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

floggg · 14-05-2015 02:26PM

Montgolfier wrote: »

If we are going to change what defines a marriage why do it for just one sector of our society. To be honest I don't want it to change but if it has to let's include all.
It seems just like a popular vote to boost Kennys legacy.
The way it's being portrayed how could you not vote yes poor little Johnny or Mary down the road. It's not inclusive just easy.

We got that. There was really no need to make up a "pretend" reason though.

SireOfSeth · 14-05-2015 02:28PM

Montgolfier wrote: »

Maybe marriage doesn't have to be just between 2 people. With suragacy a popular option for the future, plus the costs entailed in having a 2 parent family it would make more sense to have a wider base 3 parent family unit.

By changing yes to change you will marginalise others in society. It's not just all about gay people.
If we are going to change the constitution let's include all, until then I vote no.

If you are truly interested in polygamy (or polyandry), surely it would make sense for you to vote YES. As any marriage will have at least 2 people of the same gender.

upinthesky · 14-05-2015 02:32PM

upinthesky wrote: »

you cant have this

“Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.”
and this

In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home

in the same article

Interesting read here in regards to the above comments

http://humanrights.ie/children-and-the-law/guest-post-renewed-discrimination-against-non-marital-children/

frostyjacks · 14-05-2015 02:40PM

Merry Prankster wrote: »

D'oh. Fixed. It's heartening to know that frostyjacks picked the same one as me.

Of course I'd pick the loving couple. I'm not a monster, although I sometimes work for monsters.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 14-05-2015 02:42PM

Montgolfier wrote: »

It seems just like a popular vote to boost Kennys legacy.

On that, I notice Enda is saying today

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/taoiseach-reveals-a-member-of-his-extended-family-is-gay-1.2212462

Taoiseach Enda Kenny has revealed a member of his extended family is gay.

Mr Kenny said he was contacted recently by a distant relative in the United States who had heard about the upcoming same-sex marriage referendum.
“I don’t know the person because they contacted me from the United States. And they’re in the extended family, probably very extended,” he said. “But they wrote to me on the basis of hearing that a referendum was taking place congratulating the people on having the right to have the opportunity to answer the question.”

Mr Kenny was speaking to Pat Kenny on Newstalk radio on Thursday morning. His comments were prompted by a question from a listener who asked if Mr Kenny had any gay members of his extended family.

What we don't know is whether he's also distantly related to the man with two pints. (http://www.thejournal.ie/enda-kenny-man-two-pints-2026386-Apr2015/)

seamus · 14-05-2015 02:42PM

SireOfSeth wrote: »

If you are truly interested in polygamy (or polyandry), surely it would make sense for you to vote YES. As any marriage will have at least 2 people of the same gender.

There are a few ways of thinking there. One could say that because this amendment will in fact block polygamy (requiring another referendum), it makes sense for polygamous relationships to vote against, in the hope that at some point in the (very distant) future it might be possible to have an amendment which legalises it.

However, there is a protection for these couples in the current amendment. As it stands, if it's a relationship involving at least two people of the same sex, then two of the individuals can get married (provided they're opposite sex), but the 3rd is left out in the cold. Any children arising cannot have a legal relationship with the 3rd person. That's my understanding anyway, I may be wrong.

With same-sex marriage legalised, the pair who are the same sex get married, and the "unmarried" person will retain a legal relationship with any children by virtue of parentage.

That is, take a male-female-female relationship. The two women marry each other. Thus, any children born will have the male of the relationship registered as the "father", and will have a legal relationship with non-biological "mother" by virtue of her marriage. And the 3-way relationship is in fact strengthened and rights upheld by the state.

This cannot be accomplished with opposite-sex marriage, and as such polyamorous couples with an eye on child-rearing should perhaps look into whether a "Yes" vote will work in their favour. However, my overall understanding may be incorrect. And obviously it falls down for same-sex polyamory or more than 3 partners.

kylith · 14-05-2015 02:43PM

Montgolfier wrote: »

If we are going to change what defines a marriage why do it for just one sector of our society. To be honest I don't want it to change but if it has to let's include all.
It seems just like a popular vote to boost Kennys legacy.
The way it's being portrayed how could you not vote yes poor little Johnny or Mary down the road. It's not inclusive just easy.

Well it's too late to put in a 'and polyamourous groups' line. Why not vote yes now, since polyamoury de facto contains same sex partners, and campaign for further referenda in the future?

Unfortunately polygamy is a lot harder to legislate for than homosexuality in terms of inheritance rights, who is married to whom, and that kind of thing.

El Weirdo · 14-05-2015 02:44PM

seamus wrote: »

There are a few ways of thinking there. One could say that because this amendment will in fact block polygamy (requiring another referendum), it makes sense for polygamous relationships to vote against, in the hope that at some point in the (very distant) future it might be possible to have an amendment which legalises it.

However, there is a protection for these couples in the current amendment. As it stands, if it's a relationship involving at least two people of the same sex, then two of the individuals can get married (provided they're opposite sex), but the 3rd is left out in the cold. Any children arising cannot have a legal relationship with the 3rd person. That's my understanding anyway, I may be wrong.

With same-sex marriage legalised, the pair who are the same sex get married, and the "unmarried" person will retain a legal relationship with any children by virtue of parentage.

That is, take a male-female-female relationship. The two women marry each other. Thus, any children born will have the male of the relationship registered as the "father", and will have a legal relationship with non-biological "mother" by virtue of her marriage. And the 3-way relationship is in fact strengthened and rights upheld by the state.

This cannot be accomplished with opposite-sex marriage. However, my understanding may be incorrect.

I love this guy.

SireOfSeth · 14-05-2015 02:54PM

seamus wrote: »

There are a few ways of thinking there. One could say that because this amendment will in fact block polygamy (requiring another referendum), it makes sense for polygamous relationships to vote against, in the hope that at some point in the (very distant) future it might be possible to have an amendment which legalises it.

However, there is a protection for these couples in the current amendment. As it stands, if it's a relationship involving at least two people of the same sex, then two of the individuals can get married (provided they're opposite sex), but the 3rd is left out in the cold. Any children arising cannot have a legal relationship with the 3rd person. That's my understanding anyway, I may be wrong.

With same-sex marriage legalised, the pair who are the same sex get married, and the "unmarried" person will retain a legal relationship with any children by virtue of parentage.

That is, take a male-female-female relationship. The two women marry each other. Thus, any children born will have the male of the relationship registered as the "father", and will have a legal relationship with non-biological "mother" by virtue of her marriage. And the 3-way relationship is in fact strengthened and rights upheld by the state.

This cannot be accomplished with opposite-sex marriage, and as such polyamorous couples with an eye on child-rearing should perhaps look into whether a "Yes" vote will work in their favour. However, my overall understanding may be incorrect. And obviously it falls down for same-sex polyamory or more than 3 partners.

Agreed.

However, I feel the biggest issue people have with this referendum is they feel icky (or worse) about homosexuals. When (hopefully) this gets passed, people will get over themselves - then ones only left with the number of participants in the marriage. Which, obviously, we'd need another referendum for. Not that I'm down-playing the complexities of this.

Given all that though, I honestly believe that polygamy is a cover-up for people's underlying beliefs with regards to this referendum (i.e., wanting validation for their desire to vote no).

aloyisious · 14-05-2015 03:09PM

traprunner wrote: »

But that doesn't suit the No side. All of us voting Yes are now egg throwers in their eyes.

Unfortunately Paddy manning was the organizer of the meeting. Even he didn't claim that there was proof it was a yes voter but, when the public and media were told about it, the story was embellished a bit as it suit's the "we are bullied and under attack" line being put out by people professing to be "no voters" the new underdogs.

Ozymandius2011 · 14-05-2015 03:15PM

The wording is quite clear. As now, only two persons can marry under the amendment.

Tenz · 14-05-2015 03:22PM

floggg wrote: »

Actually, I think the sarcasm helps explain both the ridiculousness of insisting on separate but equal and the pernicious effect it has.

Is it ridiculous though? Because if that were the proposition, you would not need to have any fear of it passing. Homosexual couples would get equal status in every meaningful legal way. OK, their feelings would be a little hurt, they may not feel totally accepted, but the far more pressing issues of inheritance, guardianship of children etc. would be sorted. And the 'no' side would halve or quarter in numbers overnight.

So, maybe its not totally ridiculous. If the 'no' side win, there may well be much regret that the 'marriage' wording was insisted on.

kunst nugget · 14-05-2015 03:35PM

Tenz wrote: »

Is it ridiculous though? Because if that were the proposition, you would not need to have any fear of it passing. Homosexual couples would get equal status in every meaningful legal way. OK, their feelings would be a little hurt, they may not feel totally accepted, but the far more pressing issues of inheritance, guardianship of children etc. would be sorted. And the 'no' side would halve or quarter in numbers overnight.

So, maybe its not totally ridiculous. If the 'no' side win, there may well be much regret that the 'marriage' wording was insisted on.

I don't think there'll be any regret on the insistence of full parity with straight people in relation to marriage tbh. Why do you think that gay people should be happy to settle for less than what they deserve?

floggg · 14-05-2015 03:38PM

Tenz wrote: »

Is it ridiculous though? Because if that were the proposition, you would not need to have any fear of it passing. Homosexual couples would get equal status in every meaningful legal way. OK, their feelings would be a little hurt, they may not feel totally accepted, but the far more pressing issues of inheritance, guardianship of children etc. would be sorted. And the 'no' side would halve or quarter in numbers overnight.

So, maybe its not totally ridiculous. If the 'no' side win, there may well be much regret that the 'marriage' wording was insisted on.

Yes, it truly is ridiculous (and highly pernicious and invidious) that some people would concede equal rights to us but still insist on a way of being able to mark us out as different and other.

It serves no other purpose than to separate us and set us apart. It is an undisguised attack on our dignity.

How else can you describe it? If they concede equality in substance, what practical effect can denying us equality in name achieve?

Nothing, other than to maintain an illusion of difference when there is none. It is a rather nasty proposition by those suggesting it and it shows that those proposing it care more about keeping same sex couples on the margins than about any apparent "principled" argument they might put forward.

Tenz · 14-05-2015 03:44PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

I don't think there'll be any regret on the insistence of full parity with straight people in relation to marriage tbh. Why do you think that gay people should be happy to settle for less than what they deserve?

Pragmatism. Sometimes you can't get everything you want.

Considering there's a real danger that this won't pass, I'd say it may have been more sensible to park emotions, swallow pride, and seek amendments to the relevant legislation.

That's just an opinion though.

MrWalsh · 14-05-2015 03:47PM

Tenz wrote: »

Pragmatism. Sometimes you can't get everything you want.

Considering there's a real danger that this won't pass, I'd say it may have been more sensible to park emotions, swallow pride, and seek amendments to the relevant legislation.

That's just an opinion though.

Doesnt really matter though, the worst that happens is that its a delay, itll be back before the people within a decade, and continuously until it passes.

aloyisious · 14-05-2015 03:47PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

This vote has nothing to do whether you like gay people are not, a no vote does not mean you hate gay people, I don't know why you would think that. A no vote does not also mean you support Iona.

Given that you've put commas between sentences 1, 2 and 3 and a full stop between the 3rd and 4th sentence, should I use joined-up thinking in connection with them to read them like this "This vote has nothing to do whether you like gay people are not, a no vote does not mean you hate gay people, I don't know why you would think that".... and.... "A no vote does not also mean you support Iona". ? Is there something definitive in the fullstop?

Tenz · 14-05-2015 03:49PM

floggg wrote: »

Yes, it truly is ridiculous (and highly pernicious and invidious) that some people would concede equal rights to us but still insist on a way of being able to mark us out as different and other.

It serves no other purpose than to separate us and set us apart. It is an undisguised attack on our dignity.

How else can you describe it? If they concede equality in substance, what practical effect can denying us equality in name achieve?

Nothing, other than to maintain an illusion of difference when there is none. It is a rather nasty proposition by those suggesting it and it shows that those proposing it care more about keeping same sex couples on the margins than about any apparent "principled" argument they might put forward.

Yeah but that illusion of difference is all many people would need in order to support it.
So let them have their illusion. What does it matter?

AtomicHorror · 14-05-2015 03:50PM

Tenz wrote: »

Pragmatism. Sometimes you can't get everything you want.

Considering there's a real danger that this won't pass, I'd say it may have been more sensible to park emotions, swallow pride, and seek amendments to the relevant legislation.

That's just an opinion though.

One of the aims of this amendment and the related legislation is to aid a cultural shift. To help normalize the perception of homosexuality and same sex relationships and thereby reduce knock-on discrimination.

Your proposal would fail on that front. It would be a form of segregation, which historically has never worked that I know of.

Tenz · 14-05-2015 03:50PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Doesnt really matter though, the worst that happens is that its a delay, itll be back before the people within a decade, and continuously until it passes.

True.

But the whole referendum has given Iona etc a platform. And now many people who would otherwise have supported the notion of equality, are questioning it.

kunst nugget · 14-05-2015 03:50PM

Tenz wrote: »

Pragmatism. Sometimes you can't get everything you want.

Considering there's a real danger that this won't pass, I'd say it may have been more sensible to park emotions, swallow pride, and seek amendments to the relevant legislation.

That's just an opinion though.

If it doesn't pass, it doesn't pass. It will be devastating but imo it's much better to be defeated looking for parity of rights and acceptance than to meekly accept segregation and be told to be happy with your lot.

Hyzepher · 14-05-2015 03:51PM

I still can't understand what the No side are afraid will happen if the Yes vote succeeds.

1. Gay couple marrying will have no affect on their lives
2. They have to have faith in the adoption authority that they will ensure that no child is given to any adopting party without being fully vetted and with the full interests of the child front and centre. Otherwise the AAI are redundant
3. Surrogacy needs to be legislated for separately as it affects gay and straight couples equally.
4. The right for gay couples to procreate is outside any constitutional issue and cannot be legislated for and will not change regardless of the referendum outcome
5. If it is a religious issue then state that
6. Loving parents are loving parents regardless of their sex.

traprunner · 14-05-2015 03:51PM

Tenz wrote: »

Yeah but that illusion of difference is all many people would need in order to support it.
So let them have their illusion. What does it matter?

Because we are not voting on an 'illusion'. We are voting on equality which a Yes vote will achieve. Also it's not possible to stop the referendum now unless it's not constitutional as far as I am aware.

Bannasidhe · 14-05-2015 03:53PM

aloyisious wrote: »

Unfortunately Paddy manning was the organizer of the meeting. Even he didn't claim that there was proof it was a yes voter but, when the public and media were told about it, the story was embellished a bit as it suit's the "we are bullied and under attack" line being put out by people professing to be "no voters" the new underdogs.

Apparently the mother of the egg splattered child was on the radio this morning saying it was a lone individual on a bike, one egg that happened to hit her daughter rather than being aimed at her daughter, the girl did not go to hospital but went home where her mother took care of her.

Didn't hear her on the radio myself just read it in a very angry comment a friend of mine made on an article on Liberal.ie that popped up on my newsfeed... I ain't giving that rag a hit by reading what ever they wrote to set off a normally mild mannered person...

BMMachine · 14-05-2015 03:59PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

People aren’t equal in the eyes of the law (look at the laws for men vs women).

Again, this is a great example of what I’m talking about.

‘How dare you even think about having a discussion about the effect this change will have on society’?

ok. what change will it have on society? I don't see anything other than a positive.

and by your logic there, because there is already inequality its okay not to change that and try and make things more equal?

I'm honestly trying to see your angle here and coming up with nothing. please help

aloyisious · 14-05-2015 04:00PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You are, if you think that a no vote = hate for you. There's a persecution complex going on with the yes side which I don't feel they should be doing to themselves, it's not healthy for the mind and it's not reality.
Even if the vote goes 60/40 in your favor that means on your thinking that every 4 out of 10 people you pass in the street hates you. Where's the victory in that?

Unfortunately, humans being humans, there will be a percentage in the No Vote who will have cast their votes on exactly that basis. there is no victory in that for either side; unhealthy fearful thinking brought on by hate speech and attack both, and unhealthy thinking in the mind of the attackers. The comment "they haven't gone away, you know" will sound trite but ti's the truth and a reality. Just google Paddy Manning's videos on behalf of the Vote No campaign and see how that fear still haunts his memory to the present day.

Montgolfier · 14-05-2015 04:02PM

SireOfSeth wrote: »

If you are truly interested in polygamy (or polyandry), surely it would make sense for you to vote YES. As any marriage will have at least 2 people of the same gender.

I'm not interested in change of marriage I'm interested in keeping it as is for future generations to know what is natural for our species to procreate. I don't want to dilute the terms of marriage.
It's important to know that if you vote to allow gay marriage where do you stop.
The no campaign seem to have very little to say.

Tenz · 14-05-2015 04:04PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

One of the aims of this amendment and the related legislation is to aid a cultural shift. To help normalize the perception of homosexuality and same sex relationships and thereby reduce knock-on discrimination.

Your proposal would fail on that front. It would be a form of segregation, which historically has never worked that I know of.

I'd say the referendum campaign has had the exact opposite effect. Instead it has polarised people into 'yes' and 'no' camps. People who would otherwise have been quite tolerant, and growing more so as the years passed, have instead found themselves ranged against the 'yes' side. And the more they were denounced as homophobes, the more hostile they grew. My parents, for example, I would have considered quite tolerant always. My mum even has a gay cousin, and she has no problem with him living with his partner. Give her a few years and she would have cone around to the idea of adoption. But now, she's been forced to make a choice, she's chosen no, she feels 'in a different camp' to homosexuals, and I doubt she'll ever change her mind.

ixoy · 14-05-2015 04:04PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Apparently the mother of the egg splattered child was on the radio this morning saying it was a lone individual on a bike, one egg that happened to hit her daughter rather than being aimed at her daughter, the girl did not go to hospital but went home where her mother took care of her

Very interesting. From some reports I had assumed it was a horde of teenagers screaming “Yes for equality! " and aiming at the girl.

floggg · 14-05-2015 04:05PM

Tenz wrote: »

Pragmatism. Sometimes you can't get everything you want.

Considering there's a real danger that this won't pass, I'd say it may have been more sensible to park emotions, swallow pride, and seek amendments to the relevant legislation.

That's just an opinion though.

While I get what you are saying, I don't think you really understand the nature and effect of inequalities. Its an attack on your dignity and sense of worth as much as anything else.

As I said, while we have Civil Partnership which largely covers most of the rights and obligations concerned, it's a relationship status that comes with an asterisk. Almost equal but not quite.

What we are trying to remove is the asterisk over same sex relationships as much as anything else - which while perhaps insignificant to those not affected by it, does do great harm to our sense of dignity and acceptance.

Think about it - if the asterisk wasn't a big deal, why would the opponents of equality insist on retaining it? The want it kept because they know it marks us out as different and unequal. We do too.

That's why we want it removed.

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

Comments