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

nokiatom · 18-05-2015 02:33PM

floggg wrote: »

1. That is entirely irrelevant to this debate. Gay people have kids already, and will continue to do so regardless of the result. So it has zero relevance to this discussion.

2. Have you asked the children of these gay parents how they feel? In most cases they are rather happy with their upbringing.

3. Have you asked any single parents whether its right for them to raise their kids in that situation?

Bet you haven't.

4. Have you asked children of those single parents how they felt about their upbringing? Again, most of them are fairly happy with theirs.

5. Do you care about the facts in this? Because if so, you should be happy to know that all available evidence tells us that children raised by same sex couples do just as well as those raised by opposite sex couples.

So you have nothing to worry about.

but those kids are put into a situation they have no control over....they are undrerage. they don't understand about life, nor will they have the experience of having a father or mother

galljga1 · 18-05-2015 02:34PM

nokiatom wrote: »

yes I have ...im voting NO for the kids sake

At last. At least it is relevant to the thread.

ixoy · 18-05-2015 02:34PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Which kids?

NO for the kids of people in same sex relationships. Teach those pesky kids that they shouldn't be able to be in a family that's treated the same as others. That'll show 'em!

endacl · 18-05-2015 02:34PM

nokiatom wrote: »

yes I have ...im voting NO for the kids sake

Wrong. You're voting no because:

(A) You haven't a clue what you're actually voting about,

Or

(B) The ghey makes you feel icky.

C'mon now. Which is it?

molloyjh · 18-05-2015 02:34PM

nokiatom wrote: »

but those kids are put into a situation they have no control over....they are undrerage. they don't understand about life, nor will they have the experience of having a father or mother

So?

BTW what a No vote would do would be harmful to kids with same sex parents as it would refuse to acknowledge that family legally. So if you want to look after the kids vote Yes, because voting No doesn't impact anything else related to children. Same sex couple will continue to be allowed to have kids, they just won't have the same rights as a family.

floggg · 18-05-2015 02:34PM

diddley wrote: »

Can anyone enlighten me? If this referendum has nothing to do with children, why is it still one of the main issues in the news?

'Speaking on RTÉ's Today with Sean O'Rourke, Mr Mullen quoted Mr Justice Kevin Cross of the Referendum Commission as saying that it was very difficult to imagine how you could in future give preference to heterosexual parenting.'
From http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0518/701948-referendum/

Yea, the Referendum Commission did not say that any potential ban would likely be struck down by the courts. In fact, the RefCom confirmed that the Oireacthas would have discretion to legislate in this area as he saw fit.

The RefCom also said that you couldn't arbitrarily discriminate - but you could give a preference if you had evidence that such a preference was in children's best interests.

The RefCom also said that religious schools could continue to preach whatever it was their faith required on marriage.

So yea, Ronan is telling porkies.

And its disgusting that RTE are letting him away with such blatant misquotes.

SafeSurfer · 18-05-2015 02:34PM

floggg wrote: »

By traditional marriage do you mean polygamy? Or just a monogamous misogynistic property transaction? I presume marital rape is also part of your "traditional marriage"?

And no, same sex marriage has been observed in a variety of cultures across the globe. In fact, I recall reading on here that the oldest evidence same sex marriage dates from close enough to the time of the oldest evidence of heterosexual marriage.

Marriage throughout history has been between 2 different sexes. Be that polyandry, polygamy or monogamy.
Why you mention martial rape after criticising all the red herrings in the debate I don't know.

Same sex marriage is extremely rare in history. There were same sex unions in Ancient Greece and China but these would, even at the time, not be considered akin to marriage in the traditional sense of the word, if you pardon the pun.

Guy:Incognito · 18-05-2015 02:35PM

nokiatom wrote: »

yes I have ...im voting NO for the kids sake

And what benefit will said kids have by ensuring their parents stay unmarried? What damage will be done by the parents having a marriage certificate?

Kiwi in IE · 18-05-2015 02:35PM

nokiatom wrote: »

nature knows better and now humans want to change that

Where did the concept of marriage come from? Nature?

Comment of the day!

galljga1 · 18-05-2015 02:36PM

nokiatom wrote: »

but those kids are put into a situation they have no control over....they are undrerage. they don't understand about life, nor will they have the experience of having a father or mother

You are going off course again. No relevance. Please try harder.

traprunner · 18-05-2015 02:36PM

nokiatom wrote: »

but those kids are put into a situation they have no control over....they are undrerage. they don't understand about life, nor will they have the experience of having a father or mother

But kids are put into foster homes and adopted all the time by single people and couples regardless of the adults sexual orientation. They have no control. You had no control that you were born to whoever and that it happened to be in Ireland. You could have been born in abject poverty or a war zone. You were a victim of circumstances too. We are all a victim of circumstances and of various levels of upbringing (health/happiness/education/wealth).

endacl · 18-05-2015 02:36PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Marriage throughout history has been between 2 different sexes. Be that polyandry, polygamy or monogamy.
Why you mention martial rape after criticising all the red herrings in the debate I don't know.

Same sex marriage is extremely rare in history. There were same sex unions in Ancient Greece and China but these would, even at the time, not be considered akin to marriage in the traditional sense of the word, if you pardon the pun.

Out of interest, when people provide refutations to your points, do you sit with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears, going 'nah nah nah nah'?

You don't need to. We can't see you!

floggg · 18-05-2015 02:37PM

nokiatom wrote: »

yes I have ...im voting NO for the kids sake

Then you really are misinformed. Voting no will do nothing for the kids - except harm vulnerable LGBT kids.

Ask the RefCom if you don't believe me - referendum has nothing to do with children's rights.

SafeSurfer · 18-05-2015 02:37PM

molloyjh wrote: »

So?

BTW what a No vote would do would be harmful to kids with same sex parents as it would refuse to acknowledge that family legally. So if you want to look after the kids vote Yes, because voting No doesn't impact anything else related to children. Same sex couple will continue to be allowed to have kids, they just won't have the same rights as a family.

So children raised by single parents are also harmed as their family isn't recognised by the constitution. ? Isn't that what John Waters and others are arguing.

floggg · 18-05-2015 02:38PM

nokiatom wrote: »

but those kids are put into a situation they have no control over....they are undrerage. they don't understand about life, nor will they have the experience of having a father or mother

Who? Children of single parents?

And they will have at least one of each - unless they are adopted, fostered or raised by relatives. What should we do with those kids?

traprunner · 18-05-2015 02:38PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Marriage throughout history has been between 2 different sexes. Be that polyandry, polygamy or monogamy.
Why you mention martial rape after criticising all the red herrings in the debate I don't know.

Same sex marriage is extremely rare in history. There were same sex unions in Ancient Greece and China but these would, even at the time, not be considered akin to marriage in the traditional sense of the word, if you pardon the pun.

Nice contradiction there. You corrected your own inaccurate definition of marriage.

Kiwi in IE · 18-05-2015 02:39PM

nokiatom wrote: »

yes I have ...im voting NO for the kids sake

I'm voting yes for the kids sake. For the type of society I want my kids to grow up in. And so my kid doesn't think I was an awful, achaic, prejudice gob****e on the wrong side of history in 15 years time. Oh yeah, and for all the kids who are gay and those yet to come!

SafeSurfer · 18-05-2015 02:40PM

endacl wrote: »

Out of interest, when people provide refutations to your points, do you sit with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears, going 'nah nah nah nah'?

You don't need to. We can't see you!

How do you think it makes me feel when a poster infers that martial rape is part and parcel of heterosexual marriage?

Same sex marriage is very rare in both ancient and modern history. That is my point. That is a fact.

molloyjh · 18-05-2015 02:41PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So children raised by single parents are also harmed as their family isn't recognised by the constitution. ? Isn't that what John Waters and others are arguing.

No, not at all.

The problem here is if a child is born to a "traditional" hetro-sexual couple and one of them passes away the other parent is recognised as being the parent by the State. For obvious biological reasons.

If the child is born into a same sex couple, e.g. two women, and the woman who carried the baby dies the other mother isn't viewed as being a parent at all. Now the child could have been in that home with that arrangement all their lives and view both women as their mother, but the State won't recognise that. And ultimately what does that mean for the child? Is it in the best interests of the child to be removed from the family home when there is a "parent" still there?

SafeSurfer · 18-05-2015 02:41PM

traprunner wrote: »

Nice contradiction there. You corrected your own inaccurate definition of marriage.

Where is the contradiction?

endacl · 18-05-2015 02:41PM

diomed wrote: »

I predict this will lead to invitations to gay weddings.

endacl wrote: »

Bollix. Didn't think of that. I'm done with the 'all my friends are getting married' phase.

I can't afford more weddings. Changing my vote to no. May I congratulate you, by the way, on coming up with the first logical, rational, and coherent reason for anybody to vote no. You should email John Waters.

traprunner wrote: »

I'm still waiting for that one valid argument for a No vote. Come on No voters, ye have had years to think of it. Knock us out with a valid No argument!!! Is asking for just one too much??

Dealt with above. Read the thread.

:mad:

traprunner · 18-05-2015 02:43PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Where is the contradiction?

I put it in bold for you. All unions were traditional.

molloyjh · 18-05-2015 02:43PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

How do you think it makes me feel when a poster infers that martial rape is part and parcel of heterosexual marriage?

Same sex marriage is very rare in both ancient and modern history. That is my point. That is a fact.

The thing is you shouldn't look back in time to decide what to do now. Mainly because we're moving forward in time, not backward. For most of history slavery was acceptable. But we moved on from that.

floggg · 18-05-2015 02:43PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Marriage throughout history has been between 2 different sexes. Be that polyandry, polygamy or monogamy.
Why you mention martial rape after criticising all the red herrings in the debate I don't know.

Same sex marriage is extremely rare in history. There were same sex unions in Ancient Greece and China but these would, even at the time, not be considered akin to marriage in the traditional sense of the word, if you pardon the pun.

Because traditional marriage meant you could rape your wife at will. Even kill her if you wanted.

If you want to preserve traditional marriage, preserve it all. Don't cherry pick the one part that suits your argument. If tradition is good for tradition's sake, then advocate for the repeal of laws criminalising marital rape.

Or else acceptthat just because something is traditional, it doesn't make it right.

And what about same sex unions in the Americas? And in Africa? And in Australasia? And in various other parts of Europe (including Ireland I believe)?

jobbridge4life · 18-05-2015 02:43PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

How do you think it makes me feel when a poster infers that martial rape is part and parcel of heterosexual marriage?

It was. That is a fact. You can't ignore it or deny it because it is an uncomfortable truth. Moreover while thankfully we have moved on from that aberration some areas of our globe haven't unfortunately such as India.

endacl · 18-05-2015 02:44PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

How do you think it makes me feel when a poster infers that martial rape is part and parcel of heterosexual marriage?

What? Like armies? Weird marriage...

RobertKK · 18-05-2015 02:44PM

aloyisious wrote: »

True enough on civil marriage in the constitution. I'm not going to be sidelined from my question into a red herring debate by what's in your first sentence.

@RobertKK and other No Voters on the marriage issue: Do you believe that marriage as understood within the constraints of the RC religion must define what is written into our constitution in reference to what a family consists of?

Always believed marriage is between and a man and a woman irrespective of whether religious or civil. Long before anyone talked about same sex marriage.
People will vote for what they believe to be, not what they are told to believe it to be.
You often hear 'get married, have a family...', so when people want children not talked about and how these children are conceived, they are missing what many perceive marriage to be a route to.
I looked at countries where they brought in same sex marriage without letting the people vote, there were massive protests and it was arguments about the family that was the centre of the protests.

Family was always going to be an issue when it says this in the constitution: The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

traprunner · 18-05-2015 02:45PM

endacl wrote: »

Dealt with above. Read the thread.

:mad:

Noooooooooooooooooooooo. I have to change now :mad:

SafeSurfer · 18-05-2015 02:46PM

traprunner wrote: »

I put it in bold for you. All unions were traditional.

That's simply not true. If you research the subject you will see that there were distinctions between same sex unions and marriage between men and women. Some cultures held the partners of same sex unions in high esteem others not so much.

Saying all unions were traditional is just lazy. Are you talking about pre history?

molloyjh · 18-05-2015 02:47PM

RobertKK wrote: »

You often hear 'get married, have a family...', so when people want children not talked about and how these children are conceived, they are missing what many perceive marriage to be a route to.

Total nonsense. Human beings were having children long before marriage was invented. People today have children outside of marriage. And many married couple decide not to have children at all.

But don't let silly little facts like those get in the way.

As for the family remark, what happens to same sex couples who have children now? Are they not a family?

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

Comments