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

osarusan · 17-05-2015 02:38PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

What relation am I to my late wife's mother's sister? If we fall in love why does the state not allow me to marry her?

The law will not preclude me from marrying my late wife's mother's brother after the passing of Friday's referendum. Hence the inequality.

I hope you'll answer the question I asked:

osarusan wrote: »

do you hope that after this referendum, two people will no longer be ineligible for marriage simply because they want to marry somebody of the same sex?

Or do you hope they remain ineligible?

aloyisious · 17-05-2015 02:44PM

Dimithy wrote: »

So gay and straight people will be subject to the same laws. Equal.

Also, is this something that you think should be changed? Or is it a case of throwing something else at the wall, and seeing if something sticks?

@Dimithy: there was one piece missing from what was written as quoted in the referendum wording by Safesurfer. That was that the same sex marriage must be "in accordance with the law".

That mean's the existing laws governing any people who might wish to marry here but are NOT allowed to by law (like the people he listed in his post) also applies to and limits the number of same sex couples who may get married.

Dimithy · 17-05-2015 02:44PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So the myth of being given the right to marry the person you love should be shelved. There are exclusions in law. Is the love I could have for a stranger any less than the love I could have for my aunt in law? Is this equality?

Gay people will have the same legal rights to marriage as straight people. That is what this referendum is for.

Again, is this a real concern of yours, or more of the same scatter-shot approach the no side are taking?

Dimithy · 17-05-2015 02:46PM

aloyisious wrote: »

@Dimithy: there was one piece missing from what was written as quoted in the referendum wording by Safesurfer. That was that the same sex marriage must be "in accordance with the law".

That mean's the existing laws governing any people who might wish to marry here but are NOT allowed to by law (like the people he listed in his post) also applies to and limits the number of same sex couples who may get married.

Oh, I know. Just wondering where he hopes to go with this point.

aloyisious · 17-05-2015 02:47PM

mikemac1 wrote: »

An invitation to a wedding is like a tax demand from the Revenue

You got a "wedding gifts desired" list from Switzers as well?

aloyisious · 17-05-2015 02:51PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

What relation am I to my late wife's mother's sister? If we fall in love why does the state not allow me to marry her?

The law will not preclude me from marrying my late wife's mother's brother after the passing of Friday's referendum. Hence the inequality.

Agreed, just good breeding (and his wife) might

rizzodun · 17-05-2015 02:57PM

Can I ask (I'm sure it's been asked a 1000 times before, done a search, no luck, so apologies)

Why is the constant argument been brought out about surrogacy, are we not voting on whether or not marriage can be attained regardless of sex?

Will a yes vote just mean that the current surrogacy arrangements might need to be changed or will be open to change in future, and if so, why can't the points just be argued relevant to the vote in question and not jumping the gun on other matters?

WoolyJumper · 17-05-2015 02:57PM

aloyisious wrote: »

David Quinn has just said that gay men can have children, but adopted children only. He's made it plain through Iona that he doesn't approve or agree with gay men being allowed marry, but during the radio debate just now, he said he had been in favour of it. The anomaly is David's position on gay men adopting is that he's OK with 2 same-sex parented families raising children.

David can dance around on the head of a pin as long as he likes, but can't get away from the fact that he does not want male and female homosexuals to be part of the procreation routine that heterosexual people use to procreate and have children, because that would mean he agrees with 2 fathers or 2 mothers being the only adults doing the parenting of children in married families.

Yes this is the latest thing from David Quinn. I can't remember if it was him or John Waters that said actually he supports same sex marriage, he just doesn't support doing it through the constitution. I know well both were adamantly against the idea, through legislation or others wise. David Quinn not so long ago was an opponent of civil partnership.

Honestly I don't know what David Quinns deal is. As someone who has been following gay issues closely for the past 10 years, his name has always popped up for opposing any kind of progress for gay people in Ireland. It seems to be his life work. It's very clear at this stage he will say anything (truth be damned) to not see this referendum pass.

efb · 17-05-2015 02:58PM

Leaflet drop this afternoon

Not a NSA agent · 17-05-2015 03:01PM

rizzodun wrote: »

Can I ask (I'm sure it's been asked a 1000 times before, done a search, no luck, so apologies)

Why is the constant argument been brought out about surrogacy, are we not voting on whether or not marriage can be attained regardless of sex?

Will a yes vote just mean that the current surrogacy arrangements might need to be changed or will be open to change in future, and if so, why can't the points just be argued relevant to the vote in question and not jumping the gun on other matters?

Surrogacy will stay the same or be changed regardless of a yes or no. If there is a yes and new legislation is created a month later then it is a coincidence. The same changes could have been made with a no.

osarusan · 17-05-2015 03:03PM

rizzodun wrote: »

Why is the constant argument been brought out about surrogacy, are we not voting on whether or not marriage can be attained regardless of sex?

Will a yes vote just mean that the current surrogacy arrangements might need to be changed or will be open to change in future, and if so, why can't the points just be argued relevant to the vote in question and not jumping the gun on other matters?

You are correct - it is irrelevant to the referendum.

The No side are happy to pretend it is relevant to scaremonger people. Just like the adoption line of argument. I guess they believe that 'save the children' is a more emotive approach than focusing on the issue of same sex couples itself.

Currently there are no surrogacy arrangements - it has never been legislated for. Any legislation in the future would have to apply to all married couples.

rizzodun · 17-05-2015 03:04PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

There is literally no relationship between this referendum and surrogacy. It's a complete red herring.

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Surrogacy will stay the same or be changed regardless of a yes or no. If there is a yes and new legislation is created a month later then it is a coincidence. The same changes could have been made with a no.

That's what I thought, but haven't managed to wrangle anyone from the no side to ask them. I've heard more about surrogacy in the run up to this than I have about gay marriage. Ridiculous that.

SafeSurfer · 17-05-2015 03:04PM

I agree that surrogacy is a red herring. But it is also clear that tge referendum will extend greater freedom to marry to bisexuals than heterosexuals.

Shrap · 17-05-2015 03:05PM

rizzodun wrote: »

Why is the constant argument been brought out about surrogacy, are we not voting on whether or not marriage can be attained regardless of sex?

The fact that surrogacy is and will continue to be accessed as an AHR option in the vast, vast majority of cases by heterosexual couples demonstrates that the only reason this unregulated area is being brought in by the No campaign is their difficulty in seeing same sex couples as parents.

This is indeed an area that needs regulation and I'm sure it will be looked at and we will vote on it in time. However, it is not an issue for this referendum and it has nothing to do with SSM, no matter how many times the No campaign repeats it.

WoolyJumper · 17-05-2015 03:05PM

rizzodun wrote: »

Can I ask (I'm sure it's been asked a 1000 times before, done a search, no luck, so apologies)

Why is the constant argument been brought out about surrogacy, are we not voting on whether or not marriage can be attained regardless of sex?

Will a yes vote just mean that the current surrogacy arrangements might need to be changed or will be open to change in future, and if so, why can't the points just be argued relevant to the vote in question and not jumping the gun on other matters?

There is currently no legislation around surrogacy in Ireland. Though that will be introduced soon I suspect, whether it will be outlawed fully or restricted time will tell.

This referendum has no impact on surrogacy what so ever. Iona unfortunately have been successful in setting the tone for this debate and really confusing matters. They know well that if people have any doubts about an issue they will tend to stick to the status quo. They don't have to present facts and figures. Just create some fear and doubt around the issue.

Zaph · 17-05-2015 03:12PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I agree that surrogacy is a red herring. But it is also clear that tge referendum will extend greater freedom to marry to bisexuals than heterosexuals.

No it won't, they'll have exactly the same freedom to marry, except that bisexuals will have greater choice in who they actually marry, if they want it.

Dimithy · 17-05-2015 03:13PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I agree that surrogacy is a red herring. But it is also clear that tge referendum will extend greater freedom to marry to bisexuals than heterosexuals.

This is a joke right?

SafeSurfer · 17-05-2015 03:15PM

Zaph wrote: »

No it won't, they'll have exactly the same freedom to marry, except that bisexuals will have greater choice in who they actually marry, if they want it.

No. A bisexual man can marry his late wife's uncle but a heterosexual man cannot marry his late wife's aunt.

Zaph · 17-05-2015 03:18PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

No. A bisexual man can marry his late wife's uncle but a heterosexual man cannot marry his late wife's aunt.

Well presumably in the event of a yes vote that particular piece of legislation will be updated to address the inconsistencies. It doesn't require another referendum to do so, so it should be a quick and easy process.

To Elland Back · 17-05-2015 03:20PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

No. A bisexual man can marry his late wife's uncle but a heterosexual man cannot marry his late wife's aunt.

I know it is a philosophical point you are making but but the numbers this will affect is rather small and restricted to Leitrim only

CiDeRmAn · 17-05-2015 03:21PM

To Elland Back wrote: »

I know it is a philosophical point you are making but but the numbers this will affect is rather small and restricted to Leitrim only

You know the Wicklow Way?
They mean "Marrying your Cousin"
Lots of recessive disorders floating around down there.
Also banjo music...

osarusan · 17-05-2015 03:28PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

No. A bisexual man can marry his late wife's uncle but a heterosexual man cannot marry his late wife's aunt.

Do you think you'll be answering the question I asked you earlier?

MrWalsh · 17-05-2015 03:35PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

No. A bisexual man can marry his late wife's uncle but a heterosexual man cannot marry his late wife's aunt.

Why not?

SafeSurfer · 17-05-2015 03:38PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Why not?

Because it seems that some people are more equal than others.

SafeSurfer · 17-05-2015 03:40PM

Zaph wrote: »

Well presumably in the event of a yes vote that particular piece of legislation will be updated to address the inconsistencies. It doesn't require another referendum to do so, so it should be a quick and easy process.

But we are constantly told that a yes vote will change nothing only the right to marry who we choose.

SafeSurfer · 17-05-2015 03:41PM

osarusan wrote: »

Do you think you'll be answering the question I asked you earlier?

Yes I hope any change to the constitution will eliminate discrimination.

Ctrl Alt Delete · 17-05-2015 03:42PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Yes it was. Was a bit nerve wracking at first but got better as it went on.

As a seasoned canvasser you would do well to remember most people will tell you what you want to hear to get you away from the door.

Whether your a yes or No voter a lot of people at the door will just say yep you have my support etc

osarusan · 17-05-2015 03:42PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Yes I hope any change to the constitution will eliminate discrimination.

If I may ask - does that mean you'll be voting Yes in the Marriage Referendum on Friday?

Ctrl Alt Delete · 17-05-2015 03:45PM

Alt J wrote: »

anyways enjoy your night and dam it be if many more want to write their opinions with a hint of passion about human rights..

Woah there hold the horse marriage between homosexuals is a human right now ????

folamh · 17-05-2015 03:50PM

I'm one of those people who is too lazy to click my mouse the required amount of times to install AdBlock, so I still see ads before some YouTube videos. In the past three days, I've seen two different anti-referendum adverts multiple times - one featuring Paddy Manning and one featuring the Daintree guy. I've not seen any pro-referendum adverts on YouTube.

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

Comments