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

LeopoldIII wrote: »

I probably hadn't really intended to vote in the referendum, it was only of passing interest. I had more or less decided to vote yes based on the equality posters I saw. Then I got the Independent Guide from the Referendum Commission. That got me thinking.

I read the Constitution and saw no inequality. The rules on marriage are set out in legislation, not the Constitution. The majority of people I spoke to, in a similar situation to myself with no real interest in the matter, didn't realise this. They thought that they were being asked whether or not to remove some sort of same sex marriage ban from the Constitution.

I really do think that politicians were let off the hook on this one. The shouty seem to rule the roost these days.

I see no need for this referendum and shall be voting no for that reason.

The courts determined that when the Constitution refers to marriage it means heterosexual marriage because at the time it was written there was no such thing as SSM (male homosexuality was illegal at the time remember). Once the courts have decided the only way for their ruling to be overturned is via a referendum which changes the Constitution and clears the way for a new interpretation based on the new clause.


This current definition means that homosexuals are barred from entering into a contract of marriage (with each other before anyone say well actually they can marry...). This means that certain citizens are barred from rights and protections on the grounds of sexual orientation - which is discrimination.

Discrimination which is actually in contravention of that same Constitution which also states that " All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law." If the definition of what constitutes a family is based on marriage then those who are prevented from marrying can never be legally considered a family meaning they are denied the ability to be held equal before the law.

We are being asked to remove a ban on SSM by having it clarified in the Constitution that people can get married without distinction as to their sex which will render the Courts previous ruling void.

Shrap wrote: »

I agree with your first sentence, but unfortunately your second sentence is wrong. They have every right to erect all the lies, disinformation and peddling of fear that they want to because *democracy fail*, there's no law to stop them. Civil disobedience has it's place under certain circumstances IMO.

So you advocate breaking the law to prevent others from not breaking the law? That's hardly logical.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Yeah, we'd be better off without posters on either side.

Are You talking about the referendum, or the thread?

:pac:

What bills?

Its taking the public eye off Irish water and is around about way of getting votes for next election,

goldencrisp62 wrote: »

I'm voting no for one reason only.

Firstly I don't care what anyone does in their spare time or who they care to sleep with.

There is a big issue with this referendum.

There are a large number of militant yes voters who are simply hosing down anyone who doesn't agree with then. Vote yes or you're evil and a knuckle dragger.

The irony is these people are campaigning for equality but refuse to give equal recognition to the validity or existence of the no vote. People who don't believe the no vote should even exist. Everyone is equal but only if you conform with our way of thinking

There is a big issue in any referendum if one side cannot proclaim their stance without being hosed down and shouted down by the other side. That's not democracy at all.

As distinct from what some of the other debaters here have reported as their personal encounter experiences with some people who have a fairly extreme biblical belief that people wearing "yes" badges are going to hell and have no problem saying that out loud on the street.

Where I live, some of the other "yes" badge-wearers have been "canvassed" in the town by Bible-quoters in a strident manner, warning them they are going to hell for voting "yes". I've noticed that there seem's to be a recent entry into the marriage debate of religiously minded people who have no problem with being forthright in their approach to other people, invading the O/P's personal space.

I have'n't seen Iona issuing the type of messages being written on Bus Shelters here in Bray: No I near (Ronald) McDonalds, No 2 at Ballywaltrim.

Adoption, surrogacy and now Irish Water???



Christ on a bike...

gravity9.81 wrote: »

Well cant argue with the timing can ya

Yes everything is a conspiracy against anti-IW people

I agree they should be allow marry and that its apart of the constitution just wondering about timing,

goldencrisp62 wrote: »

I am voting no as I don't believe homosexual couples should be allowed marry.

You've changed your reasoning, you previously said you were

voting no for one reason only

and went on to detail that was because you felt the no side was being shouted down.

You're now saying your reasoning is because you don't believe they should be allowed to marry.
The honesty is refreshing, perhaps you can detail why you believe this.

EDIT: Just saw the post about animals and children...nevermind. *facepalm*

goldencrisp62 wrote: »

I don't believe the definition of marriage should be changed to accommodate people living alternative lifestyles, be that relationships with same gender or with animals or with children

Interestingly, I live with both animals and children and may be classed as alternative (which is not against the law to my knowledge). However, I assume you mean "having a sexual relationship" with animals and/or children. Can I take it to mean that, despite homesexuality being LEGAL, you are actually classing it alongside bestiality and paedophilia? You do understand that would be the lowest form of hate speech, if that is indeed what you are saying?

Iona has put up some new posters in Bray. Vote No - Protect Your Conscience. I suppose this refer's to how you vote, but then again it might be referring to how priests will allegedly be forced to marry gay couples, and teachers will be forced to teach Junior Class schoolchildren about gay marriage and gay people in Sex education lessons.

Edit: went and looked at posters.. deleted "Right To"" from original post.