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

VinLieger · 17-05-2015 12:28PM

padd b1975 wrote: »

If I was Varadkar, I would worry about getting my own house in order before trying to muscle in on random flavour of the month campaigns.:rolleyes:

Emm you know he's gay yeah? This is hardly a flavour of the month campaign for him

padd b1975 · 17-05-2015 12:35PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Emm you know he's gay yeah? This is hardly a flavour of the month campaign for him

Yeah, I knew that.

Caught most of his "copy and paste" woe is me spiel some months back.

The agreement for which party members appear on each debate had been agreed well in advance by the coalition parties, no need whatsoever for him to be there playing the gay card.

The result is pretty much a foregone conclusion and this stage, and his time would be much better spent in his own department.

I suspect there's probably one or several items needing attention on an ongoing basis.:mad:

ixoy · 17-05-2015 12:44PM

Seems Boards itself just care about the money as a protect marriage ad just appeared..

17-05-2015 12:48PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Youtube don't care it's all just money to them, just get adblocker and they will go away

I'd be curious if the people who's videos these are appearing on would be OK with it. Anyway unfortunately adblocker doesn't work when you play using the app on your device.

opiniated · 17-05-2015 12:50PM

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.

Thank you so much for telling me how I think!

ronivek wrote: »

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?

As above - except you managed the added bonus of making another assumption. I'm not a male.

aloyisious wrote: »

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?

All of them, equally, whether they advocate a yes, or no vote, tbh.
I'm heartily sick of people with an agenda trying to influence my opinion just because they are famous, or rich.

I want honest, unbiased information about the exact legal consequences of how I choose to vote. Not just in the referendum, but on its effects on future legislation affecting the family.

My reasons are the mess that is currently Irish legislation with children born to non-married parents, specifically fathers rights and responsibilities, for personal family reasons. Most people with experience in this area will tell you that it's a nightmare that may be legislated by the courts, but certainly isn't enforced. Hence, if the legal system to all practical intents and purposes is unable/unwilling to deal with issues as they are - how will it cope with further complications?

Without divulging family members personal information online, since it's not mine to divulge, I have genuine reasons for wanting to know the legislative outcome of this referendum passing - and they're not homophobic, or based on finding individual differences between civil union and marriage "offensive", despite the aspersions cast on me in some posts, by those who automatically assume bias or prejudice, where none exists.

I am in favour of equality, but not where that equality erodes my rights to my grandchildren, which are already nightmarish to enforce.

gk5000 · 17-05-2015 12:54PM

gandalf wrote: »

Ah but you have insinuated that I haven't. So I have assumed that you have informed yourself. So again can you share the information that you have used to come to the conclusion that a no vote is the correct one? I'm really waiting with baited breathe for your answer.

1. Please show how what I posted is "very biased dishonest YES literature" please. Break it down.

Here's the link again to the Irish Council for Civil Liberties website article we're talking about to make it easy for you.

http://www.iccl.ie/articles/yes-equality-myth-busters.html

2. No it doesn't change my marriage at all. My wife is still the same and I am the same. Only someone who doesn't feel secure in their marriage would feel otherwise.

3. Because I believe people are equal and minorities should be cherished and not excluded.

Now please reference the information that has made your mind up to post no please. You seem to ask a lot of questions but a very cagey about answer them when they are put to you. You seem to think that smart answers "...the bleeding obvious." are sufficient. They aren't.

Do you think the myth doc referenced is fair and balance, and addresses all the questions about children? Cos if you do... then there is no point in talking to you.

But, the entire family case law since the foundation of the state and before can and shall be re-interpreted in light of this constitution change.

looking_around · 17-05-2015 12:55PM

gk5000 wrote: »

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?

single people can adopt, how does that work?

and sure, why not have them all?
biological parents: x & y
legal parents x & x

Still has nothing to do with marriage

gk5000 · 17-05-2015 12:57PM

Zen65 wrote: »

No, my marriage will always be defined as being between myself (a man) and my wife (a woman). That the law permits other types of marriage does not alter what I am, nor what we are. Am I less of a man if I get my hair cut in Peter Marks, where people of any gender can get their hair cut?

Legally speaking it shall be redefined in Irish law, and entire family case law can and shall be re-interpreted.

gk5000 · 17-05-2015 12:58PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

gk5000: Ok, you think "man and woman", the same way you think "fish and chips."

But what if I don't like fish? Should I not be allowed in the chipper?

Course you can have all the chips you like.

But fish + fish or chips + chips does not equal fish + chips.

Equality is a red herring.

Zen65 · 17-05-2015 12:59PM

opiniated wrote: »

I want honest, unbiased information about the exact legal consequences of how I choose to vote. Not just in the referendum, but on its effects on future legislation affecting the family.

Then look at the Referendum Commissioner's website which gives unbiased legal opinion. There is also the additional FAQs posted on Twitter (prompted mainly, I suspect, by the series of lies being put forward by some NO campaigners).

For what it's worth I cannot see how the referendum has any bearing on your access to your grandchildren.

opiniated · 17-05-2015 01:00PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

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

Thank you for the links, and particularly for the courtesy and respect shown in your reply.

I will read all of the information you've kindly provided, in an attempt to find answers to my questions, though you are correct in assuming that it is unlikely to change my mind, since bitter experience of what the law can achieve in theory, as opposed to in practice, leads me to think that my fears will not be easily alleviated.
I will, however, read the information provided very carefully, and consider the implications accordingly.

Thank you again for your courtesy.

K4t · 17-05-2015 01:05PM

gk5000 wrote: »

Course you can have all the chips you like.

But fish + fish or chips + chips does not equal fish + chips.

Equality is a red herring.

1. They might be better.

2. Of course they are not exactly equal. Nor is every man woman marriage equal. That is a straw man if ever there was one. The equality argument exists in the right to marry for every consenting citizen, or to choose fish and chips or fish and fish etc. Some marriages will be same sex, some will be the more traditional man woman. But everyone will have the right.

Sofiztikated · 17-05-2015 01:06PM

gk5000 wrote: »

Course you can have all the chips you like.

But fish + fish or chips + chips does not equal fish + chips.

Equality is a red herring.

But what if I want a burger?

my point is, what I want, and what you want might be different, but it shouldn't stop either of us entering the chipper (in this case, the wedding chipper)

CiDeRmAn · 17-05-2015 01:06PM

gk5000 wrote: »

Course you can have all the chips you like.

But fish + fish or chips + chips does not equal fish + chips.

Equality is a red herring.

And this is why everything you say is void and pointless
It is all about equality.
You don't really get to set the tone or agenda on this matter, nor reframe it so everyone is talking on the subjects you want.
The universal right to the constitutional protection of marriage is what it is all about, and this is based on the equality of all citizens of this state.

Not a NSA agent · 17-05-2015 01:06PM

gk5000 wrote: »

Course you can have all the chips you like.

But fish + fish or chips + chips does not equal fish + chips.

Equality is a red herring.

By getting chips I wont be treated as less of a customer.

Equality: the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.

By voting yes it would make homosexual couples equal to heterosexual couples (gives them the same status, rights, and opportunities). You can argue all you want about others being inferior but the fact is they would be treated as equal, hence equality.

endacl · 17-05-2015 01:14PM

Feck.

This is getting daft.

WoolyJumper · 17-05-2015 01:15PM

gk5000 wrote: »

Course you can have all the chips you like.

But fish + fish or chips + chips does not equal fish + chips.

Equality is a red herring.

That argument might work if Marriage was called "man and woman" Dinner for some people is fish and chips, for others is roast beef. It's still dinner though

Edit: Why are we comparing marriage to fish and chips?...this is getting bizarre.

aloyisious · 17-05-2015 01:16PM

sup_dude wrote: »

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

Not alone Luxembourg, but the EU as well

The European Court of Justice is based there, god help straight rights

K4t · 17-05-2015 01:18PM

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

You can argue all you want about others being inferior but the fact is they would be treated as equal, hence equality.

Very important point. A yes vote will still allow you to view same sex couples as inferior and different and unnatural, but crucially it will give them an equal right to marriage. So basically it's like allowing homosexuality to be legal at all, you can still view them as different and unnatural and dangerous, but they are allowed to live their lives and exist and entitled to the same rights as you or I.

osarusan · 17-05-2015 01:22PM

Hmmm....gettting hungry now.

iDave · 17-05-2015 01:43PM

Donegal GAA player Eamonn McGee has received hate mail for his Yes position.
But the Yes side are bullies!

Kiwi in IE · 17-05-2015 01:43PM

Have no voters taken any time to see if any of their dire predictions have actually come to pass in any of the countries where marriage is equal? The Netherlands for example, where it has been legal since 2001? Are Dutch heterosexual couples fleeing to countries where LGBT marriage is not legal, so that their heterosexual marriages will be 'worth more'? Has the world ended in Great Britain, Canada, Belguim, Spain, France, Iceland, New Zealand, Denmark, Norway, Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, Portugal, South Africa, Sweden, Finland, Slovenia, Uraguay or the more progressive States of the US yet?

Has anything awful happened to heterosexual marriages and families since they legislated for equal marriage? Are the children of these countries now suffering inequality as the Iona posters suggest? Perhaps you should look into that before making ridiculous analogies about fish and chips.

iDave · 17-05-2015 01:44PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Have no voters taken any time to see if any of their dire predictions have actually come to pass in any of the countries where marriage is equal? The Netherlands for example, where it has been legal since 2001? Are Dutch heterosexual couples fleeing to countries where LGBT marriage is not legal, so that their heterosexual marriages will be 'worth more'? Has the world ended in Great Britain, Canada, Belguim, Spain, France, Iceland, New Zealand, Denmark, Norway, Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, Portugal, South Africa, Sweden, Finland, Slovenia, Uraguay or the more progressive States of the US yet?

Has anything awful happened to heterosexual marriages and families since they legislated for equal marriage? Are the children of these countries now suffering inequality as the Iona posters suggest? Perhaps you should look into that before making ridiculous analogies about fish and chips.

I asked a similar question many many pages ago. Still waiting a reply.

Not a NSA agent · 17-05-2015 01:45PM

K4t wrote: »

Very important point. A yes vote will still allow you to view same sex couples as inferior and different and unnatural, but crucially it will give them an equal right to marriage. So basically it's like allowing homosexuality to be legal at all, you can still view them as different and unnatural and dangerous, but they are allowed to live their lives and exist and entitled to the same rights as you or I.

There was a group a few pages back and Ive seen it before that the problem they have is they wont have free reign to bully gay people. They want the ability to bully people but cry if anyone says boo to them.

Its like the children turning against the school bully who was picking on a few of the kids for years and then some bleeding heart comes along to get them all punished for bullying as the bully comes from a rough home so should be allowed to do whatever they want.

goldencrisp62 · 17-05-2015 01:47PM

Does gay marriage exist in the UK?

Can't gay couples just go there to marry if so?

mailforkev · 17-05-2015 01:49PM

Regarding the chipper analogy, some men might order fish, but others would rather a battered sausage. Who gives a shït.

And, for the hundredth time, marriage is not being redefined. It will just be made available to everyone.

I will wake up the next day exactly as married as I am today no matter what the result of the referendum.

To be honest, at this stage I can't wait for the first gay divorce to watch the ionanists heads really explode.

Not a NSA agent · 17-05-2015 01:49PM

goldencrisp62 wrote: »

Does gay marriage exist in the UK?

Can't gay couples just go there to marry if so?

They can but it isnt recognised here.

iDave · 17-05-2015 01:49PM

goldencrisp62 wrote: »

Does gay marriage exist in the UK?

Can't gay couples just go there to marry if so?

Well it works for abortion

endacl · 17-05-2015 01:50PM

goldencrisp62 wrote: »

Does gay marriage exist in the UK?

Can't gay couples just go there to marry if so?

Would it be recognised when they got home?

We've exported enough of our problems to the UK. Time to grow up.

mailforkev · 17-05-2015 01:50PM

goldencrisp62 wrote: »

Does gay marriage exist in the UK?

Can't gay couples just go there to marry if so?

Sure maybe they can get the boat with the women with fatal foetal abnormalities.

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

Comments