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

floggg · 18-05-2015 03:45PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

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?

It wasnt an abuse of the position (which itself was inherently wrong) - it was their legal right and entitlement.

And no, not all traditions are wrong.

But many are.

And the simple fact that something is traditional doesn't mean we shouldn't change it.

Hyzepher · 18-05-2015 03:45PM

Be interesting to hear the eurovision crowd's reaction to an Irish No vote. Last year Russia were booed for anti-gay stuff during voting.

An Irish boo would be dreadful

molloyjh · 18-05-2015 03:46PM

RollieFingers wrote: »

Guilty as charged! The attitudes of some of the Yes side have annoyed me and thus I won't be voting, I don't see what's wrong with that!

In some ways there is nothing wrong with it. It is your right. However what does this accomplish in reality? And what is the relevance of individuals actions in relation to the Constitution? Why would you want your voice not to be heard just because of a few eejits acting the eejit?

frostyjacks · 18-05-2015 03:48PM

traprunner wrote: »

So, if a man and woman have a child. He beats her and she throws him out. You are saying that they should be forced to live together for the sake of the child?

Rephrase so the first is not sexist....So, if a woman and man have a child. She beats him and he throws her out. You are saying that they should be forced to live together for the sake of the child?

Eh? I'm talking about role models. Why are you bringing domestic abuse into it? You could use your logic for arguing against all legally recognised relationships.

nokiatom · 18-05-2015 03:48PM

molloyjh wrote: »

Irrelevant to the referendum. This will not change in any way how or where kids can be raised.

but it makes me vote No. this referendum is about two consenting adults but it does not consider the implications it could have on kids. this should be a separate issue

molloyjh · 18-05-2015 03:50PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Eh? I'm talking about role models. Why are you bringing domestic abuse into it? You could use your logic for arguing against all legally recognised relationships.

The point is that a father and mother do not always mean good role models so the "traditional" family doesn't necessarily have any advantage in this regard. Never mind the fact that there are many people who grow up fine with out both /either.

Bannasidhe · 18-05-2015 03:51PM

traprunner wrote: »

So, if a man and woman have a child. He beats her and she throws him out. You are saying that they should be forced to live together for the sake of the child?

Rephrase so the first is not sexist....So, if a woman and man have a child. She beats him and he throws her out. You are saying that they should be forced to live together for the sake of the child?

Many years ago in Cork (this is a matter of public record) a married man convinced one of his 'girlfriends' to procure an abortifacient from the veterinary practice where she was employed as a receptionist and help him to surreptitiously give it to another of his girlfriends who was pregnant.
The victim survived - the fetus didn't - but her health was severely damaged. Married man and his accomplice served jail sentences.

When married man was released his wife was reluctant to 'take him back' so she got a visit from the Bishop to remind her of the vow she made, her duties and obligations as a wife and how her children needed a father... presumably the 15 (as far as we know) children he had with other women didn't need a father... or mother in some cases as they ended up in institutions.

She took him back -but only after the Bishop threatened to have her children expelled from school if she didn't.

The man in question was known as Johnny Nasty - he was the father of my uncle (by marriage).

mailforkev · 18-05-2015 03:51PM

Vivisectus wrote: »

I think a lot of the perceived militancy of the yes side comes from the shocked realization that a lot of attitudes to homosexuals that a lot of people got used to are now no longer uncontroversial.

Over the last couple of decades it has, quite rightly, become completely socially unacceptable to voice any derogatory opinion about gay people.

This referendum has unfortunately allowed a lot of people who clearly had just held back their unacceptable opinions to now once again freely voice their prejudices.

I was talking to my sister earlier who was telling me of a gay friend of hers (a women in her 30s) who was coming home quite upset each day after campaigning for the yes side due to the homophobic abuse she was getting. Abuse that she has not experienced in years.

Time moves on but unfortunately many people are unwilling to move with it. It's fairly depressing really the bigotry that so many people are now showing when they let the veneer slip a little.

gandalf · 18-05-2015 03:51PM

nokiatom wrote: »

but it makes me vote No. this referendum is about two consenting adults but it does not consider the implications it could have on kids. this should be a separate issue

But children are a separate Issue. The referendum is only about Marriage Equality.

It is about this

"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex"

BuilderPlumber · 18-05-2015 03:51PM

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.

Same here. But for every Panti, there's the equally annoying John Waters. I am voting yes too but vote with my feet about these debates: I do not watch or read any of these people.

Why are these people forced on us? Whatever way the country votes this Friday, one thing is for sure: we will see a lot more of Panti and John Waters ...

Vivisectus · 18-05-2015 03:53PM

floggg wrote: »

It wasnt an abuse of the position (which itself was inherently wrong) - it was their legal right and entitlement.

And no, not all traditions are wrong.

But many are.

And the simple fact that something is traditional doesn't mean we shouldn't change it.

Traditionally, a woman could also not own any property or make any legal decisions. She did have some rights over her Dowry, one of the purposes of which was equalizing economic power a little bit in a deeply unequal relationship.

These days, attitudes on the place of women in society have changed, so we re-defined traditional marriage to reflect those changes.

When we did so, there were a lot of complaints that we were changing something fundamental to society. People warned that this could lead to dire consequences.

VinLieger · 18-05-2015 03:53PM

nokiatom wrote: »

but it makes me vote No. this referendum is about two consenting adults but it does not consider the implications it could have on kids. this should be a separate issue

It is a separate issue that has already been dealt with through legislation, voting no won't change that no matter how much you want it to

traprunner · 18-05-2015 03:53PM

nokiatom wrote: »

but it makes me vote No. this referendum is about two consenting adults but it does not consider the implications it could have on kids. this should be a separate issue

By voting No you are not protecting kids. You are leaving them in a legal limbo where they are being raised by a same sex couple. Voting Yes will have the knock on effect of extending protection of the family to them.

This might help you:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/marriage-referendum-q-a-what-you-need-to-know-1.2212840

Q. You mentioned that a family enjoys protection under the constitution. What does that mean?
A. The family, under the constitution, is given special status and certain rights. It is described in great detail in Article 41. The particular and practical application of those rights is something that is more nebulous, and has been defined in various court cases. Essentially what it means is a married couple cannot be treated less well than an unmarried couple. That has applied in the past in certain cases in relation to taxation, in relation to social welfare and the like. A married couple have a legal status that cannot be disimproved vis a vis the unmarried couple.

Q. Does this referendum have anything to do with adoption or surrogacy?
A. This referendum is about marriage – who may marry, who may not marry. If it passed, it would have the effect that I have described. Surrogacy is not regulated by the Constitution at all. There is no proposal that it shall be regulated by the Constitution. Surrogacy at the moment is not regulated by law. It is intended to regulate it by law. That regulation will apply irrespective of whether the referendum is passed or not.
Adoption is regulated by law. At the moment, adoption is available to married persons, to single people and now, as of recently, to same-sex couples. There will be no change in that if the referendum is passed.

Q. According to the No side advocacy group ‘Mothers and Fathers Matter’, a Yes vote will change our Constitution “to mean that children do not have a right to a mother and a father”. Is there such a right?
A. No. I don’t want to get into debate with one side or the other. That’s not the function of the Referendum Commission. People, I’m sure, have good reasons to vote Yes and good reasons to vote No. But there is no right to a mother and a father. Many children don’t have a mother and a father, and there is no way that they can enforce any such supposed right.
It doesn’t exist in law.

molloyjh · 18-05-2015 03:53PM

nokiatom wrote: »

but it makes me vote No. this referendum is about two consenting adults but it does not consider the implications it could have on kids. this should be a separate issue

The impact this could have on kids is limited to ensuring more equal treatment of families with same sex parents. Nothing more. It is separate in every other way. You are voting No for reasons totally unrelated to what you are voting on.

Bannasidhe · 18-05-2015 03:54PM

RollieFingers wrote: »

Considering I haven't ripped any posters down, told anybody how they should vote nor labelled anyone as homophobes, no I don't?

Me neither and I'm a Yes voter.

I also haven't called anyone disordered or questioned the ability of a whole group of people to parent or denied anyone their right to be considered a family.

gandalf · 18-05-2015 03:54PM

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Same here. But for every Panti, there's the equally annoying John Waters. I am voting yes too but vote with my feet about these debates: I do not watch or read any of these people.

I wish I missed some of the so-called debates. I wonder how many TV's got destroyed across the country

Why are these people forced on us? Whatever way the country votes this Friday, one thing is for sure: we will see a lot more of Panti and John Waters ...

I think we should have a deathmatch between them. I'd put money on Panti winning LOL!

molloyjh · 18-05-2015 03:56PM

gandalf wrote: »

I wish I missed some of the so-called debates. I wonder how many TV's got destroyed across the country

RTE have descended into farce with the whole "balance" thing. I saw 5 minutes of one debate and haven't gone near them since. They have to give each opinion the same amount of airtime regardless of how relevant or knowledgeable the person is. An experienced family lawyer was treated the same as a student with a contrary opinion. How does that make any sense?

Bannasidhe · 18-05-2015 03:57PM

gandalf wrote: »

Has this been reported to the Gardai? I haven't seen any details about it online.

It's been reported to the Guards but the guy in question (against his mother and step-father's wishes) is reluctant to publicise it as he is doing his Uni exams and doesn't need the distraction.

road_high · 18-05-2015 03:57PM

mailforkev wrote: »

Over the last couple of decades it has, quite rightly, become completely socially unacceptable to voice any derogatory opinion about gay people.

This referendum has unfortunately allowed a lot of people who clearly had just held back their unacceptable opinions to now once again freely voice their prejudices.

I was talking to my sister earlier who was telling me of a gay friend of hers (a women in her 30s) who was coming home quite upset each day after campaigning for the yes side due to the homophobic abuse she was getting. Abuse that she has not experienced in years.

Time moves on but unfortunately many people are unwilling to move with it. It's fairly depressing really the bigotry that so many people are now showing when they let the veneer slip a little.

Im 32 years old so I grew up in a changing Ireland. I think the deep homophobia has always been there, this referendum had given it a platform under so called free speech. I'd go so far as to say it's set gay rights and equality back years in Ireland.
I shudder to think where a no votes leads us. It'll further validate the homophobic element.

floggg · 18-05-2015 03:57PM

RollieFingers wrote: »

The attitude of some of the Yes side has made my mind up for me, I won't be voting in this referendum. I think it's unfair to label all of the No side as homophobes, just as I don't think anybody would claim that all Yes voters are homosexuals. Also the ripping down of No posters etc., just because you don't agree with their views, the No side are still entitled to their opinions.

What about the abuse yes supoorters have recieved from the no side? I've hade offensive and vile things said to me while canvassing. Others have too.

What about the lies and offensive statments contained in many of the materials produced by the no side - including some suggesting we are child abusers?

What about prominent members of the no side using the threat of legal action to silence critics?

But apart from all tht, if you believed originally that a Yes was the right thing, why would you no decline to vote and punish those of us who have been out canvassing politely for weeks and months to encourage people to vote. Who have listened politely as people shouted abuse at us as we did?

People who engaged in polite debate even when those on the other side were far from polite?

Why would you refuse to vindicate my rights and those of every other lgbt person just because you disagree with the behaviour of some people associated with the Yes campaign - many of whom may not even have been straight?

I haven't pulled down any poster or silenced anybody. Why then would you not stand up for my right to marry the man I love?

Bannasidhe · 18-05-2015 04:00PM

nokiatom wrote: »

but it makes me vote No. this referendum is about two consenting adults but it does not consider the implications it could have on kids. this should be a separate issue

It is a separate issue.

A separate issue dealt with by the Children and Family Relationship Act.

VOTING NO WILL NOT STOP GAY PEOPLE HAVING CHILDREN OR ADOPTING CHILDREN - IT WILL ONLY DENY THOSE CHILDREN THE PROTECTION OF GROWING UP IN A LEGALLY RECOGNISED AND PROTECTED FAMILY.

Sometimes one just has to shout.

mailforkev · 18-05-2015 04:02PM

RollieFingers wrote: »

I'm not voting No!

You're halfway there then!

There are arseholes everywhere in life, but please don't let them put you off doing a really nice thing for some people who would really appreciate it.

floggg · 18-05-2015 04:07PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So that is your definition? So in the future marriage could mean anything. Would it not be necessary to use a new word to describe something that has become something else.

Well marriage has become something else. It was a polygamous property transaction and now it's a monogamous mutual commitment based on love and romance.

It is very much different from what it was. And yet we still call it marriage.

gandalf · 18-05-2015 04:08PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It's been reported to the Guards but the guy in question (against his mother and step-father's wishes) is reluctant to publicise it as he is doing his Uni exams and doesn't need the distraction.

I can understand that, the poor chap is already under enough pressure.

There should be some statement about it though from the Gardai.

RollieFingers · 18-05-2015 04:12PM

floggg wrote: »

What about the abuse yes supoorters have recieved from the no side? I've hade offensive and vile things said to me while canvassing. Others have too.

What about the lies and offensive statments contained in many of the materials produced by the no side - including some suggesting we are child abusers?

What about prominent members of the no side using the threat of legal action to silence critics?

But apart from all tht, if you believed originally that a Yes was the right thing, why would you no decline to vote and punish those of us who have been out canvassing politely for weeks and months to encourage people to vote. Who have listened politely as people shouted abuse at us as we did?

People who engaged in polite debate even when those on the other side were far from polite?

Why would you refuse to vindicate my rights and those of every other lgbt person just because you disagree with the behaviour of some people associated with the Yes campaign - many of whom may not even have been straight?

I haven't pulled down any poster or silenced anybody. Why then would you not stand up for my right to marry the man I love?

I never said I agreed with the attitudes of the No side either, the carry on of both sides has badly let them down in my opinion, thus I'll be abstaining!

Bridge93 · 18-05-2015 04:16PM

Only reading yesterday's paper today. I see Donegal footballer Eamon McGee has been getting hate mail for supporting the yes side.
Funny I thought it was just the yes side who apparently did this?

floggg · 18-05-2015 04:19PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

I appreciate uncles, grandfathers and cousins play their part, but there are simply no substitutes for a mother and father.

Tell that to the numerous experts and child welfare agencies who all know better than you.

ixoy · 18-05-2015 04:22PM

floggg wrote: »

Tell that to the numerous experts and child welfare agencies who all know better than you.

I assume they're all collectively being bullied by the Yes side or silenced maybe by the Gay Mafia.

BuilderPlumber · 18-05-2015 04:25PM

gandalf wrote: »

I wish I missed some of the so-called debates. I wonder how many TV's got destroyed across the country

I think we should have a deathmatch between them. I'd put money on Panti winning LOL!

The banking crisis ended me and TV debates!! Thinking back to The Frontline, it seemed to be this issue over and over and over and over and over! Now that both The Frontline and the banking crisis are gone, other issues fill the void. The debate style is the same: trashy, insulting, sensationalist and too often on. There just is way too much of these kind of programmes on and what we are seeing is not good TV overall. But is easy and cheap to make.

For the latter, it will feature in the upcoming movie set in post-referendum Ireland called Panti Waters Beyond Thunderdome!!!! 2 men enter, one man leaves!

homerjay2005 · 18-05-2015 04:33PM

molloyjh wrote: »

A lot of sense in this. I've heard people who want to vote No say they are doing it because they are old fashioned, but when questioned on the logic behind it they simply can't explain it other than to say marriage should be between a man and a woman. And if you ask why they start to get angry.

but why would ask them again, if they have already told you their answer which in this case for example is as you said, that marriage should be between a man and a woman? people should not have to explain in anymore detail and certainly to somebody who wont accept the answer they give.

if you keep pushing somebody and dont accept their answer, of course they are going to get angry. likewise, i am sure you are doing it (pushing them to explain their beliefs) because you are angry.

there is nothing bigoted about that by the way, its just that they dont happen to agree with you. and it certainly isnt homophoic either.

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

Comments