Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

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

1157158160162163327

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,866 ✭✭✭Fat Christy


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Well imagine if I did a post saying a Yes voter is imposing their vote on me. When a person is at the polling station with their pencil, it is not about what anyone else believes or wants, it is about what the voter wants, no reason has to be given, and if you did on the ballot paper it would likely be cast aside as spoiled.

    I don't believe in conforming, voting in a referendum is about what the individual believes, not about what someone else wants.
    Then when the ballot papers are counted, the result whatever way it falls should be respected.

    When you say 'who am you to decide', we are being asked to decide and if someone doesn't support it, then No, if someone support it then Yes. As a citizen we have this right to say Yes or No.
    That is who I am and who every citizen who is registered to vote can do, and it is a right that lets society decide, there is your justice. The judgement is from the people as a collective, whether there is or is not support for same sex marriage.

    As efb has already stated, did we get to vote on legalising heterosexual marriage?

    Justice, yeah right.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,775 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    efb wrote: »
    Did I get a vote on your right to marry?

    For what is in the constitution, you are like me no doubt, way too young to have voted for the constitution which included marriage.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,775 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    As efb has already stated, did we get to vote on legalising heterosexual marriage?

    Justice, yeah right.

    The older generation did when they voted to approve the constitution.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,398 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    kevin12345 wrote: »
    Just looking at the Fine Gael Facebook page and the amount of people saying they are voting no is ridiculous, don't get me started on their reasoning.

    It's actually astonishing how misinformed people are about this debate, they are believing the lies and the soundbites that the Iona institute and the ilk are spreading.

    This 'think of the children' thing is so infuriating to read. Why aren't these people concerned about the children already suffering in Ireland , the ones ringing childline every single day about the abuse, bullying etc. that they are enduring (shock horror - some even occurring in homes with a mother AND a father)? Why aren't they campaigning for these organisations to receive more funding or something? It irritates me so much that these people are coming out saying that they are voting no to protect children when all they are doing is harming the many, many gay young people out there struggling with self-acceptance who have to listen to this vitriol being spouted about them. The entire No campaign makes me sick to my stomach.
    Maybe they are happy for funds which could be spent funding the organisations you mention are being spent on a referendum on 2 issues that few would see as a priority in Ireland right now.

    Where was the yes side clamouring for extra support for child services, for care for the homeless?

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,866 ✭✭✭Fat Christy


    RobertKK wrote: »
    The older generation did when they voted to approve the constitution.

    Marriage between a man and a woman. It was already accepted as a given.

    How would you feel if homosexual marriage was already legal and we were voting on the legalisation of heterosexual marriage on Friday? Imagine not being able to marry the person you love.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,866 ✭✭✭Fat Christy


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Maybe they are happy for funds which could be spent funding the organisations you mention are being spent on a referendum on 2 issues that few would see as a priority in Ireland right now.

    Where was the yes side clamouring for extra support for child services, for care for the homeless?

    This isn't about child services or care for the homeless. This is about marriage.

    The yes side aren't the ones going out and telling people to 'think of the children'. It is the no side that is bringing children into this. It's a referendum about marriage ffs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    RobertKK wrote: »
    For what is in the constitution, you are like me no doubt, way too young to have voted for the constitution which included marriage.

    thats a no then.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,775 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    I was referring to Iona in that post! What children's charity do they do? Or any charity for that matter? Given their charitable status and all!

    Contact them and find out, but they are a Catholic organisation and would therefore support the work done by the church and the various charities associated with the church.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    If the constitution as it stands is creating a barrier to equality, then it needs to be rewritten. This referendum is the most ridiculous thing I have ever known people to be asked to vote about. Why should a person who is not affected either way, be asked to give their consent for a minority group being treated as equal citizens?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,775 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    efb wrote: »
    thats a no then.

    Yes a no, it is an age dependent question, simply due to it being in the constitution and it was voted on them as part of the constitution.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    I never have to see those shyte iona youtube ads again! Firefox ftw!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,892 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    This isn't about child services or care for the homeless. This is about marriage.

    The yes side aren't the ones going out and telling people to 'think of the children'. It is the no side that is bringing children into this. It's a referendum about marriage ffs.

    Correct it's a referendum about marriage, but if there is the possibility of that referendum affecting other aspects of life ( like people who marry and have children ) then it becomes more than a yes/no on marriage question.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,892 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Does a YES vote have an effect on this legislation?

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0021/print.html
    33.— (1) (a) The Authority shall not make an adoption order, or recognise an intercountry adoption effected outside the State, unless—


    (i) the applicants are a married couple who are living together,


    (ii) the applicant is the mother or father or a relative of the child, or


    (iii) the applicant, notwithstanding that he or she does not fall within subparagraph (ii), satisfies the Authority that, in the particular circumstances, the adoption is desirable and in the best interests of the child.


    If it does then all the YES campaigns statements of " It's not about adoption " are false, because it directly affects paragraph (i)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,086 ✭✭✭TheBeardedLady


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Does a YES vote have an effect on this legislation?

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0021/print.html




    If it does then all the YES campaigns statements of " It's not about adoption " are false, because it directly affects paragraph (i)


    Ye see, not to be mean or anything but there's an incredible amount of ignorance on the NO side ("I assume this is about getting married in a church - why would you want to get married somewhere you're not welcome?", "marriage has always been between a man and woman"and the above to give just a sample). I'm tired and cranky and didn't sleep but it looks like there's tons of NO voters who haven't a clue what they're voting on this Friday - frightening.


    For the millionth time, this is not what the referendum is about on Friday. The law on adoption has already been changed - gay couples can already apply to adopt. This was changed on April of this year:
    "On 6 April 2015, the Children and Family Relationships Bill 2015 was signed into law, amending (among other acts) the Adoption Act 2010, to enable same-sex couples to jointly adopt children and step-children."


    This is what will be voted for on Friday:
    "Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex."

    And these are the changes to the constitution that it will bring about:
    • Two people of the opposite sex or of the same sex will be able to marry each other.
    • The other detailed rules about who may marry will continue to be set out in legislation.
    • The Constitutional status of marriage will remain unchanged.
    • A marriage between two people of the same sex will have the same status under the Constitution as a marriage between a man and a woman.
    • Married couples of the opposite sex or of the same sex will be recognised as a family and be entitled to the Constitutional protection for families.

    This referendum has nothing at all to do with adoption and this has been discussed ad nauseum in the papers and on this thread. Inform yourself before you vote PLEASE.

    The referendum on Friday does NOT amend adoption laws because they've already been amended. This referendum is solely about the above.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 259 ✭✭HIB


    Ye see, not to be mean or anything but there's an incredible amount of ignorance on the NO side ("I assume this is about getting married in a church - why would you want to get married somewhere you're not welcome?", "marriage has always been between a man and woman"and the above to give just a sample). I'm tired and cranky and didn't sleep but it looks like there's tons of NO voters who haven't a clue what they're voting on this Friday - frightening.


    For the millionth time, this is not what the referendum is about on Friday. The law on adoption has already been changed - gay couples can already apply to adopt. This was changed on April of this year.

    This is what will be voted for on Friday:



    And these are the changes to the constitution that it will bring about:



    This referendum has nothing at all to do with adoption and this has been discussed ad nauseum in the papers and on this thread. Inform yourself before you vote PLEASE.

    The referendum on Friday does NOT amend adoption laws because they've already been amended. This referendum is solely about the above.

    You've completely failed to answer spooks question.
    His point looks valid to me. If you're going to call him ignorant, at least answer his question first!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 259 ✭✭HIB


    Marriage between a man and a woman. It was already accepted as a given.

    How would you feel if homosexual marriage was already legal and we were voting on the legalisation of heterosexual marriage on Friday? Imagine not being able to marry the person you love.

    If I could make them my civil partner, I couldn't care less. That would let me claim their tax credits.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 11,622 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hammer Archer


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Does a YES vote have an effect on this legislation?

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0021/print.html




    If it does then all the YES campaigns statements of " It's not about adoption " are false, because it directly affects paragraph (i)
    Intercountry adoption has already been dealt with by the C&FR Act.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭jooksavage


    HIB wrote: »
    If I could make them my civil partner, I couldn't care less. That would let me claim their tax credits.

    Jesus what a romantic. Well you're 1 in a 1000 then.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    HIB wrote: »
    You've completely failed to answer spooks question.
    His point looks valid to me. If you're going to call him ignorant, at least answer his question first!

    Em, yes, TheBeardedLady did.
    Ye see, not to be mean or anything but there's an incredible amount of ignorance on the NO side ("I assume this is about getting married in a church - why would you want to get married somewhere you're not welcome?", "marriage has always been between a man and woman"and the above to give just a sample). I'm tired and cranky and didn't sleep but it looks like there's tons of NO voters who haven't a clue what they're voting on this Friday - frightening.


    For the millionth time, this is not what the referendum is about on Friday. The law on adoption has already been changed - gay couples can already apply to adopt. This was changed on April of this year:




    This is what will be voted for on Friday:



    And these are the changes to the constitution that it will bring about:



    This referendum has nothing at all to do with adoption and this has been discussed ad nauseum in the papers and on this thread. Inform yourself before you vote PLEASE.

    The referendum on Friday does NOT amend adoption laws because they've already been amended. This referendum is solely about the above.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,919 ✭✭✭ronivek


    HIB wrote: »
    You've completely failed to answer spooks question.
    His point looks valid to me. If you're going to call him ignorant, at least answer his question first!

    She did answer it. The 2015 Act amends the quoted section.

    Specifically:
    114. Section 33 of the Principal Act is amended—

    (a) in subsection (1)(a) —

    (i) by the insertion of the following subparagraphs after subparagraph (i):

    “(ia) the applicants are civil partners of each other who are living together,

    (ib) the applicants are a cohabiting couple,”,


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,086 ✭✭✭TheBeardedLady


    HIB wrote: »
    You've completely failed to answer spooks question.
    His point looks valid to me. If you're going to call him ignorant, at least answer his question first!


    I completely failed to answer it? You're going to have to explain how I completely failed to answer it when answering it is exactly what I did.

    Edit: though I acknowledge I was rude in my response and I apologise for that. Just fed up with so much misinformation flying about when it's so easily accessible.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,866 ✭✭✭Fat Christy


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Correct it's a referendum about marriage, but if there is the possibility of that referendum affecting other aspects of life ( like people who marry and have children ) then it becomes more than a yes/no on marriage question.

    Glad you agree. It's about marriage because it won't affect children. As far as I'm aware you have to be 16 to get married, so I can't see it affecting children.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    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.

    Like I already said: (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95525753&postcount=4560)

    And here we have a pretty good example - a sort of angered bafflement at actually having to support the attitude that you thought was pretty uncontroversial with rational reasons.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    Marriage between a man and a woman. It was already accepted as a given.

    How would you feel if homosexual marriage was already legal and we were voting on the legalisation of heterosexual marriage on Friday? Imagine not being able to marry the person you love.

    +1


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 305 ✭✭mylefttesticle


    late wrote: »
    Those on the yes side telling us that the marriage of a man to a man or the marriage of a women to a women can be same as marriage of a man and a women are deluded. Marriage between a man and a women is the real deal and the way nature intended. No matter how much these deluded politicians on the yes side tells us a same sex marriage is the same as a marriage between a man and a women, it is not or never can be or never will be seen equivalent, no matter how much we are been told it is.
    Also the people will have no say if the yes win, when it comes to our politicians ligistating for surrogacy, there will again be a huge campaign from the yes side looking to allow surrogacy for same sex couples as they cant produce babies themselves. I believe we should not deliberately set out to produce children to be brought up without a mother and a father. This is sure to happen down the road if we vote yes. In special circumstances some children are reared by same sex couples, but we should not deliberately set out to make this the norm. Also it will be illegal for a teacher to tell children that marriage between man and a women is the ideal. If this law comes in it will cause more confusion for little children. Please think of the children and vote NO and don't be fooled by our politicians or those on the yes side. I am not anti gay or anything like that but this is a step too far especially for children as I have said above, so I will be voting NO.


    If you are going to think of the children, then please do and think of the ones who will become adults one day and will be gay. Think of their rightful and equal place in society and how we as a mature country should be all inclusive and how we as people should not create division but unity.

    A child needs its parents to love and protect them and all that this entails and the majority of PEOPLE are able to provide this.

    Not that you can change the ethos of a religious school and how they teach but even if you could would it be such a bad thing? You cant ignore a section of society surely can you? would that not be discrimination?

    As for the NO side. They are using the old divide and conquer mantra that works so well in politics but you know deep down they are cowards surely don't you? Not one of them has the balls to come out and say what they really think of LGBT community instead they hide behind the hollow wisdom that we already have equality but if that is true then ask yourself this question? If we are all equal then what the hell is this referendum for?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    late wrote: »
    Marriage between a man and a women is the real deal and the way nature intended.

    I got as far as this and then called BS. Nature as a whole doesn't have a concept of marriage. Going by your thinking women should do what mammy bunny rabbits do. They eat their first litter. So for a woman (human) that could be 1-8 babies.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    RobertKK wrote: »
    A religious person who with their conscience votes no is conforming to their beliefs, it is known as freedom.

    Beliefs have been known to be wrong. Sure people believed the world was flat.....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    HIB wrote: »
    You've completely failed to answer spooks question.
    His point looks valid to me. If you're going to call him ignorant, at least answer his question first!

    The answer is NO.

    Happy now?

    As spooks has been told several times now.
    Apparently spooks is unable to retain the information so needs to ask over and over and over again.

    Poor spooks.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    Like him or not, Fintan O'Toole today has a concise, to-the-point reminder of how much marriage has changed in recent times in Ireland, and how poor the track record of social conservatives has been in this regard.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-marriage-was-nothing-to-be-proud-of-in-1983-1.2217299
    It is worth remembering that the things that were changed were ancient, hallowed traditions, sanctioned by time and religion and social practice. My right to rape my wife was part of common law – it had long seemed perfectly obvious and “natural” that the question of consent to sex simply didn’t arise in a marriage. (In many parts of the world, indeed, this still seems “natural”.) The idea that a wife was not a legally or economically separate person but a mere adjunct to her husband had very deep roots. Within my lifetime, even minimal changes to this idea were bitterly opposed.
    In my adult lifetime, contrary to the No campaign’s image of an unchanging institution, Irish marriage has undergone revolutionary change. Almost all of those changes were opposed by conservatives as threats to marriage. The biggest change of all, divorce, was, we were told, an apocalyptic event. After the very narrow acceptance of divorce in the 1995 referendum, the Vatican described the outcome as having fatally undermined the family, which had lost “one of its foundation stones, namely the unity and indissolubility of marriage”. This in turn threatened “the stability, the wellbeing and harmony of society”. Conservative lawyers argued, in the same terms we’ve heard in recent weeks, that divorce would completely destroy the existing constitutional protection for the family. Funny that the same people now argue that the constitutional protection for the family remains intact after all – but that of course it will now be destroyed if marriage is extended to same-sex couples.
    Irish marriage has already changed in far more fundamental ways than is now being proposed. And those changes haven’t destroyed it. They’ve purified it by rooting it, not in systematic discrimination against women, but in the love between equal people. They have transformed marriage from an instrument of domination, oppression and inequality to a free partnership of people who want to share their lives and to live in a republic that recognises the dignity of their choice. We have almost completed that wonderful, joyous transformation. There is just one more step to be taken


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 34,811 CMod ✭✭✭✭CiDeRmAn


    It's something that must be asked in the aftermath of the vote, and that's the use of posters to mislead the public, to generate fear and concerns to ensure a certain vote from a wavering voter.
    Some of the posters on the No side have been vile and disgusting, either lies or irrelevant misdirection or both, and even though the head of the referendum commission came out, in interview, and debunked them by explaining the vote and its context the No side as continued to trumpet this kind of material.
    I would hope that we can see this kind of negative campaigning eradicated in future votes.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement