Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all, we have some important news to share. Please follow the link here to find out more!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058419143/important-news/p1?new=1

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

1…122123125127128…327

Comments

  • #3722
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    gk5000 wrote: »
    I do not know how the laws will change.
    I do not know how someone (in a ssm) will challenge some existing law on the grounds of discrimination, and how the courts will rule.
    I have no problem with gay marriage (if childrens rights were totally unaffected, but that is not the case).

    The point is that currently the school could say mothers only - which in the future could be construed as discrimination against married gay men.

    The point is we don't know the consequences; they have not been teased out or debated properly.

    What do kinds with no mothers do now in that situation???


  • #3723
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    gk5000 wrote: »
    I do not know how the laws will change.
    I do not know how someone (in a ssm) will challenge some existing law on the grounds of discrimination, and how the courts will rule.
    I have no problem with gay marriage (if childrens rights were totally unaffected, but that is not the case).

    The point is that currently the school could say mothers only - which in the future could be construed as discrimination against married gay men.

    The point is we don't know the consequences; they have not been teased out or debated properly.

    Can schools say mothers only??? I don't think that's true - care to cite an example???


  • #3724
    gk5000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 886 ✭✭✭gk5000


    Anita Blow wrote: »
    But you fail to state how. You marriage is unchanged regardless of a Yes or No come Saturday morning. The benefits, roles and responsibilities are no different.
    Of course all laws shall affect both heterosexual and homosexual marriages, that is the very point of marriage equality.
    As said in other posts, neither you nor I know what laws shall change, or the consequnces.

    This is family law, parents, children - and this is too important to go into this thing blind without understanding the results - and worse a huge agenda to disavow the future affects on families etc.


  • #3725
    Anita Blow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,935 ✭✭✭Anita Blow


    gk5000 wrote: »
    I do not know how the laws will change.
    I do not know how someone (in a ssm) will challenge some existing law on the grounds of discrimination, and how the courts will rule.
    I have no problem with gay marriage (if childrens rights were totally unaffected, but that is not the case).

    The point is that currently the school could say mothers only - which in the future could be construed as discrimination against married gay men.

    The point is we don't know the consequences; they have not been teased out or debated properly.

    Do you not see how difficult it is to reason with that sort of argument? You're saying that this will have unintended consequences, but then state you don't know yourself how the laws will change.

    You're argument about 'mothers only' has absolutely zero to do with this referendum because you do not have to be married to be a male parent. You don't suddenly become a parent once you're married. There are existing male same-sex parents out there who have had no such issue.
    Again I have to refer to Lawyers4Yes who have literally published a document discussing the very consequences you say we don't know- https://www.yesequality.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Lawyers-for-Yes.pdf

    And again, children's rights are unaffected as per the Special Rapporteur on Children, the RefCom, The national Child & Family Research Centre in NUIG and over 14 different children's charities including the ISPCC and Barnardo's whose sole mandate is to defend the rights and wellbeing of children.


  • #3726
    gk5000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 886 ✭✭✭gk5000


    efb wrote: »
    Can schools say mothers only??? I don't think that's true - care to cite an example???
    Typically a few mothers would go on a school trip of a girls school - not a few fathers. It's not unreasonable.


  • Advertisement
  • #3727
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,141 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    There is one thing that the "vote no" campaign keep mentioning, the lack of a mother or a father (depending on which gender the SSM couple are) for the child/ren in the SSM family. It's been puzzling me so I'd like some-one from the "no" side to tell me why there could be no contact between a child and the birth parent that they claim the child is deprived of.

    Is there something in Irish law which say's there must/can be no contact?

    Is there something in the Irish constitution which say's there must/can be no contact?

    What is this magical trick the "no" side think is being used by which the child is totally cut off from any motherly or fatherly presence in it's home life at all, a total lack of contact with anyone outside it's family parental gender?


  • #3728
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    gk5000 wrote: »
    I don't know - we would have to figure out how to handle 2 fathers or 2 mothers. It's an unknown and hense a problem.

    We should know the full condequences before voting to change the constitution.

    Handle how?

    I arrived in back in Ireland in 1993 as half of a two mother's arrangement and basically we were two parents. That's it.
    We both went to teacher parents things.
    We both sat in hospitals after his latest lets see if I can roller blade along a wall/tree/garage roof escapade.
    We did the household work as it needed doing.
    Who ever wasn't working did the school runs.
    I mostly did the cooking, she mostly did the hoovering. I did the gardening, she did the ironing. We both did DIY and supervised homework.
    We just did the normal parenting stuff.

    Same as all the other parents straight and gay.

    No need for 'handling'

    I don't want to handle your relationship with your wife so what on Earth makes you think you need to handle mine?

    What you seem to have a problem realising is gay parents already exist and have done for decades. My son is 30 and he certainly isn't the oldest of those raised by same-sex parents. No matter what happens in the Referendum gay parents will continue to exist. A NO vote won't stop that. It is a fact of life and you will need to learn to accept that because you can't make it stop.

    This referendum isn't about parenting - it's about if gay couples -some of whom are parents - get to marry.


  • #3729
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    gk5000 wrote: »
    Typically a few mothers would go on a school trip of a girls school - not a few fathers. It's not unreasonable.

    A few? Not all then! That's that one sorted


  • #3730
    gk5000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 886 ✭✭✭gk5000


    Anita Blow wrote: »
    Do you not see how difficult it is to reason with that sort of argument? You're saying that this will have unintended consequences, but then state you don't know yourself how the laws will change.

    You're argument about 'mothers only' has absolutely zero to do with this referendum because you do not have to be married to be a male parent. You don't suddenly become a parent once you're married. There are existing male same-sex parents out there who have had no such issue.
    Again I have to refer to Lawyers4Yes who have literally published a document discussing the very consequences you say we don't know- https://www.yesequality.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Lawyers-for-Yes.pdf

    And again, children's rights are unaffected as per the Special Rapporteur on Children, the RefCom, The national Child & Family Research Centre in NUIG and over 14 different children's charities including the ISPCC and Barnardo's whose sole mandate is to defend the rights and wellbeing of children.

    The point is that it is irresponsible to vote YES to change the constitution when we do not know the consequences.

    Concensus does not confort me - remember the recent crash.

    My point is - that up to this everybody was clear what a married mother and father were. Going forward nobody shall be sure - and none of this has been worked out in advance.

    And lawyers......


  • #3731
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    efb wrote: »
    A few? Not all then! That's that one sorted

    I never went on a school trip as a mother in my life. I remember what school trips were like - you couldn't pay me!

    Actually ... my mother never did either...

    Or my sister...


  • Advertisement
  • #3732
    Shrap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    efb wrote: »
    Can schools say mothers only??? I don't think that's true - care to cite an example???
    No, NO. They can't. This poster is talking through somewhere words don't ordinarily come out of.
    gk5000 wrote: »
    The point is that currently the school could say mothers only - which in the future could be construed as discrimination against married gay men.
    gk5000 wrote: »
    Typically a few mothers would go on a school trip of a girls school - not a few fathers. It's not unreasonable.
    It is unreasonable, it is untrue, it is a fallacy. No school can discriminate against children by demanding that only mothers or only fathers can attend any school event. You have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

    In fact, I'd go as far as to say you seem completely unaware that children with only mothers or only fathers exist and that schools are extremely careful not to discriminate against them. A child having two fathers or one father, or two mothers or one mother either now or in the future will not put them, or their parents, in any position in any school in the country where the school could be hauled up for discrimination. That is the case now, and that will continue to be the case.


  • #3733
    IngazZagni
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭IngazZagni


    I strongly believe that the yes campaign has to take a lot of blame themselves for the declining yes vote.

    The defacing of no campaign posters is terrible and already one "not sure" vote that I know of has switched to no because of this. I also don't believe that the posters of "vote yes" with the name of the political party beside them does any good either. Personally I hate some posters such as "vote for equality in 2015 and fight against austerity in 2016". Leave politics out of this!

    I would vote yes but unfortunately I will be out of the country that day.

    I hope on the day people look past politics and the poor behaviour of some yes campaign members and will vote yes for the question that will be asked and for those who will be affected directly.


  • #3734
    Anita Blow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,935 ✭✭✭Anita Blow


    gk5000 wrote: »
    The point is that it is irresponsible to vote YES to change the constitution when we do not know the consequences.

    Concensus does not confort me - remember the recent crash.

    My point is - that up to this everybody was clear what a married mother and father were. Going forward nobody shall be sure - and none of this has been worked out in advance.

    And lawyers......
    It has, but you've made your mind up and have discredited every piece of evidence to the contrary. On one hand you say that "consensus does not comfort me" but on the other hand you claim you're voting no because there is no consensus on the potential consequences of a yes vote.


  • #3735
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    gk5000 wrote: »
    The point is that currently the school could say mothers only - which in the future could be construed as discrimination against married gay men.

    It would be a very incompetent school that made a call like that. What about Single Fathers, Widowed Fathers. You're right those groups could already say they were being discriminated against. In my sons school if they need parents assistance they never ask for a specific gender.

    TBH from my perspective you are desperately trying to find a reason to justify your decision to vote no.

    As a happily married man in his 40's with a young son I am very glad to allow every couple have the ability to fully commit themselves in love. It does not effect my marriage or any of the marriages out there. It doesn't effect children in those marriages and it doesn't allow the automatic right to any couples no matter what sex they are to adoption.

    Too much FUD in this so called debate and very few real facts.


  • #3736
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Shrap wrote: »
    No, NO. They can't. This poster is talking through somewhere words don't ordinarily come out of.



    It is unreasonable, it is untrue, it is a fallacy. No school can discriminate against children by demanding that only mothers or only fathers can attend any school event. You have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

    In fact, I'd go as far as to say you seem completely unaware that children with only mothers or only fathers exist and that schools are extremely careful not to discriminate against them. A child having two fathers or one father, or two mothers or one mother either now or in the future will not put them, or their parents, in any position in any school in the country where the school could be hauled up for discrimination. That is the case now, and that will continue to be the case.


    Thanks for that was fairly sure it was bs


  • #3737
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    gk5000 wrote: »
    The point is that it is irresponsible to vote YES to change the constitution when we do not know the consequences.

    Concensus does not confort me - remember the recent crash.

    My point is - that up to this everybody was clear what a married mother and father were. Going forward nobody shall be sure - and none of this has been worked out in advance.

    And lawyers......

    The consequence is some gay people will get married.

    Some - by no means all and probably a minority - of which will have children who they parent until those children are adults and leave home when they will still be married... or not because s*it happens...

    Just like straight people.

    Why the hell wouldn't people know what a married mother and father are? Do you think if this passes we are all going to be infected with terminal bewilderment?


  • #3738
    Shrap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I never went on a school trip as a mother in my life. I remember what school trips were like - you couldn't pay me!

    Actually ... my mother never did either...

    Or my sister...

    I did. As the chairperson of the parent's association, I arranged for parents to accompany children to extra-curricular activities organised by the P.A.

    Mothers went, Fathers went, everybody happy. It would have made damn all difference to me, the kids, the other parents or the teachers which parents of which kids went so long as there was adequate supervision.


  • #3739
    Turtyturd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,404 ✭✭✭✭Turtyturd


    If someone has their vote swayed because of a few defaced posters they probably don't deserve a vote in the first place.


  • #3740
    Shrap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    we are all doing to be infected with terminal bewilderment?

    Some people seem to be well infected already :confused: I wouldn't put it past them to spread the bewilderment....


  • #3741
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Turtyturd wrote: »
    If someone has their vote swayed because of a few defaced posters they probably don't deserve a vote in the first place.

    Alot of our yes posters were taken down too - happens every vote


  • Advertisement
  • #3742
    elfy4eva
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,204 ✭✭✭elfy4eva


    What bewilders me is why an example of a slightly awkward situation arising in a school trip is of any relevance.


  • #3743
    IngazZagni
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭IngazZagni


    Turtyturd wrote: »
    If someone has their vote swayed because of a few defaced posters they probably don't deserve a vote in the first place.

    This is a democracy and a lot of "not sure's" will be swayed by silly things. It may not be right but it's the reality. It is doing damage to the yes campaign though, that I think is clear.


  • #3744
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    IngazZagni wrote: »
    This is a democracy and a lot of "not sure's" will be swayed by silly things. It may not be right but it's the reality. It is doing damage to the yes campaign though, that I think is clear.

    Any evidence of this effect?


  • #3745
    gk5000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 886 ✭✭✭gk5000


    aloyisious wrote: »
    There is one thing that the "vote no" campaign keep mentioning, the lack of a mother or a father (depending on which gender the SSM couple are) for the child/ren in the SSM family. It's been puzzling me so I'd like some-one from the "no" side to tell me why there could be no contact between a child and the birth parent that they claim the child is deprived of.

    Is there something in Irish law which say's there must/can be no contact?

    Is there something in the Irish constitution which say's there must/can be no contact?

    What is this magical trick the "no" side think is being used by which the child is totally cut off from any motherly or fatherly presence in it's home life at all, a total lack of contact with anyone outside it's family parental gender?

    I am voting no, as opposed to any organised no side - but would not bother too much with this one.
    Course there can be contact.

    My own feeling is that most gay couples do not have or want children.
    Thereafter its reasonably easy for women, but any resultant child would not have a male father figure full time.
    It's more difficult for men as they would need a surrogate mother, who typically would be paid, probably foreign and most likely would not be involved with the child.

    Surrogacy is "messy" by its nature, but its the only way gay males can have a family - I think.


  • #3746
    Shrap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    elfy4eva wrote: »
    What bewilders me is why an example of a slightly awkward situation arising in a school trip is of any relevance.

    It's not even awkward! I've arranged swimming trips where there were fathers helping their daughters get changed and mothers helping their sons get changed. We're adults FFS. And parents. This is what we are supposed to do.


  • #3747
    Zhane
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,157 ✭✭✭Zhane


    IngazZagni wrote: »
    This is a democracy and a lot of "not sure's" will be swayed by silly things. It may not be right but it's the reality. It is doing damage to the yes campaign though, that I think is clear.

    The no side have also, tore down posters, graffitied Yes art work, LIED, abused canvassers and have played very dirty tactics. It works both ways here.


  • #3748
    IngazZagni
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭IngazZagni


    efb wrote: »
    Any evidence of this effect?

    This is my opinion from conversation with friends and colleagues. Also some Twitter comments too. Tell me what good a no campaign poster with some paint brushed on it is doing?
    The no side have also, tore down posters, graffitied Yes art work, LIED, abused canvassers and have played very dirty tactics. It works both ways here.

    Well on my journey through Dublin city centre today I didn't see any yes campaign posters defaced but I did see plenty of no campaign posters defaced.


  • #3749
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,887 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    efb wrote: »
    Any evidence of this effect?


    Sure just look at all the posters on here who said they have been turned away from voting Yes because of this!! There's your evidence.*








    *I've been drinking.


  • #3750
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    I see the Prime Minister of Luxembourg has married his boyfriend today... I guess Luxembourg is going to fall into disrepair and chaos now.


  • Advertisement
  • #3751
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    IngazZagni wrote: »
    This is my opinion from conversation with friends and colleagues. Also some Twitter comments too. Tell me what good a no campaign poster with some paint brushed on it is doing?

    I didn't say it was doing any good.

    Just anecdotal evidence - care to link a few twitter comment?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement