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

endacl · 18-05-2015 02:48PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Always believed 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.

Agreed. What's your point?

VinLieger · 18-05-2015 02:48PM

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.

Whooosh

SafeSurfer · 18-05-2015 02:48PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

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.

Just as same sex relationships have abuse and rape within them? Or are these things entirely absent from same sex relationships?

floggg · 18-05-2015 02:49PM

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.

I'd happily extend Const protection to other family forms too. Except we aren't given the choice to do so on Friday. We can only answer the question asked.

So vote yes on Friday and then vote yes if and when we are asked to extend Const protection to others.

That's not John Water's position. His position is that you should vote no because he didn't get what he wanted already. If he can't get his way, then neither should the gays.

Which is the type of reasoning you would except from a 5 year old.

Except that's not his reason - he actually just doesn't like LGBT people. He thinks we only want to marry to destroy marriage for everybody else. Seemingly he doesn't see us as even capable of wanting to enter loving committed relationships and have those respected.

As I said, he's just being careful what he says in case he lets the mask slip and suddenly needs to refund money to RTE.

RobertKK · 18-05-2015 02:49PM

molloyjh wrote: »

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.

No we haven't moved on from slavery. they use it in the middle east.
Look at Qatar, it is an ally of the west, and accepted by the west.

http://www.cityam.com/215943/qatar-accused-being-slave-state-pressure-campaign-fifa-sponsors-launched

SafeSurfer · 18-05-2015 02:49PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Whooosh

Do you have a point or are you playing frisbee?

endacl · 18-05-2015 02:49PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Just as same sex relationships have abuse and rape within them? Or are these things entirely absent from same sex relationships?

Nice tangent. New thread?

floggg · 18-05-2015 02:50PM

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

Except you can't point to any reason why it should only be between a man and a woman.

That's fine, you don't need one. But in the absence of a compelling reason, its either illogical or an arbitrary prejudice.

Sonics2k · 18-05-2015 02:50PM

nokiatom wrote: »

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

Alright, listen here because it's the last time I say it on this thread.

Vote Yes to protect children. Here's why.

1) LGBT people can already have children, nothing can stop that. Whether it's through natural means, adoption or surrogacy. Voting No will not stop that.

2) Lets say you have two women who raise a child, and one is the biological mother. Currently, if the biological mother dies, then the other mother has no real legal right to raise the child. This means the child can be taken from it's home after losing a parent, and be put into a foster home to be raised by strangers. The child may get lucky and be sent to live with a grandparent, but if those grandparents are of a certain belief system, then they may lose out on both mothers. Voting Yes means the children of LGBT couples will have legal protection.
Surely losing both parents would be much worse than possibly not knowing a fathers name.

3) Under civil partnership, the lines of inheritance and tax rights are awful for LGBT couples, this means a lower income than they would get compared to a married couple of the same life.
Right now, the "other" parent has no real rights to leave an inheritance to a child or partner who they could have spent 20 or more years with.
Voting Yes will change that.

4) For the last time. "This referendum has nothing to do with gay people having children because they already can and do.".

Voting No will be more harmful to children. This is a fact.
Just keep repeating step 4 to yourself until you get it.

SafeSurfer · 18-05-2015 02:51PM

floggg wrote: »

I'd happily extend Const protection to other family forms too. Except we aren't given the choice to do so on Friday. We can only answer the question asked.

So vote yes on Friday and then vote yes if and when we are asked to extend Const protection to others.

That's not John Water's position. His position is that you should vote no because he didn't get what he wanted already. If he can't get his way, then neither should the gays.

Which is the type of reasoning you would except from a 5 year old.

Except that's not his reason - he actually just doesn't like LGBT people. He thinks we only want to marry to destroy marriage for everybody else. Seemingly he doesn't see us as even capable of wanting to enter loving committed relationships and have those respected.

As I said, he's just being careful what he says in case he lets the mask slip and suddenly needs to refund money to RTE.

Thank you for addressing the point and I agree with you.

RobertKK · 18-05-2015 02:51PM

endacl wrote: »

Agreed. What's your point?

The point to you would be that quote is not mine, it is changed so it has been redefined to what you want.

VinLieger · 18-05-2015 02:51PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Do you have a point or are you playing frisbee?

You keep referring to traditional marriage but seem clueless that up until 1990 marital rape was not a criminal offence in Ireland, the introduction of that law changed traditional marriage in this country so do you have a problem with it too?

floggg · 18-05-2015 02:54PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Just as same sex relationships have abuse and rape within them? Or are these things entirely absent from same sex relationships?

Not at all. But see we like to challenge and change these things.

You on the other hand love tradition. And traditionally, married men could rape their wife.

So if you are championing traditional marriage, that's part of the package.

Unless of course you think sometimes traditions should be changed and abandoned when they are unjust or immoral? That tradition for tradition's sake is not necessarily a good thing.

That abandoning traditions can be a positive thing?

Yes?

floggg · 18-05-2015 02:55PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Thank you for addressing the point and I agree with you.

So then Vote yes. Simples.

jobbridge4life · 18-05-2015 02:56PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Just as same sex relationships have abuse and rape within them? Or are these things entirely absent from same sex relationships?

We aren't talking about relationships we are talking about 'traditional marriage' as it was defined. Your comment reads as though there was some kind of competition between same-sex and opposite sex relationships. No such competition exists. Love is love and unfortunately as with all human interactions there exists the possibility for cruelty and exploitation, straight, gay, familial, cordial or business.

My name is URL · 18-05-2015 02:57PM

nokiatom wrote: »

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

What kids in particular? You do know that same-sex couples can already raise adopted kids, or kids from previous relationships they've had?

How will voting No protect kids in any way? Be as specific as possible please

endacl · 18-05-2015 02:58PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The point to you would be that quote is not mine, it is changed so it has been redefined to what you want.

Just to show that the constitutional quote you chose is essentially meaningless. It can support anything you want it to support. Try again.

molloyjh · 18-05-2015 02:58PM

RobertKK wrote: »

No we haven't moved on from slavery. they use it in the middle east.
Look at Qatar, it is an ally of the west, and accepted by the west.

http://www.cityam.com/215943/qatar-accused-being-slave-state-pressure-campaign-fifa-sponsors-launched

Dear God, really!? I thought it was fairly obvious that I meant Western society when I said "we". It's not like we're debating Qatars same-sex marriage referendum here....

Sonics2k wrote: »

Just keep repeating step 4 to yourself until you get it.

Some people don't want to get it. They want to dress up their "beliefs" in a way that makes them seem altruistic. The truth is that most just want to deny others things that they themselves have. A No vote in this referendum is entirely negative. There isn't a single positive outcome to a No vote. Same sex couples continue to be segregated and discriminated against to some degree and the children they have will not be afforded the same protections as kids in heterosexual marriages. These people lose. And nobody gains anything. Not a single person. It's an entirely negative act to vote No.

SafeSurfer · 18-05-2015 02:58PM

Sonics2k wrote: »

Alright, listen here because it's the last time I say it on this thread.

Vote Yes to protect children. Here's why.

1) LGBT people can already have children, nothing can stop that. Whether it's through natural means, adoption or surrogacy. Voting No will not stop that.

2) Lets say you have two women who raise a child, and one is the biological mother. Currently, if the biological mother dies, then the other mother has no real legal right to raise the child. This means the child can be taken from it's home after losing a parent, and be put into a foster home to be raised by strangers. The child may get lucky and be sent to live with a grandparent, but if those grandparents are of a certain belief system, then they may lose out on both mothers. Voting Yes means the children of LGBT couples will have legal protection.
Surely losing both parents would be much worse than possibly not knowing a fathers name.

3) Under civil partnership, the lines of inheritance and tax rights are awful for LGBT couples, this means a lower income than they would get compared to a married couple of the same life.
Right now, the "other" parent has no real rights to leave an inheritance to a child or partner who they could have spent 20 or more years with.
Voting Yes will change that.

4) For the last time. "This referendum has nothing to do with gay people having children because they already can and do.".

Voting No will be more harmful to children. This is a fact.
Just keep repeating step 4 to yourself until you get it.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/civil_partnerships/civil_partnership_and_inheritance.html

Tipperary animal lover · 18-05-2015 03:02PM

Got my polling card today can't wait to tick the YES box on Friday, and yes that's means im voting YES

SafeSurfer · 18-05-2015 03:03PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

We aren't talking about relationships we are talking about 'traditional marriage' as it was defined. Your comment reads as though there was some kind of competition between same-sex and opposite sex relationships. No such competition exists. Love is love and unfortunately as with all human interactions there exists the possibility for cruelty and exploitation, straight, gay, familial, cordial or business.

So your position is there is no such thing as traditional marriage.

My position is that marriage has always been defined as a formal union of a man and woman, or men and women or a man and women. Be it in front of a high priest, a tribal leader, priest or witch doctor.

Thank you for clarifying that relationship abuse isn't the preserve of heterosexual relationships.

silverfeather · 18-05-2015 03:03PM

Tipperary animal lover wrote: »

Got my polling card today can't wait to tick the YES box on Friday, and yes that's means im voting YES

and loves animals :P such a cool person!

traprunner · 18-05-2015 03:05PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So your position is there is no such thing as traditional marriage.

My position is that marriage has always been defined as a formal union of a man and woman, or men and women or a man and women. Be it in front of a high priest, a tribal leader, priest or witch doctor.

Thank you for clarifying that relationship abuse isn't the preserve of heterosexual relationships.

Didn't you just say above that there was same sex as well as heterosexual unions in your history lesson above. So what has changed to be able to say that it was always only male(s) and female(s)? You are really confusing the issue.

molloyjh · 18-05-2015 03:05PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

My position is that marriage has always been defined as a formal union of a man and woman, or men and women or a man and women. Be it in front of a high priest, a tribal leader, priest or witch doctor.

That doesn't for one second mean it shouldn't change.

jobbridge4life · 18-05-2015 03:06PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So your position is there is no such thing as traditional marriage.

My position is that marriage has always been defined as a formal union of a man and woman, or men and women or a man and women. Be it in front of a high priest, a tribal leader, priest or witch doctor.

Thank you for clarifying that relationship abuse isn't the preserve of heterosexual relationships.

I never suggested it was not even for a minute.

So your definition of 'traditional' marriage is now so broad that it virtually includes everything but same gender partners... That is really convincing.

traprunner · 18-05-2015 03:06PM

silverfeather wrote: »

and loves animals :P such a cool person!

Hope the No side don't find out about the animal lovers. They will use it against the Yes campaign.

endacl · 18-05-2015 03:07PM

silverfeather wrote: »

and loves animals :P such a cool person!

Probably wants to marry one.

#nocampaignslipperyslope

:mad:

traprunner · 18-05-2015 03:07PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I never suggested it was not even for a minute.

So your definition of 'traditional' marriage is now so broad that it virtually includes everything but same gender partners... That is really convincing.

SafeSurfers definition of traditional marriage changes more often than the wind.

SafeSurfer · 18-05-2015 03:08PM

floggg wrote: »

Not at all. But see we like to challenge and change these things.

You on the other hand love tradition. And traditionally, married men could rape their wife.

So if you are championing traditional marriage, that's part of the package.

Unless of course you think sometimes traditions should be changed and abandoned when they are unjust or immoral? That tradition for tradition's sake is not necessarily a good thing.

That abandoning traditions can be a positive thing?

Yes?

So wife raping was a tradition?

Historically wives were their husbands chattels and some abused this position. Ergo traditions are wrong. It's kind of a leap don't you think?

endacl · 18-05-2015 03:08PM

traprunner wrote: »

SafeSurfers definition of traditional marriage changes more often than the wind.

Traditional wind, or unnatural gay wind?

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

Comments