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

gk5000 · 17-05-2015 01:07AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I never said it wouldn't impact on children. I said it isn't about children.

If (big if there) a gay couple who have children get married - because a married couple is a Constitutionally protected family - that protection will extend to the children - it's a beneficial byproduct.

However - the protection the couple receive will not be impacted by whether or not they have children. That will remain the same.

It has to do with who is considered a family.

A NO win denies the children of gay parents - even if there are only 5 in the whole country (there is more than that) - the protection of being a member of a legally protected family unit because it will deny that child's parents the ability to become a family.

The whole reason for the referendum is because only a married couple is legally a family in Irish Law.

This means there are three options if Gay couples are going to have full Constitutional protection and recognition as a family.

1. Remove all mentions of marriage from the Constitution = everyone loses that protection.
2. Extend who can marry to include same sex couple = straight and Gay married couples have the same protection.
3. Introduce a clause for a separate but equal 'Civil Partnership' 2.0 which is identical to marriage but not called marriage = legal segregation.

The Children and Family Relationship Act has already removed any issues around Same-Sex parenting. It is done and dusted. Same-sex parents exist, same sex couples can adopt as a couple. It's done.

What is left is will those couples be legally a family or not along with all those gay couples who do not have children/don't want children.

It's not our fault that the Constitution is written the way it is...

What birth cert question?

I am being distracted by three jack russells on a fly hunt so I may have missed it.

So why not 3. civil partnership 2.0 and none of this divisive nonsense

Birth cert question - just a curiousity
Who is currently on your kids birth cert - if you wish to say?

But who should be on a child's birth cert - post ssm?

haveringchick · 17-05-2015 01:07AM

osarusan wrote: »

It was not my opinion, it was the opinion of RobertKK:

Perhaps you should ask that poster what is so preposterous, if you want to hear it.

Again, I assume you have already read all these posts.

Robertkk and efb should compose a letter advising the Cardinal where when how and what a Catholic priest should say to Catholics in a Catholic church.
It seems a reasonable enough proposition and not a bit fascist.

looking_around · 17-05-2015 01:07AM

gk5000 wrote: »

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

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

oh wow, so I guess my mother getting remarried in her later years was about the children she can't have?
How could I have missed that! :rolleyes:

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.

I think I said this already.

Most PEOPLE want children.
Regardless of their sexual orientation or marital status.

gk5000 wrote: »

In a same sex marriage, say two men, then I guess one shall be designated mother.

The point is you cannot specify a woman mother, because that would be disciminating against a man in a same sex marriage.

Um, no, the kid would have 2 fathers..or 2 mothers.
problem?

gk5000 wrote: »

Legally, if ssm is passes, then this affects all marriages.

There is no N plate. Any new laws for marriages or family law shall affect all mariages, not just same sex marriages.

There is currently only one marriage, and any new law, can already affect said marriage.
Take for example, when divorce was brought in.
This referendum, just allows more people to marry. nothing more, nor less than that.

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's already discriminatory to say mothers only. I've never seen such a thing.
When a school requires someone to accompany, they ask for a "guardian or parent".

Bannasidhe · 17-05-2015 01:08AM

gk5000 wrote: »

The impact of this on existing marriages.

Bad example but - Have any gay bars been destroyed by becoming too popular with hetero's?

I have no idea and quite honestly don't care as I haven't set foot in a bar of any sexual orientation in over a year. Might go on Sat night tho..

Anyhoo... do you think if marriage become too popular with gay people heterosexuals will stop getting married?

Have you check to see if this has happened in any of the countries that introduces same-sex marriage?

AtomicHorror · 17-05-2015 01:09AM

gk5000 wrote: »

You are in trouble if that is the extent of your reading .

Ok I'll try another bad example - Say you had a favourite pub, which morphed into a gay bar/druggie bar/sports bar/yuppie bar... would you still like that bar?

Awful analogy.

First, marriage is not analogous to a physical room in any useful sense. You don't share it with every other couple that's married. And that's great, because a lot of marriages suck and the rest appear to be awesome and make you feel like you suck.

Second, if it were a room, it could hardly change themes just because somewhat less than 10% of the inhabitants are gay. We're not about to be overrun with gay marriages here. They're a minority, and that's not likely to change.

looking_around · 17-05-2015 01:10AM

gk5000 wrote: »

So why not 3. civil partnership 2.0 and none of this divisive nonsense

Birth cert question - just a curiousity
Who is currently on your kids birth cert - if you wish to say?

But who should be on a child's birth cert - post ssm?

marriage has something to do with birth certs?

do all the kids born out of marriage not have a birth cert? :pac:

gk5000 · 17-05-2015 01:11AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I have no idea and quite honestly don't care as I haven't set foot in a bar of any sexual orientation in over a year. Might go on Sat night tho..

Anyhoo... do you think if marriage become too popular with gay people heterosexuals will stop getting married?

Have you check to see if this has happened in any of the countries that introduces same-sex marriage?

No - the point is ssm will affect existing marriages legally.

gandalf · 17-05-2015 01:11AM

gk5000 wrote: »

You are in trouble if that is the extent of your reading .

No that is not the extent of my reading but I would very interested if you could direct me to the opinions or articles that you have based your decision to vote no on. Come on here is your chance to educate me. Please post up your background reasoning for the no vote.

Ok I'll try another bad example - Say you had a favourite pub, which morphed into a gay bar/druggie bar/sports bar/yuppie bar... would you still like that bar?

LOL I am a married man with a son, at the moment so my social excursions are curtailed and if I do I tend to go out with my wife for a nice meal providing we can get a babysitter.

Anyway I have never been the type to have a local. I like a bit of variety in my life.

marienbad · 17-05-2015 01:12AM

haveringchick wrote: »

Robertkk and efb should compose a letter advising the Cardinal where when how and what a Catholic priest should say to Catholics in a Catholic church.
It seems a reasonable enough proposition and not a bit fascist.

Then you should have no problem with others campaigning outside that church on public property .

gandalf · 17-05-2015 01:12AM

gk5000 wrote: »

No - the point is ssm will affect existing marriages legally.

Again no it won't please show me the background information that you have that says it will.

aloyisious · 17-05-2015 01:12AM

IngazZagni wrote: »

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.

That'll be the day when ALL human beings realise what common sense is all about and start using it. Until then we'll (to a large effect and in a large number of the populace) will continue reacting ad hoc to the O/P willy nilly, ala what's caused this thread to have a part two section.

gk5000 · 17-05-2015 01:13AM

looking_around wrote: »

marriage has something to do with birth certs?

do all the kids born out of marriage not have a birth cert? :pac:

It's a question to someone else. I'm curious to their answer.
Do you have a problem with that?

looking_around · 17-05-2015 01:14AM

gk5000 wrote: »

It's a question to someone else. I'm curious to their answer.
Do you have a problem with that?

yeah, I do, you mentioned it twice.
I want to know what marriage currently has to do with birth certs, and why this will change.

gk5000 · 17-05-2015 01:16AM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Awful analogy.

First, marriage is not analogous to a physical room in any useful sense. You don't share it with every other couple that's married. And that's great, because a lot of marriages suck and the rest appear to be awesome and make you feel like you suck.

Second, if it were a room, it could hardly change themes just because somewhat less than 10% of the inhabitants are gay. We're not about to be overrun with gay marriages here. They're a minority, and that's not likely to change.

Do you wish to answer the question? It wasn't for you, but go ahead for fun.

RobertKK · 17-05-2015 01:16AM

haveringchick wrote: »

That's preposterous.
How is s Catholic sacrament in a Catholic church attended by Catholics snd celebrated by a Catholic.cleric.an inappropriate occasion to espouse the Catholic pposition on an upcoming referendum?
I really want to hear this

There will be pastoral letters read out in churches later today about the Marriage referendum.
I don't think a sacrament like receiving the Eucharist for the first time or the Holy Spirit is the right occasion for it, but it will happen tomorrow at first holy communion in some cases as the priest may have a pastoral letter to read out or he could simply have copies of it and tell the parishioners to pick it up on the way out.
These special occasions are about the children, not a referendum.

I think Sunday mass is the place for them to say their piece and the bishops have made it easy for priests with pastoral letters.

AtomicHorror · 17-05-2015 01:17AM

gk5000 wrote: »

Do you wish to answer the question? It wasn't for you, but go ahead for fun.

What's the relevance of answering if the analogy is invalid?

Also, you seem really stuck on this idea that you can ask questions on an open forum and dictate who gets to answer. You don't.

aloyisious · 17-05-2015 01:19AM

gk5000 wrote: »

No - the point is ssm will affect existing marriages legally.

Oh God, I'm having a facepalm moment, i'm waiting for Dougal from the Magic Roundabout to appear.

gk5000 · 17-05-2015 01:21AM

looking_around wrote: »

yeah, I do, you mentioned it twice.
I want to know what marriage currently has to do with birth certs, and why this will change.

Well OK- married people are put on the birth cert as father and mother of any child produced to the marriage.

I do not know how this will change post ssm, and asked a person who has an interest, but ....can you please maybe suggest what should go on the birth cert post ssm?

There was a question of the legalities in general post ssm.
Why should you have a problem with me asking a question?

gk5000 · 17-05-2015 01:23AM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

What's the relevance of answering if the analogy is invalid?

Also, you seem really stuck on this idea that you can ask questions on an open forum and dictate who gets to answer. You don't.

Fine, don't answer - whatever.

gk5000 · 17-05-2015 01:28AM

aloyisious wrote: »

Oh God, I'm having a facepalm moment, i'm waiting for Dougal from the Magic Roundabout to appear.

You probably do not understand what the constitution is....

gk5000 · 17-05-2015 01:29AM

What is there an emergency meeting somewhere?

What shall we say? Who's name goes on the birthcert? How many fathers and mothers?

aloyisious · 17-05-2015 01:30AM

haveringchick wrote: »

That's preposterous.
How is s Catholic sacrament in a Catholic church attended by Catholics snd celebrated by a Catholic.cleric.an inappropriate occasion to espouse the Catholic pposition on an upcoming referendum?
I really want to hear this

Something about matters of state and matters of matters of religion clashing. Anyhow, how would approx 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 of the audience be capable of understanding what the adults were talking about? Isd it in the child's interest to befuddle it's mind?

gk5000 · 17-05-2015 01:32AM

gandalf wrote: »

Again no it won't please show me the background information that you have that says it will.

...the bleeding obvious.

gandalf · 17-05-2015 01:35AM

gk5000 wrote: »

...the bleeding obvious.

Which is? Surely you have some background material you have based this on. Or is it a feeling you have?

haveringchick · 17-05-2015 01:37AM

RobertKK wrote: »

There will be pastoral letters read out in churches later today about the Marriage referendum.
I don't think a sacrament like receiving the Eucharist for the first time or the Holy Spirit is the right occasion for it, but it will happen tomorrow at first holy communion in some cases as the priest may have a pastoral letter to read out or he could simply have copies of it and tell the parishioners to pick it up on the way out.
These special occasions are about the children, not a referendum.

I think Sunday mass is the place for them to say their piece and the bishops have made it easy for priests with pastoral letters.

But what exactly is your problem with the celebrant speaking on the referendum.
It's hardly a secret the church's position. Certainly no one has a rright yo be shocked or confused?

looking_around · 17-05-2015 01:38AM

gk5000 wrote: »

Well OK- married people are put on the birth cert as father and mother of any child produced to the marriage.

I do not know how this will change post ssm, and asked a person who has an interest, but ....can you please maybe suggest what should go on the birth cert post ssm?

There was a question of the legalities in general post ssm.
Why should you have a problem with me asking a question?

because that already happens outside of marriage.

And we already have birth cert naming issues in adoption, so um, I'm not seeing the issue here with SSM.

I assume it'll be treated as adoption.
Unless, the biological parent want's rights to the child.
In that case SSM will be no different to a parent and step parent of a kid.

Seriously... marriage has nothing to do with the birth cert.

aloyisious · 17-05-2015 01:38AM

looking_around wrote: »

marriage has something to do with birth certs?

do all the kids born out of marriage not have a birth cert? :pac:

Aw, you've spoiled my fun (spent too much time on considering all the angles whilst supping the Bushmills)

haveringchick · 17-05-2015 01:40AM

aloyisious wrote: »

Something about matters of state and matters of matters of religion clashing. Anyhow, how would approx 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 of the audience be capable of understanding what the adults were talking about? Isd it in the child's interest to befuddle it's mind?

Wether you like it or not the priest can hold forth on any subject he chooses.
That's just how it goes. Tough.

gandalf · 17-05-2015 01:42AM

haveringchick wrote: »

Wether you like it or not the priest can hold forth on any subject he chooses.
That's just how it goes. Tough.

I think RobertKK is on the spot with this. It was inappropriate for the priest to make this sermon at a day that was supposed to be exclusively special for the children. If it was a standard Sunday mass it would have been far more appropriate.

gk5000 · 17-05-2015 01:42AM

looking_around wrote: »

because that already happens outside of marriage.

And we already have birth cert naming issues in adoption, so um, I'm not seeing the issue here with SSM.

I assume it'll be treated as adoption.
Unless, the biological parent want's rights to the child.
In that case SSM will be no different to a parent and step parent of a kid.

Seriously... marriage has nothing to do with the birth cert.

Adoption is mother and father if they are married.
Can't be step parent if the child is produced of the marriage

Well...you have now either 2 fathers or 2 mothers and then one or two biological as well. What shall it be?

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

Comments