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

MrWalsh · 17-05-2015 03:52PM

folamh wrote: »

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.

That's because the No side have lots of funding from the states to make and run video adverts.

Ctrl Alt Delete · 17-05-2015 04:04PM

Article 16 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights says it all for me really. Particularly first line and last paragraph.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Of course this will be attacked by pro gay marriage side as well I'm sure.

aloyisious · 17-05-2015 04:07PM

osarusan wrote: »

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.

Ta for that piece about surrogacy. I reckon some legal experts on the NO side are getting their facts mixed up. This is an excerpt from an article by Dr Tom Finegan in the Irish Examiner ;http://www.irishexaminer.com/analysis/marriage-equality-referendum-state-should-not-deprive-children-330699.html Quote;Because of this it is perfectly OK for the State to deliberately deprive a child of either a mother or a father by operation of its laws relating to adoption, surrogacy, and donor-assisted human reproduction. On top of this, anyone who objects to these laws is guilty of demeaning children who are already part of one-parent families:unquote.

...........................................................................................

Me: while there is reference in Irish law on how to treat children here (re citizenship etc rights) born by way of surrogacy abroad, there is this paragraph "It is also advisable to receive Counselling before starting the Surrogacy process to help you consider the questions involved. There are no Surrogacy Laws on the Statute Books at present in Ireland". the quote is from this linked document (para 2) : https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mcsolicitors.ie%2Fsurrogacy-solicitor-ireland&ei=j6pYVdfZJs-R7Aa34IDYCQ&usg=AFQjCNGxTAPSX32HPrBYNzeA5PvJGKJ1TQ&sig2=RxWtG8P7wEDYmBU6qV3tPQ

Plus there's this (apparently posted only 8 hours ago) from The Journal.ie: https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thejournal.ie%2Fsurrogacy-in-ireland-marriage-ref-2089158-May2015%2F&ei=j6pYVdfZJs-R7Aa34IDYCQ&usg=AFQjCNHS4c3zplWu-rts1E153opj1nu5Cw&sig2=B5tKBL-o-J8f6uekxwOxUQ

I reckon if one was to read and accept Tom Finegan's mention of surrogacy, and donor-assisted human reproduction, at face value and not google on the status of surrogacy laws here, one might think that there were laws on surrogacy here and they would be affected by the passing of the referendum on marriage.

Wrongway1985 · 17-05-2015 04:07PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

That's because the No side have lots of funding from the states to make and run video adverts.

The referendum is funded on American dollars

ProfessorPlum · 17-05-2015 04:08PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

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

SafeSurfer wrote: »

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

I think that might be a little too much to hope for - that any change would eliminate discrimination. I mean, unmarried cohabiting couples will still not be regarded as families (although they have it within their means to change their situation) and unmarried lone parents still be not be regarded as families. But on Friday we do get to eliminate the discrimination of gay people with regard to marriage. So that must be a good thing right?

ProfessorPlum · 17-05-2015 04:11PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Article 16 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights says it all for me really. Particularly first line and last paragraph.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Of course this will be attacked by pro gay marriage side as well I'm sure.

Wonderful isn't it? Consenting men and women free to marry whoever they like, and enjoy the protections of society.

WheatenBriar · 17-05-2015 04:12PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Article 16 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights says it all for me really. Particularly first line and last paragraph.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

.

Thats badly worded,it needs the words 'to each other' to make your point properly
You need to be looking at the sections on equality instead in this debate but those too won't support you I'm afraid

aloyisious · 17-05-2015 04:18PM

folamh wrote: »

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.

Google Yes Equality Wicklow for one. Our organizers here have posted videos, stills and written articles on the issue. YEW is part of the bigger Yes Equality family.

endacl · 17-05-2015 04:20PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Can you show me where in the constitution it states that I cannot marry my wife's mother's sister?

We'll, that'd be bigamy. Different thing entirely.

SafeSurfer · 17-05-2015 04:36PM

endacl wrote: »

We'll, that'd be bigamy. Different thing entirely.

Not while my wife is still alive obviously.

BonkeyDonker · 17-05-2015 04:37PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Not while my wife is still alive obviously.

Or you think you have a chance and get divorced.

Shandashey · 17-05-2015 04:46PM

I'll be voting yes, but I would nearly go and vote no just to spite Miss Panti - he does my head in.

MrWalsh · 17-05-2015 04:46PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

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

You misunderstand. Where in law is a man marrying his mothers aunt prohibited?

WoolyJumper · 17-05-2015 04:54PM

Shandashey wrote: »

I'll be voting yes, but I would nearly go and vote no just to spite Miss Panti - he does my head in.

Yeah, Panti is not for everyone. Appreciate the yes though

Cuban Pete · 17-05-2015 04:54PM

So we've had paedophilia, bestiality, polygamy and now incest. Makes ya wonder what the next red herring could be.

FutureGuy · 17-05-2015 04:55PM

gk5000 wrote: »

Ahh you're up..

1. I never mentioned extensive reading, but just was a bit disappointed when you refererenced some very biased dishonest YES literature

2. The constutution is about principles. You may have difficulty with that.
But, basically your marriage currently is defined as being between a man and a woman
Going forward your existing marriage shall be defined as being between two persons of indictinct sex

3. Why is a straight man putting effort into advocating gay marriage?

Well as a married man I must say I couldn't give a hoot about that. Doesn't change my relationship with my wife.

As for point 3, and as one of those straight men you reference, I feel it's the right thing to do.

One of the things I have found when discussing the referendum is how easy it is to answer questions :-D

ProfessorPlum · 17-05-2015 04:56PM

Cuban Pete wrote: »

So we've had paedophilia, bestiality, polygamy and now incest. Makes ya wonder what the next red herring could be.

I think it could actually be a red herring.

I mean, we touched on if with the fish and chips conversation, and the inequality of me not being able to marry a red herring must surely be a breach of my human (and marine) rights!

Clockwork Owl · 17-05-2015 04:59PM

gk5000 wrote: »

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?

You know, I like this analogy. But not quite for the same reasons as you.

So you like your favourite pub. The atmosphere is nice, the toilets are clean and you can always get a good game of darts.

While an exact figure is hard to come by, estimates suggest that 5-8% of the Irish population is gay. So really, if your favourite pub could host 200 people, maybe 12-16 gay people would quite like to frequent your favourite pub as well.

But you're a bit worried about that. See, because you quite like your favourite pub as it is, and those 12-16 gay people might have a negative effect on the atmosphere that you like so much. They might leave the toilet cubicles with no loo roll. They might make the drinks more expensive. They might not be able to play darts. And lads, that's just not on. You don't have any proof as such that they'll do any of those things, but it's just a risk that you're not willing to take.

But hey, can't we just give them another, different pub, just around the corner? Sure, we could make it the exact same. We'll just call it something else, and it'll be really lovely. And then those gay people will be really happy, right, because we've been really kind and given them their own pub, even after they kept trying to get into OUR pub. And this new pub can be their new favourite pub now. They'll love it, sure.

And you don't have to share your favourite pub with gay people.

Everyone wins, right?

YFlyer · 17-05-2015 05:50PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I think it could actually be a red herring.

I mean, we touched on if with the fish and chips conversation, and the inequality of me not being able to marry a red herring must surely be a breach of my human (and marine) rights!

Can see Waterford Whisper with an article on this

CiDeRmAn · 17-05-2015 05:52PM

I think we would be far better off knowing where the intolerant right wing pubs are, that way the rest of the community, gay/straight/single/married/cylon can get on with having a good time.

iDave · 17-05-2015 06:22PM

When Reeling in the Years 2015 is broadcast we really will look back and cringe at this campaign. Only redemption will be a comprehensive Yes vote.

aloyisious · 17-05-2015 06:23PM

Cuban Pete wrote: »

So we've had paedophilia, bestiality, polygamy and now incest. Makes ya wonder what the next red herring could be.

Well Iona have posters up on the Boghall Road in Bray telling voters to Vote NO and protect their conscience rights. It seem's they think voting NO not only supports your right to make a statement affirming your beliefs, but help's you to protect your conscience.

YFlyer · 17-05-2015 06:33PM

The founder of ARAN got spat on when canvassing for the Yes campaign today.

cruais · 17-05-2015 06:36PM

Im all for a yes vote.

A close relative came back from mass this morning and mentioned about the Bishop's letter.

I said i wouldn't be listening to anything from the Bishop as he and the Iona institute have not got their facts straight, however, I told my relative that it was a democracy and they were free to vote how they wanted based on their own opinion.

Thinking that would kind of stop the conversation, I attempted to change the subject but my relative was not finished.

I was informed that they were unsure how to vote as they are still hung up on the children issue (not seeing the wood from the trees there) and also told that it doesn't matter how they vote as they have no Choice, that they are sick of the referendum and wished it was all over with.

I felt it was developing into a row so i left the room. My husband wants to vote No, for his own reasons, and thats fine, as its a democracy

aloyisious · 17-05-2015 06:37PM

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?

You mean a pub like this....... Sheet, forgot the Dragon had morphed into a straight bar

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQyCkwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DewQzuuG_Njk&ei=Fs9YVc-WAcbR7QafsoDIDA&usg=AFQjCNF0ldc-SkURsw5bma5BIb7FG9zBng&sig2=pRvhU-xnOnkPIZBqh_AYIQ

K4t · 17-05-2015 06:37PM

iDave wrote: »

When Reeling in the Years 2015 is broadcast we really will look back and cringe at this campaign. Only redemption will be a comprehensive Yes vote.

The 62 won't votes in the latest boards poll is a bad sign. If the average mid 20s to early 30s boards user isn't going to bother voting, I wouldn't hold too much hope for the predicted hundreds of thousands of young people (18-25) who are supposed to carry the yes vote. This referendum could be a harsh lesson to the college a kids. Or a historic victory. Hopefully the latter.

Not a NSA agent · 17-05-2015 06:40PM

K4t wrote: »

The 62 won't votes in the latest boards poll is a bad sign. If the average mid 20s to early 30s boards user isn't going to bother voting, I wouldn't hold too much hope for the predicted hundreds of thousands of young people (18-25) who are supposed to carry the yes vote. This referendum could be a harsh lesson to the college a kids. Or a historic victory. Hopefully the latter.

I'd say a few of those are a can't vote rather than a won't vote. Few people have mentioned they'll be out of the country at the time. Probably a few under 18s in there as well. Over 90% support among the younger people so it will be brought in eventually.

I only know of 2 young people against it, both are religious. Of course one of them is the type of religious where everyone else should follow it while they half ass it.

gandalf · 17-05-2015 06:42PM

gk5000 wrote: »

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.

I've asked you to point out the inaccuraces in it and you have been unable to do so?

So again I'll ask you to point out where the article is not factual and misleading.

This referendum is not about children. Any one who thinks it is has been taken in by the propaganda from the bleeding knuckle brigade or is a member of that brigade. Which are you I wonder.

So come on show me where the document from the Irish Council of Civil Liberties is peddling mistruths?

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

AGAIN JUST TO BE CLEAR THE REFERENDUM IS NOT ABOUT CHILDREN IT'S ABOUT EQUALITY OF MARRIAGE.

Maybe you should ensure you know what you're voting on before you slither to the voting centre on Friday.

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.

So unable to show me any documentation or articles or proof of why you are deciding to vote No. TBH even if you said "because it says so in the bible" I would respect you more than I currently do with your misdirection and inability to actually answer any questions put to you.

Boom_Bap · 17-05-2015 06:48PM

So I was out for a run earlier and was reading the posters as I ran. The best one was a No one. It was something along the lines of "Nothing is stronger than a mother and childs bond'.

1. Obviously not about children
2. They seemed to not think that women can also be gay and a child could have 2 mothers. That pretty much negates the message.

If they are talking about surrogacy, that is only one facet of the misinformation that is being presented.

Discodog · 17-05-2015 06:55PM

I am amazed that, especially after the comments from the referendum commission, that the No campaign are still allowed to use surrogacy, children etc on their posters.

The posters that refer to a man not being able to give the love of a mother is a gross insult to thousands of single parent families. If a wife dies does it mean that a husband isn't capable of showing love to his children ?

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

Comments