some collective delusion on the No side that there's no same sex households rearing children but that, if the referendum passes, they'll be everywhere. It's not being challenged hugely either despite the recent act and its provisions on adoption.

aloyisious · 13-05-2015 11:11AM

I listened to two lawyers (one from each side) putting up their legal views on the issue on RTE a few minutes ago and I have to say the NO side lawyer seemed to have shaded by the YES side lawyer by two or so points.

bazermc · 13-05-2015 11:13AM

So, I see lots of people about town wearing a badge that says "Yes" or "Ta". I have no problem with that.

I am curious though, why nobody with a badge that says "No" or "Nil"?

How would folk feel if they saw somebody with such a badge on?

Surely in real world of equality its ok for people to wear a badge that supports which ever side they want?

PeteFalk78 · 13-05-2015 11:15AM

I heard a guy on the Anton Savage show this morning who said that anybody who votes No ...... is homophobic.
We hear all the bad stories about the No side but there are absolute muppets on the Yes side also.

TheChizler · 13-05-2015 11:16AM

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

I heard a guy on the Anton Savage show this morning who said that anybody who votes No ...... is homophobic.
We hear all the bad stories about the No side but there are absolute muppets on the Yes side also.

The lesson here: Muppets exist and have a variety of views.

floggg · 13-05-2015 11:16AM

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 demonstrate how children are intrinsically linked to marriage.

Where is in the constitution or legislation is it stated that marriage is based upon, intended for or dependant on children?

Where is it stated that those who are unwilling or unable to have children are less married?

Whereas it stated that childless couples have failed to fulfil any aspect of their marital bond or obligations?

After that we can consider the fact that same sex couples can and do have children, and can therefore fulfil any child-centric related requirements of marriage that might exist.

galljga1 · 13-05-2015 11:16AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

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

I am simply voting to extend the right to marry to persons of the same sex.

Not sure what your point on 'equality' is. Maybe this vote will not provide all things to all persons but it is a start. We will be presented with numerous referenda before we shuffle off.

Always willing to discuss any and all differences with you.

ixoy · 13-05-2015 11:16AM

aloyisious wrote: »

I listened to two lawyers (one from each side) putting up their legal views on the issue on RTE a few minutes ago and I have to say the NO side lawyer seemed to have shaded by the YES side lawyer by two or so points.

On what basis did you think he shaded it? A lot of the No side arguments are often equally attributable to opposite sex couples.

LookingFor · 13-05-2015 11:17AM

ixoy wrote: »

There seems to be some collective delusion on the No side that there's no same sex households rearing children but that, if the referendum passes, they'll be everywhere. It's not being challenged hugely either despite the recent act and its provisions on adoption.

It's terribly misleading.

No child who has a mother and father before the marriage referendum won't have one after.

No child who would have a mother and father before the marriage referendum won't have one after.

But if you vote no:

No child who is in a two parent family that is not 'mother&father' - and these families will exist yes or no - will have equal opportunity for constitutional protection & status.

I'm not sure how any No campaigner like Brennan can in good conscience ignore these children, and ignore the question of how a No vote in any way benefits them. I have to assume they just have not thought about it, and have swallowed the argument that this is a referendum on whether these families will exist rather than, given that they exist, whether they should have the opportunity of an equal relationship with the state as other two parent families.

Lt J.R. Bell · 13-05-2015 11:17AM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

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.

No mistake has been made. Your gender or sexuality is utterly irrelevant. You hardly think supporters of father's rights are exclusively men, do you?

"Your" statement is part of the Yes side

"Warm fuzzy inside" is equivalent to "think about our right to love" which is pushed by many on the yes side. That's fine, I guess, if you are looking for simplistic reasons. But, then it is a different story when the Yes Side , intentionally ignore the point that all those elements that are suppose to make them "second class citizens" are becoming redundant with legislation like the Civil PArtnership Act, and that will be increasingly the case with further legislation.

Not much development coming for other family units like unmarried fathers , is there? The law is not really stopping gay people from playing a meaningful role in the life of their own children, on the basis of being gay, are they? "You" are not denied automatic right to be appointed a guardian of your child for simply being gay, are you? You are being denied that automatic right , if you are an unmarried father (that will include gay men), unlike married fathers .Huge difference now, isn't there.

All rights, are balanced against each other. So, don't be surprised that there is a competition over competing rights. When "you" talk about being "discriminated" against, well, there will always be another group being "discriminated" against because your group got to skip the que

kylith · 13-05-2015 11:19AM

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

I heard a guy on the Anton Savage show this morning who said that anybody who votes No ...... is homophobic.
We hear all the bad stories about the No side but there are absolute muppets on the Yes side also.

Is voting to deny gay people equal rights not homophobic?

Is voting to deny black people equal rights not racist?

Is voting to deny women equal rights not sexist?

floggg · 13-05-2015 11:20AM

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 .;)

Lol. That's just stupid dumb.

Nobody will steal anybody's child.

The only "risk" to a single father is the same risk he faces today - the child's mother will remarry.

VinLieger · 13-05-2015 11:21AM

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

I heard a guy on the Anton Savage show this morning who said that anybody who votes No ...... is homophobic.
We hear all the bad stories about the No side but there are absolute muppets on the Yes side also.

All this whining from the no side about bullying but the simple fact is if people want to stop being called bigots and homophobes they should stop saying bigoted and homophobic things

galljga1 · 13-05-2015 11:22AM

VinLieger wrote: »

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

Point 6 is a classic, didn't think of that.

frostyjacks · 13-05-2015 11:23AM

LookingFor wrote: »

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.

Get Brennan gave a speech after winning the All-Ireland club championship where he thanked players girlfriends and boyfriends. He's the last person you could label homophobic.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/sexuality-no-issue-as-brennan-bemused-at-feedback-to-speech-265365.html

galljga1 · 13-05-2015 11:23AM

VinLieger wrote: »

All this whining from the no side about bullying but the simple fact is if people want to stop being called bigots and homophobes they should stop saying bigoted and homophobic things

But...but...never mind.

floggg · 13-05-2015 11:25AM

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

Nice. So you don't have any issue with us having pseudo-equality. It's just that we don't deserve it.

The compassion of the No side is so heart warming.

De facto couples can marry if they wish (subject to law). No inequality. But I realise you have a quota of bogus arguments to construct each day.

irishfeen · 13-05-2015 11:25AM

Just listened to that guy on Today FM... He seems unaware of the fact that gay people can already adopt children.

Very strange stance if you ask me, he says that a straight couple have a "special" position as the parents of the child but when a child is up for adoption and a straight couple adopt he doesn't seem to realise his special relationship ends - strange and and a straight man his stance seems homophobic.

Nodin · 13-05-2015 11:26AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

No mistake has been made. Your gender or sexuality is utterly irrelevant. You hardly think supporters of father's rights are exclusively men, do you?

"Your" statement is part of the Yes side

"Warm fuzzy inside" is equivalent to "think about our right to love" which is pushed by many on the yes side. That's fine, I guess, if you are looking for simplistic reasons. But, then it is a different story when the Yes Side , intentionally ignore the point that all those elements that are suppose to make them "second class citizens" are becoming redundant with legislation like the Civil PArtnership Act, and that will be increasingly the case with further legislation.
.............

So if civil partnership is destined to be exactly the same as marriage, why mickey about instead of just lettting gay people marry?

floggg · 13-05-2015 11:26AM

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.

Yes, but how else would we tell gay people they are different?

osarusan · 13-05-2015 11:27AM

ixoy wrote: »

On what basis did you think he shaded it? A lot of the No side arguments are often equally attributable to opposite sex couples.

This is so true, and not picked up on by Yes debaters.

Adoption separates a child from its natural father and mother no matter who is adopting, but nobody questions the issue of heterosexual couples adopting.

Surrogacy (traditional, not gestational) separates a child from at least its natural mother, no matter who is using a surrogate, but there doens't seem to be any outrage for heterosexual couples using surrogates (elsewhere).

Point out a heterosexual couple who have adopted, and get a No advocate to explain why they can never do a complete job as parents. Get a No advocate to list the ways they cannot be equal to biological parents. The Yes debaters should be doing stuff like this, live on air.

Bannasidhe · 13-05-2015 11:27AM

floggg wrote: »

Yes, but how else would we tell gay people they are different?

Make 'em wear a pink triangle?

Lt J.R. Bell · 13-05-2015 11:28AM

galljga1 wrote: »

I am simply voting to extend the right to marry to persons of the same sex.

Not sure what your point on 'equality' is. Maybe this vote will not provide all things to all persons but it is a start. We will be presented with numerous referenda before we shuffle off.

Always willing to discuss any and all differences with you.

You have your reasons to vote, and that is fine. They maybe as simple as, look they have a right to love , they are no different to others. (Don't take any adverse idea to the word "simple", it is not intended to be dismissive)

But, when you reply to my question, and come up with the very chart (listing all of the differences) that we are talking about , in the perceived support of your argument, it is reasonable for someone like my self to ask you more about it. (ie whether the differences are really deal breakers, whether they truly are "differences", whether differences are ever intended or possible to be applicable).

Now, I have already pointed out that I acknowledged part of the YES Side's that there are key differences. But, I don't see why or how some people think they are making a strong argument using that chart and then refusing or failing to analysis is , or address any challenge to the allegations about the accuracy of such differences between Civil Partnership and Marriage

You (and anyone else reading) realise, many posters, not just here but on the Indo (see that Ger Brennan "argument") really believe Civil Partnership is identical to Marriage, that the argument for marriage is tosh. Not engaging with the Chart and to see whether the arguments are valid or not, or to discuss whether or not Civil Partnership could be amended to solve these problems, doesn't help the Yes Side . A flat out "well it does not give Article 41 protection" doesn't wash , because, on the face of it, that is questionable

eviltwin · 13-05-2015 11:29AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Get Brennan gave a speech after winning the All-Ireland club championship where he thanked players girlfriends and boyfriends. He's the last person you could label homophobic.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/gaa/sexuality-no-issue-as-brennan-bemused-at-feedback-to-speech-265365.html

His speech doesn't mean anything. You don't have to be openly hostile to someone to be guilty of discrimination. I used to deal with a company headed up by an old dinosaur who made no secret of the fact he would never hire a mother. He didn't hate women but just felt mothers should be at home minding their children, he thought he was actually helping society. Now he was very nice, polite, never had a go at me for working but his actions were still sexist and discriminatory. This lad I'm sure feels he is doing the right thing and doesn't have any personal contempt for gay people but his view is homophobic.

floggg · 13-05-2015 11:29AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

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

That's a lot of words without actually saying anything.

We know that CP can't be placed on the same footing as marriage. That's a constitutionally enshrined fact.

If you have a point, out with it.

Maximus Alexander · 13-05-2015 11:30AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

No mistake has been made. Your gender or sexuality is utterly irrelevant. You hardly think supporters of father's rights are exclusively men, do you?

"Your" statement is part of the Yes side

It's not part of any side, my statements are my own. I'm an individual, who strongly disagrees with almost everything you say. You can try to assign me to some campaign, or agenda, if that makes you feel better. But there's no orchestrated campaign against you, just lots of individuals who disagree with you.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

"Warm fuzzy inside" is equivalent to "think about our right to love" which is pushed by many on the yes side. That's fine, I guess, if you are looking for simplistic reasons. But, then it is a different story when the Yes Side , intentionally ignore the point that all those elements that are suppose to make them "second class citizens" are becoming redundant with legislation like the Civil PArtnership Act, and that will be increasingly the case with further legislation.

Not relevant. Legislation can be changed easily. There is no reason to deny gay people the same constitutional protection that the rest of us enjoy.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Not much development coming for other family units like unmarried fathers , is there? The law is not really stopping gay people from playing a meaningful role in the life of their own children, on the basis of being gay, are they? "You" are not denied automatic right to be appointed a guardian of your child for simply being gay, are you? You are being denied that automatic right , if you are an unmarried father (that will include gay men), unlike married fathers .Huge difference now, isn't there.

Firstly, I'm not gay. I can marry my partner, so no, I'm not being denied any rights. This referendum isn't about me though - it's about gay people.

You know what else it's not about? Unmarried fathers. I completely agree that unmarried men are disadvantaged by the law at the moment. I fully agree that something needs to change here and - even though I'll never be an unmarried father - I'll totally have your back if I'm ever asked to vote on issues relating to this.

Not relevant to the referendum at hand though, is it? It's not one or the other. We can give gay people rights, and also give them to unmarried fathers.

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

All rights, are balanced against each other. So, don't be surprised that there is a competition over competing rights. When "you" talk about being "discriminated" against, well, there will always be another group being "discriminated" against because your group got to skip the que

Again, I don't have a group. I'm a straight, white man in Ireland. I have no kids. I'm about as privileged as they come in that sense. It doesn't preclude me from giving a sh*t about my fellow countrymen though.

Why, if you have issues surrounding your own rights, would you want to be complicit in denying rights to others?

galljga1 · 13-05-2015 11:31AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Most people who marry, are partly motived by a wish to have children with their partner, or perhaps reflecting that they have children with their partner.
This is true for zero percent of same sex relationships, so there is a material difference in the two things.

I absolutely did not want to have children when I got married. I have two now and they are my life.
I would safely say that the same percentage of gay persons want to have children as non gays. This will however lead to hoards of gays pillaging the country and stealing children.

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

Comments