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

Kiwi in IE · 15-05-2015 10:48AM

I actually wonder are some no voters are totally confused about marriage legislation altogether and don't realise that civil marriages and civil partnerships are the not the same thing? I had to clear this up with someone I was talking to about the issue lately. This would surely not have been helped by Iona who appear to be attempting to imply exactly that.

ProfessorPlum · 15-05-2015 10:50AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

If gays are the same as everyone else, then there is no need to change the constitution to cater for them. If they are different then of course they need different arrangements to meet their needs. But there is a case of having cake and eating it here.

hardly an unbiased account.

When I got married, I had my cake, and then I ate it. It was lovely. I didn't need any bodies permission to have it and eat it. Why should gay people?

traprunner · 15-05-2015 10:50AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

If gays are the same as everyone else, then there is no need to change the constitution to cater for them. If they are different then of course they need different arrangements to meet their needs. But there is a case of having cake and eating it here.

It's not catering for them. It's catering for everyone because it will also prevent any future discrimination against heterosexual couples that get married.

upinthesky · 15-05-2015 10:51AM

I find this conclusion to be true, looking at this report, i think article 41 needs to be changed in a lot of ways not just adding in same sex marriage, why choose to add this above everything else in regards to " The Family"

Conclusion
In the case of the family, the committee takes the view that an
amendment to extend the definition of the family would cause
deep and long-lasting division in our society and would not
necessarily be passed by a majority. Instead of inviting such
anguish and uncertainty, the committee proposes to seek through a
number of other constitutional changes and legislative proposals to
deal in an optimal way with the problems presented to it in the
submissions.

http://archive.constitution.ie/reports/10th-Report-Family.pdf

Bannasidhe · 15-05-2015 10:51AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

If gays are the same as everyone else, then we need to change the constitution to include them.

Fixed that for ya.

osarusan · 15-05-2015 10:51AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

If gays are the same as everyone else, then there is no need to change the constitution to cater for them. If they are different then of course they need different arrangements to meet their needs.

That doesn't even mean anything. It's just empty.

Kiwi in IE · 15-05-2015 10:53AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

If gays are the same as everyone else, then there is no need to change the constitution to cater for them. If they are different then of course they need different arrangements to meet their needs. But there is a case of having cake and eating it here.

hardly an unbiased account.

Are you for real? If black people were the same as white people then they wouldn't have been affected by legislation that discriminated against them. That is where the logic of your post is at!

endacl · 15-05-2015 10:54AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I actually wonder are some no voters are totally confused about marriage legislation altogether and don't realise that civil marriages and civil partnerships are the not the same thing? I had to clear this up with someone I was talking to about the issue lately. This would surely not have been helped by Iona who appear to be attempting to imply exactly that.

Well, there's ignorance of facts, which is understandable. Happens the best of us from time to time.

Then there's wilful ignorance of facts. That's another story entirely. And the likes of Iona et al who go out of their way to feed the ignorance of others in order to bolster their own prejudices (to which they are of course fully entitled I don't wish to bully the Iona 'Institute' blah blah blah shower of cnuts).

kylith · 15-05-2015 10:54AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

If gays are the same as everyone else, then there is no need to change the constitution to cater for them. If they are different then of course they need different arrangements to meet their needs. But there is a case of having cake and eating it here.

They ARE the same as everyone else, but there IS a need to change the constitution because currently same-sex partners are excluded from getting married.

Vivisectus · 15-05-2015 10:55AM

If gays are the same as everyone else, then there is no need to change the constitution to cater for them. If they are different then of course they need different arrangements to meet their needs. But there is a case of having cake and eating it here.

That would be true if gay people were asking for something that is not available to non-gay people. But they are not: straight people can marry their partners. Gay people cannot.

Bannasidhe · 15-05-2015 10:57AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I actually wonder are some no voters are totally confused about marriage legislation altogether and don't realise that civil marriages and civil partnerships are the not the same thing? I had to clear this up with someone I was talking to about the issue lately. This would surely not have been helped by Iona who appear to be attempting to imply exactly that.

I am appalled at the sheer level of lazy tbh.

Would it kill people to do a bit of research?

Is some basic understanding of what a Constitution is and it's purpose too much to ask from voters?

Or indeed our electoral system which needs to get explained to some voters every single time we have a blasted election.

*insert rant about need to teach civics not religion*

MrWalsh · 15-05-2015 10:58AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

If gays are the same as everyone else, then there is no need to change the constitution to cater for them. If they are different then of course they need different arrangements to meet their needs. But there is a case of having cake and eating it here.

I see logic went on a small holiday.

I like cake though.

upinthesky · 15-05-2015 10:59AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I

Would it kill people to do a bit of research?

Is some basic understanding of what a Constitution is and it's purpose too much to ask from voters?

If this actually happened i could see a lot of the yes voters ending up voting no.

floggg · 15-05-2015 10:59AM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

but dont existing civil partnership laws allow people to marry? a friend of mine was at a Gay wedding last August for instance. im sure they call their partner their husband, am sure they class themselves as a family so what exactly more is needed? tax breaks?

the fact that 4 people have responded to my post but nobody has yet to actually answer my question makes me wonder just what exactly is the

is there anybody that can give an answer apart from generic ones such as "because we want to" or "because we want equality" and state exactly what this will change.

It may have colloquially been called a wedding, because anybody entering a CP doesn't see any difference between their commitment and a straight couple's. But it is not a marriage in the eyes of the state - and not given the same constitutional protection (which means the state can and must treat a CP less favourably than marriage).

You might say "because we want equality" isn't a substantive reason, but it really is.

Imagine your are in the position that gay people are in now - that as a matter of law your relationship is classified differently from everybody else's. You are told you can make a commitment to your gf/bf, but that as a matter of law you cannot call it the same or equal to other people's. The state has determined your relationship should be treated as differently and labelled as such.

And that no valid reason is offered for doing, but you must just accept your different status and the knowledge that you own country sees your relationships as less equal or worthy than your brother's or sisters.

Wouldn't that make you feel hurt? Angry? Offended?

It certainly makes me feel that way.

I am engaged, and plan to stand before my friends and family and commit to my bf for life. But if the referendum fails, I won't have the right to make the same commitment as they can. I'll have to accept the separate, lesser form of commitment that the state has decided is all I should be allowed.

It will really hurt me standing there knowing I am not considered worthy of the real deal, particualrly I will been at the marriage of those same friends and family - who's entitlement to full marriage was entirely without question. I will have to stand before them knowing that my commitment is seen as different and lesser than their.

So while you might not feel that equality offers any substantive benefit, try putting yourself in my shoes and you will see that inequality hurts a lot - particularly when there is zero credible reason offered for maintaining it.

So again, I please ask you to vote Yes.

ProfessorPlum · 15-05-2015 10:59AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I actually wonder are some no voters are totally confused about marriage legislation altogether and don't realise that civil marriages and civil partnerships are the not the same thing? I had to clear this up with someone I was talking to about the issue lately. This would surely not have been helped by Iona who appear to be attempting to imply exactly that.

I agree with you - and also the idea that civil marriage and religious marriage go hand in hand. But I have a sneaking suspicion that many people will vote no because they just find the whole idea of gay relationships wrong, or maybe just a bit icky. But rather than be honest about that, they make up more 'PC' (albeit unsubstantiated) reasons to vote no.

Sheldons Brain · 15-05-2015 11:00AM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

When I got married, I had my cake, and then I ate it. It was lovely. I didn't need any bodies permission to have it and eat it. Why should gay people?

They don't, if they get married as you did. They are unwilling to do so, but want marriage reorganised to suit them.

Sofiztikated · 15-05-2015 11:01AM

ixoy wrote: »

You mean the No side are tearing down posters? I thought only the bullying Yes side did this...

I won't say that they were torn down, as I don't have sufficient proof, all I can say is there yesterday, at 7pm when I drove home the same way, there were a hell of a lot more Yes posters than there were today. I did spot the cable ties remaining on a number of posts.

Granted, I did think some of there were badly put up, not secured properly and creasing in the middle, or just not up high enough, but they're not there today. Mostly, it was the orange sign with "Equality for Everyone," with the Sinn Fein ones in second place (which oddly enough, mostly still remain.)

Kiwi in IE · 15-05-2015 11:01AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am appalled at the sheer level of lazy tbh.

Would it kill people to do a bit of research?

Is some basic understanding of what a Constitution is and it's purpose too much to ask from voters?

Or indeed our electoral system which needs to get explained to some voters every single time we have a blasted election.

*insert rant about need to teach civics not religion*

I have only lived here 5 years and cone from a country with a different system altogether, to be honest I feel that I am better informed about the above issues than quite a few Irish people I have spoken to about this referendum.

osarusan · 15-05-2015 11:02AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

They don't, if they get married as you did. They are unwilling to do so, but want marriage reorganised to suit them.

Because even though they are homosexual, the are able to marry people of the opposite sex?

endacl · 15-05-2015 11:02AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Are you for real? If black people were the same as white people then they wouldn't have been affected by legislation that discriminated against them. That is where the logic of your post is at!

Jeez. Language can be so loaded. 'Gays', as opposed to 'gay people'. You read it enough times and it starts to scan in the same way as 'cripples', as opposed to 'disabled people', or 'kaffirs', as opposed to 'black people'.

I know, a lot of the time it's unintended. Just quicker to type, or ingrained habit. But sexuality is only one aspect of a person. The language we use can reflect this. It can also reflect how we ignore this fact. Consciously or otherwise.

If I was ever referred to in casual conversation as 'a straight', I'd find it very weird, and wonder what the speaker actually meant to convey.

Don't mind me. I'm rambling...

Also... Sheldon's Brain? The brain of a gay actor? Ironic at all?

osarusan · 15-05-2015 11:02AM

upinthesky wrote: »

If this actually happened i could see a lot of the yes voters ending up voting no.

Why do you think so?

traprunner · 15-05-2015 11:03AM

upinthesky wrote: »

If this actually happened i could see a lot of the yes voters ending up voting no.

As a Yes voter it was research that helped me make up my mind. I saw through the muddy waters that the No side were creating. Research is great. You should try it. But you have to approach it in an unbiased way.

If you need help in dissecting any research then there is a book while not about this type if research is great for general pointers. It's called 'Asking Questions in Biology' by Chris Barnard, Francis Gilbert and Peter McGregor.

MrWalsh · 15-05-2015 11:03AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

They don't, if they get married as you did. They are unwilling to do so, but want marriage reorganised to suit them.

They cant get married as PP did though, because that would entail marrying someone of a different sex, who they dont have romantic love for.

This is fairly basic stuff.

Are you trying to suggest gay people should just marry members of the opposite sex now ?

Bannasidhe · 15-05-2015 11:03AM

upinthesky wrote: »

If this actually happened i could see a lot of the yes voters ending up voting no.

Why so because?

kylith · 15-05-2015 11:04AM

upinthesky wrote: »

If this actually happened i could see a lot of the yes voters ending up voting no.

How so?

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

They don't, if they get married as you did. They are unwilling to do so, but want marriage reorganised to suit them.

They can't get married 'as he did' because they can't get married. The rest of your post makes no sense.

Oh, hang on, do you mean that they can get married if they marry someone of the opposite sex? Someone they don't love? Someone they're not attracted to? Someone whose body and genitals may repulse them? They should live in a loveless, sexless, unhappy marriage? And the 'reorganising' you talk about is that they would like to be able to marry the person that they do love and are attracted to? Well, what a bunch of malcontents, eh?

Maximus Alexander · 15-05-2015 11:04AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

They don't, if they get married as you did. They are unwilling to do so, but want marriage reorganised to suit them.

Do am he horrible distance marriage so although. Afraid assure square so happen mr an before. His many same been well can high that. Forfeited did law eagerness allowance improving assurance bed. Had saw put seven joy short first.

SireOfSeth · 15-05-2015 11:04AM

upinthesky wrote: »

I find this conclusion to be true, looking at this report, i think article 41 needs to be changed in a lot of ways not just adding in same sex marriage, why choose to add this above everything else in regards to " The Family"

Conclusion
In the case of the family, the committee takes the view that an
amendment to extend the definition of the family would cause
deep and long-lasting division in our society and would not
necessarily be passed by a majority. Instead of inviting such
anguish and uncertainty, the committee proposes to seek through a
number of other constitutional changes and legislative proposals to
deal in an optimal way with the problems presented to it in the
submissions.

http://archive.constitution.ie/reports/10th-Report-Family.pdf

Article 41 deals with the family. Legally marriage is there to support the family. Therefore, it makes sense for marriage to be included in the "family" section of the constitution.

traprunner · 15-05-2015 11:05AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

They don't, if they get married as you did. They are unwilling to do so, but want marriage reorganised to suit them.

Marriage is not being reorganised. Heterosexual marriages will still be the same. Marriage will include non-heterosexuals. So in conclusion, your precious marriage will remain the exact same and mean the exact same as before.

floggg · 15-05-2015 11:05AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

If gays are the same as everyone else, then there is no need to change the constitution to cater for them. If they are different then of course they need different arrangements to meet their needs. But there is a case of having cake and eating it here.

hardly an unbiased account.

That's a load of nonense.

Yes, there are differences between straight and gay. But not between the nature, quality and value of our relationships.

And further, the fact that there are differences does not mean we are not worthy of the same treatment and protections.

There are differences between men and women - but both are seen as equal in the eyes of the law.

upinthesky · 15-05-2015 11:06AM

osarusan wrote: »

Why do you think so?

I was originally a yes voter until i started researching, i thought why not just let two people get married, who am i to deny them of this, of coarse there is way more to it than this, so much needs to be changed if this is to be passed because a lot of the wording is contradicting itself.

If you take a look of all the conclusions in this report same sex marriage should not be the number 1 priority.

http://archive.constitution.ie/reports/10th-Report-Family.pdf

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

Comments