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

floggg · 13-05-2015 11:33AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

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?

Two questions for you:

1. Are you ok with civil partnership legislation being amended to give it all of the same legislative and common law rights, protections and obligations as marriage?

2. If yes, what practical, objective and identifiable benefit is there to anybody in giving it the relationship the same rights but denying it the name "marriage?"

Lt J.R. Bell · 13-05-2015 11:35AM

Nodin wrote: »

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

Who said it would be "exactly the same"? I didn't.

Some gays want marriage, for a legitimate and understanding reason; to ensure they and their partner and the child from a previous relationship have some security with each other's assets in the event of relationship break down or death. They also want more generous tax credits does not mean they are the same as married people

Others, just want marriage "for the Status" under the Constitution, whatever that means (ignoring and not knowing, or caring , what that really entails and whether they all ready have much of the "goods") Gay relationship are being recognised, legally.

Why mickey about? They don't need it, it is not for them, Well, why not let other family units marry so? In light of the current and future legislation , how does a ban on marriage prevent a gay person and their partner from living their daily life like everyone else? Guess what, the ban does not prevent them

Peist2007 · 13-05-2015 11:35AM

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.

If you can find me a reason to vote no that doesn't boil down to simple homophobia then i am all ears. Just to assist you though: i haven't heard one yet.

galljga1 · 13-05-2015 11:40AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Who said it would be "exactly the same"? I didn't.

Some gays want marriage, for a legitimate and understanding reason; to ensure they and their partner and the child from a previous relationship have some security with each other's assets in the event of relationship break down or death. They also want more generous tax credits does not mean they are the same as married people

Others, just want marriage "for the Status" under the Constitution, whatever that means (ignoring and not knowing, :or caring , what that really entails and whether they all ready have much of the "goods") Gay relationship are being recognised, legally.

Why mickey about? They don't need it, it is not for them, Well, why not let other family units marry so? In light of the current and future legislation , how does a ban on marriage prevent a gay person and their partner from living their daily life like everyone else? Guess what, the ban does not prevent them

Reading your posts, one word springs to mind: begrudgery.

floggg · 13-05-2015 11:40AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

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

It doesn't matter whether the differences are big or small.

It's the fact there is a (unjustified) difference that is objectionable. It's really rather simple.

Lt J.R. Bell · 13-05-2015 11:41AM

floggg wrote: »

Two questions for you:

1. Are you ok with civil partnership legislation being amended to give it all of the same legislative and common law rights, protections and obligations as marriage?

2. If yes, what practical, objective and identifiable benefit is there to anybody in giving it the relationship the same rights but denying it the name "marriage?"

Civil Partnership:Yes,but provided that such legislation does not give them a status or exactly the superior to the unit of married couples, in a certain area (when on the basis of family status and not individual) . I do not advocate legislating for "all of the same legislative and common law rights", only what are completely essential in the areas of their children, their property and assets (and that of their partners) taxation , medical issues concerning them and their family - thats a lot , hell of a lot more than de facto couples are getting

Hyzepher · 13-05-2015 11:41AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

In light of the current and future legislation , how does a ban on marriage prevent a gay person and their partner from living their daily life like everyone else? Guess what, the ban does not prevent them

You think people would be ok with banning marriage altogether and just happy to live their lives as they have being doing but without the constitutional protection?

galljga1 · 13-05-2015 11:41AM

Peist2007 wrote: »

If you can find me a reason to vote no that doesn't boil down to simple homophobia then i am all ears. Just to assist you though: i haven't heard one yet.

Because this referendum is skipping the queue ahead of fathers' rights.

PeteFalk78 · 13-05-2015 11:41AM

kylith wrote: »

Is voting to deny gay people equal rights not homophobic?

Not necessarily.

aloyisious · 13-05-2015 11:43AM

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!!!

Maybe you missed the tweet from David Quinn that if the marriage amendment is passed, that his straight male friends could marry each other for tax purposes. It could get even worse than you thought.

floggg · 13-05-2015 11:43AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Who said it would be "exactly the same"? I didn't.

Some gays want marriage, for a legitimate and understanding reason; to ensure they and their partner and the child from a previous relationship have some security with each other's assets in the event of relationship break down or death. They also want more generous tax credits does not mean they are the same as married people

Others, just want marriage "for the Status" under the Constitution, whatever that means (ignoring and not knowing, or caring , what that really entails and whether they all ready have much of the "goods") Gay relationship are being recognised, legally.

Why mickey about? They don't need it, it is not for them, Well, why not let other family units marry so? In light of the current and future legislation , how does a ban on marriage prevent a gay person and their partner from living their daily life like everyone else? Guess what, the ban does not prevent them

And segregation didn't stop Rosa Parks using public transport.

Lt J.R. Bell · 13-05-2015 11:45AM

floggg wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether the differences are big or small.

It's the fact there is a (unjustified) difference that is objectionable. It's really rather simple.

It does matter. It matters whether something is a down right lie or not. You and your pals are quick to dismiss the Children argument (many of you lot don't even know what ye are talking about and ignore the spirit of the law and attitudes of Irish people to the family)

What is unjustified about it?

I have asked several times , for people to read an article, which their friends are trying to rely upon to support their arguments about the differences between Civil Partnership and Marriage. No takers, not surprising

kylith · 13-05-2015 11:45AM

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Not necessarily.

Can you explain? I don't understand how denying someone equal rights just because they are gay isn't homophobic.

Hyzepher · 13-05-2015 11:45AM

kylith wrote:

Is voting to deny gay people equal rights not homophobic?

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Not necessarily.

no it's just being afraid of gays.

floggg · 13-05-2015 11:46AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Civil Partnership:Yes,but provided that such legislation does not give them a status or exactly the superior to the unit of married couples, in a certain area (when on the basis of family status and not individual) . I do not advocate legislating for "all of the same legislative and common law rights", only what are completely essential in the areas of their children, their property and assets (and that of their partners) taxation , medical issues concerning them and their family - thats a lot , hell of a lot more than de facto couples are getting

Is that a yes or a no?

And the second question - which was the important one.

PS - de facto couples can marry if they wish. The rights are they if they want.

The only circumstances they can't is where one is currently married and awaiting divorce. In which case they already exercised the right and the wait is a consequence of that fact.

aloyisious · 13-05-2015 11:47AM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Not sure if gay men dream much about it.

Nocturnal like a straight man might???

PeteFalk78 · 13-05-2015 11:48AM

kylith wrote: »

Can you explain? I don't understand how denying someone equal rights just because they are gay isn't homophobic.

If you have an issue with the wording in the amendment.
If it goes against your religious beliefs.
etc....etc

Lt J.R. Bell · 13-05-2015 11:48AM

floggg wrote: »

And segregation didn't stop Rosa Parks using public transport.

Stop talking utter bollox for at least one hour

It is cheap and insulting to even compare a ban to marry because of sexaulity (still can marry) , such a ban that doesn't effectively ruin your right to equality in relation to the rest of the fundamental rights , a "right" that doesn't even exist

Vs

A community that had little or no Civil Rights at all, despite the Constitution , on papers saying everyone was free

That muck does no favours for the Yes Side

StewartGriffin · 13-05-2015 11:50AM

aloyisious wrote: »

Maybe you missed the tweet from David Quinn that if the marriage amendment is passed, that his straight male friends could marry each other for tax purposes. It could get even worse than you thought.

This is true. Similar to how a man/woman can get married now for reasons other than love, rare but it does happen. Although probably more in fiction than reality.

I don't think the word gay is mentioned anywhere on the amendment, just same-sex couples.

galljga1 · 13-05-2015 11:50AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Stop talking utter bollox for at least one hour

It is cheap and insulting to even compare a ban to marry because of sexaulity (still can marry) , such a ban that doesn't effectively ruin your right to equality in relation to the rest of the fundamental rights , a "right" that doesn't even exist

Vs

A community that had little or no Civil Rights at all, despite the Constitution , on papers saying everyone was free

That muck does no favours for the Yes Side

Please heed your own advice.

kylith · 13-05-2015 11:52AM

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

If you have an issue with the wording in the amendment.
If it goes against your religious beliefs.
etc....etc

An issue with the wording I suppose I could understand, but it would depend on the wording that was at issue.

I would be of the opinion that 'it's against my religious beliefs' means 'my invisible friend says it's ok to be homophobic'.

VinLieger · 13-05-2015 11:52AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Stop talking utter bollox for at least one hour

It is cheap and insulting to even compare a ban to marry because of sexaulity (still can marry) , such a ban that doesn't effectively ruin your right to equality in relation to the rest of the fundamental rights , a "right" that doesn't even exist

Vs

A community that had little or no Civil Rights at all, despite the Constitution , on papers saying everyone was free

That muck does no favours for the Yes Side

It was illegal for a black person to marry a white person in 16 states in the US until 1967

floggg · 13-05-2015 11:53AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

It does matter. It matters whether something is a down right lie or not. You and your pals are quick to dismiss the Children argument (many of you lot don't even know what ye are talking about and ignore the spirit of the law and attitudes of Irish people to the family)

What is unjustified about it?

I have asked several times , for people to read an article, which their friends are trying to rely upon to support their arguments about the differences between Civil Partnership and Marriage. No takers, not surprising

What children argument.

It is beyond doubt that there is no requirement for children in order to marry. And that childless married couples are no less married than those with children.

It's also beyond doubt that same sex couples can and do have children, and so can benefit from any child related protections afforded by marriage.

There is no children argument to make against a yes vote.

So in the absence of any objectively justified reason to prohibit same sex marriage (and even then, there must be proportionality), the maintenance of a difference is unjustified.

And which article are you referring to her? Article 41, journalistic or scholarly?

galljga1 · 13-05-2015 11:54AM

kylith wrote: »

An issue with the wording I suppose I could understand, but it would depend on the wording that was at issue.

I would be of the opinion that 'it's against my religious beliefs' means 'my invisible friend says it's ok to be homophobic'.

I like that.

floggg · 13-05-2015 11:58AM

Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »

Stop talking utter bollox for at least one hour

It is cheap and insulting to even compare a ban to marry because of sexaulity (still can marry) , such a ban that doesn't effectively ruin your right to equality in relation to the rest of the fundamental rights , a "right" that doesn't even exist

Vs

A community that had little or no Civil Rights at all, despite the Constitution , on papers saying everyone was free

That muck does no favours for the Yes Side

Really? Tell that to Bayard Rustin, the organiser of the million man March.

Or to Caretta Scott King, widow of Martin Luther King.

Or to Jesse Jackson.

Or to Desmond Tutu.

How dare these people who participated heavily in the civil rights struggle in the USA and South Africa to cheapen their own struggle.

Stop talking muck.

BlitzKrieg · 13-05-2015 11:59AM

gRBBp_V6yrdRwO57QMDgZtmx7ac_6QXJEVF0iHwXmlbt4WOMOWckV_4gexZcKbq1qAbmAccRyxNM6zG8ULnTiC-VuN3JqXKwMZaTyJ5lBQaGfhZq7cG5Mf-LhXwyH33kLsavIKgOe4mBI5DFbKQd7KqHjVsISNo3dGN5vNRZZy7aYapsdgc3BW9Wxlb4OvPWaUcjDFNx32oIwDaJeucqDca2zIL.jpg

fear mongering at its best

ixoy · 13-05-2015 12:00PM

Pretty big ad appeared there on boards (mobile) saying "Why you should vote no“. Disappointed it got through to the site. I'd prefer not to see any such ads.

StewartGriffin · 13-05-2015 12:02PM

If the Referendum passes, I forsee a modernised version of "The Field" where the Yank seduces the Bull McCabe with an offer of marriage and better tax benefits, he gets the field, adopts Taidgh, and, well, I'm not sure how the Tinker's daughter fits in.

1hnr79jr65 · 13-05-2015 12:03PM

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

fear mongering at its best

The following is on this utter tripe of a site

"Reason 5: Keep Ideology Out of Schools
If we pass this referendum, pressure will be placed on schools to teach that same-sex relationships are no different from the relationship between a man and a woman. Already in the UK, primary school text-books promote same-sex relationships regardless of the wishes of parents.

The Taoiseach has recently stated that Catholic schools will be expected to teach children about the right to same-sex marriage if the referendum passes.

Parents who sincerely believe that there is a "distiction" will find it difficult to ensure that their values are respected in their child's classroom. A leading Irish gay rights activist has already argued that under-fives should be taught about gay relationships in crèches.

In North America where c.1.6 percent of adults self-identify as gay some schools have been asked to stop celebrating Mother's Day on the basis that it discriminates against those children brought up in a same-sex headed household."

This is total rubbish, if they want to claim this stance they can also vote for religion to be banned in schools.

Addle · 13-05-2015 12:05PM

I am going to be so embarrassed to be Irish if the amendment isn't passed.

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

Comments