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

gandalf · 14-05-2015 11:46PM

Here are some of the facts about this upcoming vote.

frostyjacks · 14-05-2015 11:48PM

gandalf wrote: »

Here are some of the facts about this upcoming vote.

Something tells me this is ever so slightly leaning towards one side over the other.

Not a NSA agent · 14-05-2015 11:49PM

paleoperson wrote: »

Yes I believe a man and a woman are better suited than two men or two women. It's not in any way prejudice as I understand the term.

Unlucky for you people have a little bit more than belief that says otherwise. Unless you know better than the likes of psychological associations.

Im sure you know all about it, to make a claim like that otherwise would be prejudiced as you would be forming an opinion before becoming aware of the facts.

Professey Chin · 14-05-2015 11:50PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Something tells me this is ever so slightly leaning towards one side over the other.

Tell me one thing incorrect on it or anything it leaves out/skews that's affected by the referendum

StewartGriffin · 14-05-2015 11:50PM

sunshine and showers wrote: »

civil marriage referendum

floggg · 14-05-2015 11:51PM

paleoperson wrote: »

That's because you're stupidly conflating discrimination between people for judgement and decision-based purposes (eg. who would be better suited to take care of adopted children all else being equal) and discriminating against them for civil and human right purposes.

When "discrimination" is used as a general term, people don't mean on things like that. They don't mean for example that we shouldn't be able to distinguish between against a convicted murderer and a person with an impeccable record. inb4 "omg you're comparing gay people to convicted murderers".

See, in order for you to argue that their preference for a mother father environment is not discriminatory, you would need to be able to establish that mother father environments are better, or offer some advantage over same sex environments.

The unfortunate thing for you is, you won't be able to. There is no such evidence. As was just confirmed on tonight's primetime.

And so what we have is an unjustified and arbitrary preference for one group over another - which is the textbook defintion of discrimination.

So yea, it is discrimination. Arbitrary, invidious, unfounded and morally reprehensible discrimination.

mrsoundie · 14-05-2015 11:51PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Something tells me this is ever so slightly leaning towards one side over the other.

Then please, refute with salient facts.

Hammer Archer · 14-05-2015 11:52PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Something tells me this is ever so slightly leaning towards one side over the other.

Everything in the quoted post, apart from the last point (which is true nevertheless), has been stated categorically to be true by the referendum commissioner himself. Or can you point to one that is in fact untrue and provide a reason it's untrue?

floggg · 14-05-2015 11:53PM

paleoperson wrote: »

Yes I believe a man and a woman are better suited than two men or two women. It's not in any way prejudice as I understand the term.

It is a belief which is completely without any basis in fact, and at odds with all available evidence.

So in those circumstances, yes, it is a prejudice. It is a baseless and unfounded belief in the superiority of one group, and thus the inferiority of another.

floggg · 14-05-2015 11:54PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Something tells me this is ever so slightly leaning towards one side over the other.

Yes. The truth.

paleoperson · 14-05-2015 11:54PM

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Unlucky for you people have a little bit more than belief that says otherwise. Unless you know better than the likes of psychological associations.

Im sure you know all about it, to make a claim like that otherwise would be prejudiced as you would be forming an opinion before becoming aware of the facts.

I don't give two ****s about what "the likes of psychological associations" have to say. I'm saying it should be possible to distinguish between the two parents.

I think younger people are on average able to be parents better than older people 50+, that doesn't mean people 50+ can't raise great children, it just means that if two people in their mid-30s are desperate to adopt children that age can be taken into account. Same with wealth. Nobody says poor people can't have children, but sometimes circumstances can make it harder for them.

sunshine and showers · 14-05-2015 11:54PM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

The referendum taking place on the 22nd. The civil marriage referendum. That's what it is after all. The result will have no effect on religious marriage.

gandalf · 14-05-2015 11:55PM

And from the Refcom answers to questions on surrogacy and adoption

1. If the Marriage Referendum is passed will it be constitutionally permissible to favour an opposite sex married couple over a same sex married couple in any laws, regulation, or policy of a statutory body, governing the adoption and fostering of children?

There are a number of issues involved:

The best interests of the child

• It is already a Constitutional requirement that the best interests of the child must be the paramount consideration in any proceedings relating to issues such as adoption and fostering of children.
• No couple or no individual has a Constitutional or legal right to adopt or to foster a child.

Treating opposite sex and same sex married couples differently

If legislation was passed which treated same sex married couples and opposite sex married couples differently, and if that legislation was challenged, the Courts would have to decide whether the Constitution permitted such different treatment. The following are relevant considerations:

• If the Marriage Referendum is passed, the Constitution will provide for a single institution of marriage available to couples of the same sex and couples of the opposite sex.
• As well as considering Article 41 as amended in this referendum, the Courts would also have to consider Article 40.1, which provides that all citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.
• As the referendum envisages only one constitutional status of marriage, any law which treated one type of married couple differently from another would be likely to be very carefully scrutinised by the Courts and the circumstances in which such different treatment could ever be permitted would likely be exceptional.
• Were such different treatment possible, and such laws introduced, they would be upheld only if they did not create invidious or arbitrary discrimination between opposite sex and same sex couples. This means – in practical terms – that the reason for the different treatment would have to be a very good reason, which served a legitimate legislative purpose. The difference in treatment would also have to be relevant to its purpose and both opposite sex and same sex couples would have to be treated fairly. Whether these requirements are satisfied in any given circumstance would depend on the evidence presented.

2. If the Marriage Referendum is passed, will it be constitutionally permissible to favour opposite sex married couples over same sex married couples in any laws, regulations, or policy of a statutory agency, governing surrogacy and assisted human reproduction?

There are no specific Constitutional provisions on surrogacy or assisted human reproduction and this referendum does not propose introducing any such provisions.

Surrogacy is not regulated in Ireland at present. Laws have been passed dealing with assisted human reproduction but are not yet in effect.

If legislation was passed which treated same sex married couples and opposite sex married couples differently, and if that legislation was challenged, the Courts would have to decide whether the Constitution permitted such different treatment. The following are relevant considerations:

• If the Marriage Referendum is passed, the Constitution will provide for a single institution of marriage available to couples of the same sex and couples of the opposite sex.
• As well as considering Article 41 as amended in this referendum, the Courts would also have to consider Article 40.1, which provides that all citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.
• As the referendum envisages only one constitutional status of marriage, any law which treated one type of married couple differently from another would be likely to be very carefully scrutinised by the Courts and the circumstances in which such different treatment could ever be permitted would likely be exceptional.
• Were such different treatment possible, and such laws introduced, they would be upheld only if they did not create invidious or arbitrary discrimination between opposite sex and same sex couples. This means – in practical terms – that the reason for the different treatment would have to be a very good reason, which served a legitimate legislative purpose. The difference in treatment would also have to be relevant to its purpose and both opposite sex and same sex couples would have to be treated fairly. Whether these requirements are satisfied in any given circumstance would depend on the evidence presented.

3. If the Marriage Referendum is passed, could a same sex couple successfully challenge any future restrictions on surrogacy and donor assisted human reproduction, even if that restriction also applied to opposite sex couples, on the basis that it is interfering with their constitutionally-protected right to create a family under this amendment?

The courts have held that married couples have the right to beget children. However, this does not necessarily mean that the State must facilitate a couple who cannot have children to do so. For example, it has never been decided that the Constitution confers an entitlement on opposite sex couples to fertility services, assisted human reproductions services or surrogacy.

http://refcom2015.ie/news/

Not a NSA agent · 14-05-2015 11:58PM

paleoperson wrote: »

I don't give two ****s about what "the likes of psychological associations" have to say. I'm saying it should be possible to distinguish between the two parents.

Well thats obvious or you wouldnt be using beliefs.

paleoperson wrote: »

I think younger people are on average able to be parents better than older people 50+, that doesn't mean people 50+ can't raise great children, it just means that if two people in their mid-30s are desperate to adopt children that age can be taken into account. Same with wealth. Nobody says poor people can't have children, but sometimes circumstances can make it harder for them.

You can come up with something based on actual facts (not beliefs) to suggest that 2 parents of the same gender is damaging to children then?

frostyjacks · 14-05-2015 11:59PM

Hammer Archer wrote: »

Everything in the quoted post, apart from the last point (which is true nevertheless), has been stated categorically to be true by the referendum commissioner himself. Or can you point to one that is in fact untrue and provide a reason it's untrue?

Where did I dispute anything? I'm saying as a fact sheet, it's not unbiased.

floggg · 14-05-2015 11:59PM

paleoperson wrote: »

I don't give two ****s about what "the likes of psychological associations" have to say. I'm saying it should be possible to distinguish between the two parents.

I think younger people are on average able to be parents better than older people 50+, that doesn't mean people 50+ can't raise great children, it just means that if two people in their mid-30s are desperate to adopt children that age can be taken into account. Same with wealth. Nobody says poor people can't have children, but sometimes circumstances can make it harder for them.

Why though? You can't just say "I believe it therefore it's not discriminatory."

Many people think it should be possible to distinguish between genders, religions or races. It doesn't mean its not discriminatory and prejudicial.

Any argument for an arbitrary and unfounded preference for one group over another is discriminatory. There's no two ways to slice it.

floggg · 14-05-2015 11:59PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Where did I dispute anything? I'm saying as a fact sheet, it's not unbiased.

Facts aren't unbiased. They are just facts.

aloyisious · 14-05-2015 11:59PM

paleoperson wrote: »

That's because you're stupidly conflating discrimination between people for judgement and decision-based purposes (eg. who would be better suited to take care of adopted children all else being equal) and discriminating against them for civil and human right purposes.

When "discrimination" is used as a general term, people don't mean on things like that. They don't mean for example that we shouldn't be able to distinguish between against a convicted murderer and a person with an impeccable record. inb4 "omg you're comparing gay people to convicted murderers".

Forgetting your 2nd Para, would you agree that the adoption board is doing a good, if not excellent, job in fulfilling it's role in society?

StewartGriffin · 15-05-2015 12:00AM

sunshine and showers wrote: »

The referendum taking place on the 22nd. The civil marriage referendum. That's what it is after all. The result will have no effect on religious marriage.

I think it's just called the Marriage referendum, but I knew what you meant anyway. Civil Marriage isn't really the issue as far as I'm aware.

I like your name. Brings a smile to a weary face.:)

sunshine and showers · 15-05-2015 12:00AM

What's with the adoption debate, people? It's not relevant to the SSM vote!!

floggg · 15-05-2015 12:01AM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

I think it's just called the Marriage referendum, but I knew what you meant anyway. Civil Marriage isn't really the issue as far as I'm aware.

I like your name. Brings a smile to a weary face.:)

What is the issue then?

StewartGriffin · 15-05-2015 12:01AM

floggg wrote: »

What is the issue then?

Pardon?

sunshine and showers · 15-05-2015 12:03AM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

I think it's just called the Marriage referendum, but I knew what you meant anyway. Civil Marriage isn't really the issue as far as I'm aware.

I like your name. Brings a smile to a weary face.:)

Oh I know it is called that, but I just like to be really clear sometimes. Civil marriage is the issue, so I say it is.

Especially after canvassing earlier and having an old lady recount to me how the priest told her he'd be sued for refusing to marry gay couples if this passed. :rolleyes:

Kiwi in IE · 15-05-2015 12:03AM

wallywhittle wrote: »

EXPLAIN

OK, let's start with surrogacy, they have made this a big issue. Surrogacy is not legislated for currently in Ireland. I am a heterosexual married woman and I am not granted any constitutional right to use surrogacy, nor will married LGBT people after the referendum. Surrogacy has nothing to do with the referendum.

Children, the entire debate has been focused on children from the no side. The only way this will effect children will be that the children of LGBT couples will have more legal protections (gaurdianship and inheritance). These families already exist and will continue to exist whether or not their parents can marry. Gay people can already adopt. Gay people already have the same access to surrogacy that straight people do. There is no current Irish law that specifies whether gay or straight couples can or cannot use surrogacy. This referendum will not change that.

Civil Partnership. The Iona institute are saying that LGBT people already have civil partnerships so why do they need marriage. Civil partnerships do not have the same legal protections as marriage. Ronan Mullen said more than once during the debate with Clare Byrne on Monday night that Civil partnerships offer full legal protection. This is a lie, it wasn't a mistake, Mullen knows well enough it is not true and it was said with intent to mislead Joe Public who doesn't know much about the issue.

This is a few of many examples of how Iona are misleading, lying and manipulating in this debate.

gandalf · 15-05-2015 12:04AM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

I think it's just called the Marriage referendum, but I knew what you meant anyway. Civil Marriage isn't really the issue as far as I'm aware.

I like your name. Brings a smile to a weary face.:)

But factually it is about Civil Marriage.

God Cloud Marriage can still discriminate based on it's religious teachings.

(are you confusing this with Civil Partnership, which should be extended to Heterosexual couples as well btw)

StewartGriffin · 15-05-2015 12:06AM

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Oh I know it is called that, but I just like to be really clear sometimes. Civil marriage is the issue, so I say it is.

Especially after canvassing earlier and having an old lady recount to me how the priest told her he'd be sued for refusing to marry gay couples if this passed. :rolleyes:

I admire your courage, you and efb. Couldn't imagine knocking on a door with those leaflets not knowing who or what is going to open it and glare out at you.

StewartGriffin · 15-05-2015 12:07AM

gandalf wrote: »

But factually it is about Civil Marriage.

God Cloud Marriage can still discriminate based on it's religious teachings.

(are you confusing this with Civil Partnership, which should be extended to Heterosexual couples as well btw)

You're right. I was confusing it. Must go to bed.:)

sunshine and showers · 15-05-2015 12:10AM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

I admire your courage, you and efb. Couldn't imagine knocking on a door with those leaflets not knowing who or what is going to open it and glare out at you.

I would honestly like to apologise sincerely to the entire LGBT community of Ireland. We are essentially forcing them to knock on the doors of the people of Ireland and ask permission to marry the person they love. Something I can do as a consequence of birth and nothing else. I'm not sure I could do it if I were gay myself. It would be so hard, particularly when thend answer is negative, hurtful or aggressive.

I'm doing my part because otherwise I couldn't look some of my family and friends in the eye.

paleoperson · 15-05-2015 12:13AM

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

You can come up with something based on actual facts (not beliefs) to suggest that 2 parents of the same gender is damaging to children then?

Listen, I don't know how old you are or whatever but everything we're talking about is based on belief. The "psychological associations" have whatever beliefs they have, you have your beliefs, I have mine. Everything in politics or decision-making is based on a belief. Sometimes people don't share the same belief, that's part of politics. Even if you believe your belief is 100% definitely right it's still a belief.

aloyisious wrote: »

Forgetting your 2nd Para, would you agree that the adoption board is doing a good, if not excellent, job in fulfilling it's role in society?

I have no idea.

osarusan · 15-05-2015 12:15AM

paleoperson wrote: »

Listen, I don't know how old you are or whatever but everything we're talking about is based on belief. The "psychological associations" have whatever beliefs they have, you have your beliefs, I have mine. Everything in politics or decision-making is based on a belief. Sometimes people don't share the same belief, that's part of politics. Even if you believe your belief is 100% definitely right it's still a belief.

The "psychological associations" beliefs are based on loads of documented and verified evidence.

What are your beliefs based on?

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

Comments