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

aloyisious · 16-05-2015 10:09PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

where did he compare gays to zoophiles or paedophiles.

What he did say though was he was making his opinion not based on someone being gay. But as per usual no siders miss the point of what he was saying by a country mile and lash out the homophobe label as has been the defacto tactic thus far.

I thought it was accepted in our country that paedophilia is a No No. The inclusion of it in a sentence including a mention of gay people has been a slur tactic long used by people who do not like gay people, a deliberate linking of the two. It seem's you have not been aware of that til now. I'm glad that you include "no siders" as being amongst the people in lashing out the homophobe label. It's so refreshing.

gk5000 · 16-05-2015 10:09PM

ronivek wrote: »

You should add a TL;DR at the end there: "I'm voting no because I'm afraid that same sex marriages will be treated the same as heterosexual marriages under the law."

All you had to say was you don't agree with same sex marriage or equal rights for same sex couples; at least have the courage to say that.

Well that's what I'm saying.

Somethings are complimentary, and the whole is greater than the sum of the parts i.e. Man + Woman, Fish + Chips, Tractor + Trailer.

RobertKK · 16-05-2015 10:11PM

Complaints from family members today who were at their son's confirmation, outside the church there were people handing out yes leaflets telling people to vote yes.
The location of the campaign didn't go down well with people, which is a day for the families, not for campaigners of any side.

road_high · 16-05-2015 10:11PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Support plummeting for a yes vote in the marriage referendum according to tomorrows poll.
Yes 53% down 13% since their last poll.
No 24% up 3%
Dont know 23% up 10%.

They make the same mistake as with polls from previous polls for other referendums, where the don know went heavily no. Yet pollster always give more to Yes.
So when don't know are excluded:
Yes 69% down 7%
No 31% up 7%.

If trend continues I think the No side could win.

Could do but will likely galvanise the yes side as turnout is key, as predicted really. Things were always going to be close, particularly when the No side were handed carte Blanche to bring in a whole load of irrelevant stuff.

Canard · 16-05-2015 10:13PM

gk5000 wrote: »

I did not mention adopting.

Most married people have or want children. Most gay couples do not.

Eh? You heavily implied it with your talk of mothers and fathers. Assuming most gay couples don't want kids (which is a very large generalisation), what's the problem then? I don't understand the point you're making bringing parents into it if you think gay people don't want to adopt.

Sofiztikated · 16-05-2015 10:13PM

gk5000 wrote: »

Marriage is interlinked with parenting and children. They are inseperable.

To you. But not to everyone.

It is irresponsible to say:
- that marriage is not also about parenting/children
- that this referendem does not affect parenting and children of marriages

How does 2 women that get married affect someone elses parenting, or children?

efb · 16-05-2015 10:14PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Complaints from family members today who were at their son's confirmation, outside the church there were people handing out yes leaflets telling people to vote yes.
The location of the campaign didn't go down well with people, which is a day for the families, not for campaigners of any side.

Or the priest saying Vote No from the altar

Anita Blow · 16-05-2015 10:16PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Complaints from family members today who were at their son's confirmation, outside the church there were people handing out yes leaflets telling people to vote yes.
The location of the campaign didn't go down well with people, which is a day for the families, not for campaigners of any side.

A friend was at his sister's confirmation earlier this week where the priest gave a lecture on voting no in the middle of the ceremony.

ronivek · 16-05-2015 10:17PM

keeponhurling wrote: »

Are you unable to read ? Or did you reply to the wrong post

I can read pretty well. I summarised the fundamental reason he was voting 'No'; rather than the rubbish he tried to obfuscate it with.

He basically said "I'll vote on each individual difference between homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage and I want to pick the ones that aren't offensive to me and vote yes for them; and then vote no on all the rest".

Ergo; he's saying he doesn't agree with marriage equality. Understand now?

ronivek · 16-05-2015 10:19PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Complaints from family members today who were at their son's confirmation, outside the church there were people handing out yes leaflets telling people to vote yes.
The location of the campaign didn't go down well with people, which is a day for the families, not for campaigners of any side.

Ironically a day for families which under current law excludes certain types of family; and restricts the rights of homosexual members of existing families.

Edit: And indeed at a location and function which historically (and even still) has very little respect for homosexuals. How appropriate.

road_high · 16-05-2015 10:19PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

A friend was at his sister's confirmation earlier this week where the priest gave a lecture on voting no in the middle of the ceremony.

Yea they're really are no limits to which some of the RCC will stoop in meddling with societal issues.

RobertKK · 16-05-2015 10:21PM

road_high wrote: »

Could do but will likely galvanise the yes side as turnout is key, as predicted really. Things were always going to close, particularly when the No side were handed carte Blanche to bring in a whole load of irrelevant stuff.

https://twitter.com/olivercallan/status/599662843760386049

Problem is, the more No closes, the less relevant turn out becomes, given the advantage has reduced to start with.
It is possible at current trend that No will go into polling day with the advantage.

This is going to be a nail biter, the Irish Times today talked a about a drift to No and don't know normally being heavily no.
Sunday Independent talks about support plummeting.

gk5000 · 16-05-2015 10:21PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

To you. But not to everyone.

How does 2 women that get married affect someone elses parenting, or children?

The 2 women would be legally equivalent to man + women and all laws would have to replect this, so all existing marriages and children of these marriages shall be affected be these new laws.

osarusan · 16-05-2015 10:24PM

gk5000 wrote: »

The 2 women would be legally equivalent to man + women and all laws would have to replect this, so all existing marriages and children of these marriages shall be affected be these new laws.

I am a man married to woman. I have two kids.

Could you be specific about how my marriage and my children will be affected by a Yes vote?

road_high · 16-05-2015 10:24PM

RobertKK wrote: »

https://twitter.com/olivercallan/status/599662843760386049

Problem is, the more No closes, the less relevant turn out becomes, given the advantage has reduced to start with.
It is possible at current trend that No will go into polling day with the advantage.

This is going to be a nail biter, the Irish Times today talked a about a drift to No and don't know normally being heavily no.
Sunday Independent talks about support plummeting.

It's a shock headline for effect. It's the sindo afterall. Still only 31% No, what makes you think it will continue Closing?

CiDeRmAn · 16-05-2015 10:25PM

gk5000 wrote: »

Well that's what I'm saying.

Somethings are complimentary, and the whole is greater than the sum of the parts i.e. Man + Woman, Fish + Chips, Tractor + Trailer.

Love is the thing that makes a relationship, and that's not conditional on the genitalia you were born with.
Homosexuality has been around for as long as recorded history, its not a lifestyle choice, its not an alternative lifestyle, you are attracted to someone and you have no control over who that might be.
When I fell for my first crush it took me completely by surprise, being to young to understand it.
I assume a gay person is exactly the same, but in their situation societal attitudes means this is accompanied by shame and guilt, feelings of being built wrong, being sinful and being a disappointment to those who love you,.
Now, imagine you're 8 or 9 and feeling that way, because that's the age I was when I started really noticing girls.
I would be ashamed if I thought my attitudes would contribute such misery on children.

Dan_Solo · 16-05-2015 10:25PM

gk5000 wrote: »

Marriage is interlinked with parenting and children. They are inseperable.

What about the million or so years when humans were parenting without marriage?
What about all the married couple who have no children?
Inseparable my eye.

gk5000 · 16-05-2015 10:26PM

Canard wrote: »

Eh? You heavily implied it with your talk of mothers and fathers. Assuming most gay couples don't want kids (which is a very large generalisation), what's the problem then? I don't understand the point you're making bringing parents into it if you think gay people don't want to adopt.

The point is that all existing marriages and children of marriages shall be affected. The laws governing their marriage and children of marriages shall have to accomodate ssm also.

But you tell me on the figures for children from current marriages v's the number of children for gay couples - SSM is different than regular marriage.

RobertKK · 16-05-2015 10:27PM

efb wrote: »

Or the priest saying Vote No from the altar

The bishop didn't use the situation, he concentrated on the children being confirmed.

I am just saying for any campaigners, they can be tactful, or thoughtless. The confirmation was about the children receiving the holy spirit, not marriage referendum.

A priest can use his sermon to call for no if he wants, but at a confirmation, communion, wedding, baptism or funeral would be inappropriate.

Anita Blow · 16-05-2015 10:27PM

opiniated wrote: »

I'm astonished at the amount of time people have to devote to this thread.
I haven't had time to read even half of it!

I'm no constitutional lawyer, but I'm unconvinced that this referendum, if passed, will have no effect on the rights of the traditional family. I believe that every action has a reaction, and cannot see how it could be otherwise in this situation. I don't believe that any possible consequences for future legislation have been adequately discussed. It's all been "It's only about SSM" The fact that it is in the family section of the Constitution is ignored.

For this reason, I will vote "No", with a heavy heart - because if the individual differences between Marriage and Civil Partnerships were voted on, I'd approve giving the same rights to gay couples in a heartbeat!

For those of you who are gay, please do not take this as a slur on you personally, or as lack of respect for you, or your rights.
It is about not having unintended consequences, and being unsure of what those consequences might be.

A very minor bugbear, is unease at the number of corporations, celebrities, and political parties advocating a "Yes" vote. I can't see what business it is of any Company, political party, or celebrity, how a sovereign nation votes. It doesn't anger me enough to change how I would vote - I suppose I'm just mentioning that I resent being told what to do. I regard it as an insult to my intelligence to think that because famous person Y or B is in favour of SSM (or more likely, looking for publicity!), they are arrogant enough to think that their viewpoint is sufficiently important to affect how I think.

I respect where you're coming from and that you've taken the time to clarify that you don't mean it as a direct attack on gay people. I know you're hardly going to change your mind, but all I ask is to consider these points, as I feel they directly address the apprehension you have about possible unintended consequences of a yes vote:
1) A large group of lawyers are advocating a yes vote and have published objective interpretation of the relevant law. Available here. It's not too long and you can skip to the sections that directly concern you. For example if you look at their discussion on the family definition, they conclude there will be no impact on the definition of a family because the constitutional definition of a family makes no mention of kids as established in Irish case law in Murray v Ireland. So no change to the constitutional definition of a family will take place.

2) The Referendum Commission, which is a neutral body, has outlined in plain language the effects of a yes vote and has clarified that such a vote will have no impact on peripheral issues such as surrogacy, adoption etc. Available here

3) The head of the adoption authority has also emphasised that the adoption process and legislation will be in no way changed by a Yes vote. His interview is available here

If you've any questions or anything I'd be glad to help

gk5000 · 16-05-2015 10:28PM

Dan_Solo wrote: »

What about the million or so years when humans were parenting without marriage?
What about all the married couple who have no children?
Inseparable my eye.

Ok, can we just deal with it during the scope of the constitution, which is what we are voting on.
Most married people have or want children.

Dan_Solo · 16-05-2015 10:28PM

osarusan wrote: »

I am a man married to woman. I have two kids.

Could you be specific about how my marriage and my children will be affected by a Yes vote?

"Devalued", "Deholified" or somesuch no doubt. It's like saying that ending slavery limits your own freedom.

aloyisious · 16-05-2015 10:29PM

opiniated wrote: »

I'm astonished at the amount of time people have to devote to this thread.
I haven't had time to read even half of it!

I'm no constitutional lawyer, but I'm unconvinced that this referendum, if passed, will have no effect on the rights of the traditional family. I believe that every action has a reaction, and cannot see how it could be otherwise in this situation. I don't believe that any possible consequences for future legislation have been adequately discussed. It's all been "It's only about SSM" The fact that it is in the family section of the Constitution is ignored.

For this reason, I will vote "No", with a heavy heart - because if the individual differences between Marriage and Civil Partnerships were voted on, I'd approve giving the same rights to gay couples in a heartbeat!

For those of you who are gay, please do not take this as a slur on you personally, or as lack of respect for you, or your rights.
It is about not having unintended consequences, and being unsure of what those consequences might be.

A very minor bugbear, is unease at the number of corporations, celebrities, and political parties advocating a "Yes" vote. I can't see what business it is of any Company, political party, or celebrity, how a sovereign nation votes. It doesn't anger me enough to change how I would vote - I suppose I'm just mentioning that I resent being told what to do. I regard it as an insult to my intelligence to think that because famous person Y or B is in favour of SSM (or more likely, looking for publicity!), they are arrogant enough to think that their viewpoint is sufficiently important to affect how I think.

How many famous persons (regardless of their professions or career-choices) not in favour of SSM advocating a "No" vote would you be resentful of, thinking of them as being arrogant and insulting your intelligence?

osarusan · 16-05-2015 10:30PM

gk5000 wrote: »

The point is that all existing marriages and children of marriages shall be affected. The laws governing their marriage and children of marriages shall have to accomodate ssm also.

But you tell me on the figures for children from current marriages v's the number of children for gay couples - SSM is different than regular marriage.

Hi, could you answer my question:

gk5000 wrote: »

The 2 women would be legally equivalent to man + women and all laws would have to replect this, so all existing marriages and children of these marriages shall be affected be these new laws.

osarusan wrote: »

I am a man married to woman. I have two kids.

Could you be specific about how my marriage and my children will be affected by a Yes vote?

efb · 16-05-2015 10:34PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The bishop didn't use the situation, he concentrated on the children being confirmed.

I am just saying for any campaigners, they can be tactful, or thoughtless. The confirmation was about the children receiving the holy spirit, not marriage referendum.

A priest can use his sermon to call for no if he wants, but at a confirmation, communion, wedding, baptism or funeral would be inappropriate.

It was done during first communion and confirmations locally- not on.

Anita Blow · 16-05-2015 10:35PM

Just read this on FB from an Anglican Priest who received a call from a "parishioner" in his area asking him to advocate a No vote on the pulpit tomorrow in mass. He politely declined, looked up the phone number and it was one of the No campaign groups from an entirely different area.

Most interesting - Just had a phone call from someone claiming to be a non attending parishioner of mine urging me to tell my parishioners tomorrow to vote no - Had a fulsome and reasonably courteous debate but assured the said person (who only gave me a first name) that I would not be directing the congregation from the pulpit despite my own widely known views. After the phone call ended I did an internet reverse look up on the telephone number and discovered that the number was nowhere near my parish and was infact the number of a prominent solicitor used by a prominent organisation campaigning for a No vote! I decided to phone back and got the person (not incidentally the solicitor in question but they did admit their location) and same individual was a little bit rattled - I don't know if said person is a parishioner and lives in my parish as they claimed but to me it was all a little less than transparent - This sort of behaviour only serves to undermine whatever cause a person is advocating - It certainly did nothing to weaken my resolve to vote YES

Unbelievable.

Bannasidhe · 16-05-2015 10:35PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

A friend was at his sister's confirmation earlier this week where the priest gave a lecture on voting no in the middle of the ceremony.

RobertKK wrote: »

The bishop didn't use the situation, he concentrated on the children being confirmed.

I am just saying for any campaigners, they can be tactful, or thoughtless. The confirmation was about the children receiving the holy spirit, not marriage referendum.

A priest can use his sermon to call for no if he wants, but at a confirmation, communion, wedding, baptism or funeral would be inappropriate.

So you agree the priest Anita mentioned acted inappropriately.

Care to condemn his actions?

My granddaughter made her communion today - she is well aware of what the referendum is about - how do you think she would have felt hearing a priest telling people to vote to prevent the only grandmother she knows from getting married? How would my son feel hearing a priest say his parents shouldn't be allowed to marry during what was supposed to be a special day for his daughter?

Do the priests even consider for a second that there are gay people and their children, parents, brother and sisters in the congregation? Do they care?

efb · 16-05-2015 10:35PM

gk5000 wrote: »

Ok, can we just deal with it during the scope of the constitution, which is what we are voting on.
Most married people have or want children.

Do the ones that don't devalue marraige for the rest???

RobertKK · 16-05-2015 10:36PM

road_high wrote: »

It's a shock headline for effect. It's the sindo afterall. Still only 31% No, what makes you think it will continue Closing?

The don't know will be heavily no, look back on previous polls from previous referendums.
Also the trend is towards no.

There could be a big anti-establishment backlash next Friday, a kick to all political parties, the former President, big business, high profile celebs. All that support is not necessarily good.
Forget the marriage referendum for a second, a no vote is a massive kick to the establishment.
Enda Kenny again refused to debate, which was cited as a negative for the Yes vote in the Seanad abolition referendum.

No is far higher than 31%, as the don't know as the Irish Times said today, will go heavily to No going on past experience.

Canard · 16-05-2015 10:37PM

gk5000 wrote: »

The point is that all existing marriages and children of marriages shall be affected. The laws governing their marriage and children of marriages shall have to accomodate ssm also.

But you tell me on the figures for children from current marriages v's the number of children for gay couples - SSM is different than regular marriage.

How will they be affected? What will have to be accommodated? It's not as if they're going to take children away to give to gay couples.

And yeah, obviously it is, because up til now children of gay couples have been looked at as children of a single parent who happens to have a same sex partner. How on earth could gay couples adopt as much as straight couples when the legislation is so new? Your point doesn't make sense.

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

Comments