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

1165166168170171327

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    bjork wrote: »
    It's not. It's wondering how those that do will go about it and what is the default position the constitution will have on the issue. To ignore it would presume no gay couples will want children?

    What is the current default position for straight couples? It will be the same. No one has a right to a child. Assisted reproduction is expensive, the odds of it working are low, it's no guarantee of a child. You are worrying about nothing.


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


    Ironé wrote: »
    No it doesn't this has been refuted by the Referendum Commission. If this is what you want to believe then that is your entitlement. It is not a fact, it is not the truth.

    Legal experts, independent experts have refuted this. If you think you know more than they do then there is nothing I can say to change your mind. Your prejudice is entrenched.

    What legal experts have refuted this. This is how the law stands.

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



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    By permitting marriage of infertile people, are we effectively permitting the involvement of a third party as a default position?

    No, this is a nonsense argument because a medical condition is not the same as being homosexual


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


    Not alowed to marry more than one person I love though :(

    Not currently. Maybe someone will campaign for it in the future, and then we will debate that question on it's own merit. I fail to see what is so scary about perhaps having to consider the rights of other people as well.

    Just out of curiosity, since it is permissible to speculate about quite slim possibilities on the no side, is it also permissible to speculate equally wildly about what could follow on from a no vote?

    I could, for instance, say that once we say no to marriage equality, this could be merely the beginning. Apparently we have now created a precedent where it is OK to exclude gay people and not to treat them as equal members of our society. Next up They (TM) will be coming after civil unions: they won't even require a referendum to abolish that! If this trend would continue we could even see the re-criminalization of homosexuality!! Then we could see Them (TM) start to force sexual therapy on gay people in prisons!!! From then on, it is but a small step to Them (TM) rounding up all the gays and putting them in camps!!1!!!

    At least MY speculation has the merit that almost all of that was actually true at one point. Not the therapy, mind you.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 4,680 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hyzepher


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Yes. Marriage prohibition only relates to those of opposite sex.

    Why would you say that there are laws forbidding certain relatives from marrying?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    eviltwin wrote: »
    What is the current default position for straight couples? It will be the same. No one has a right to a child. Assisted reproduction is expensive, the odds of it working are low, it's no guarantee of a child. You are worrying about nothing.

    That is irrelevant. What about the ones that do?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Irish law, through legislation currently prohibits certain heterosexuals from marrying. For example I cannot marry my late wife's auntie. After a yes vote on Friday no laws exist to prohibit me from marrying my late wife's uncle or her father, or her brother or my brother for that matter.
    That is a fact. Check it out.

    I may have missed it but I dont think you have explained why people should care?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Irish law, through legislation currently prohibits certain heterosexuals from marrying. For example I cannot marry my late wife's auntie. After a yes vote on Friday no laws exist to prohibit me from marrying my late wife's uncle or her father, or her brother or my brother for that matter.
    That is a fact. Check it out.
    Actually after a "Yes" vote on Friday, no law will exist to allow any same-sex couple get married.

    There are a number of steps which take place after any referendum is approved, so the right to marry won't appear automatically. Aside from actually enacting the amendment, the existing legislation around marriage will be rewritten to remove the prohibition on same-sex couples.

    This will also include rules about consanguinity for all couples.

    You can see the details of the proposed legislation here:
    http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/General%20Scheme%20of%20the%20Marriage%20Bill%202015.pdf/Files/General%20Scheme%20of%20the%20Marriage%20Bill%202015.pdf

    So to say that on Saturday you'll be allowed to marry your father or your uncle is just plain incorrect.

    I would advise you read up a little on the entire legal process around referendums, it really does help in making an informed decision.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    The "Je Suis X" slogan has settled into popular culture, for some it's a support for any cause they like, for others is an ironic statement, mocking those who take themselves too seriously

    For some it is support for free speech under attack by mass murderers in Paris, for everyone else is is a sign that they don't care about free speech under attack by mass murderers in Paris, and want to hijack a meaningful slogan for some bullsh!t cause like declining gay cake business.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭Lyaiera


    I've heard gay couples are already applying for social welfare buggies to leave at the bus stop.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    bjork wrote: »
    No, this is a nonsense argument because a medical condition is not the same as being homosexual

    So you are saying a third party is okay once it's for medical reasons only?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,957 ✭✭✭Magenta


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    What legal experts have refuted this. This is how the law stands.

    "The same prohibited degrees of relationship will apply to same-sex marriages as to opposite-sex marriages."

    http://refcom2015.ie/marriage/

    Its so easy to make some people look so foolish.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Irish law, through legislation currently prohibits certain heterosexuals from marrying. For example I cannot marry my late wife's auntie. After a yes vote on Friday no laws exist to prohibit me from marrying my late wife's uncle or her father, or her brother or my brother for that matter.
    That is a fact. Check it out.
    The main provisions set out in the general scheme are:

    Being of the same sex will no longer be an impediment to marriage.
    The same prohibited degrees of relationship will apply to same-sex marriages as to opposite-sex marriages.
    There will be no new civil partnerships after the legislation comes into effect.
    Existing civil partners will continue to retain that status and the rights, privileges, obligations and liabilities associated with it unless they choose to marry.
    Existing civil partners may marry each other. Their civil partnership will be dissolved if they do marry each other.
    Religious solemnisers will not be obliged to solemnise the marriage of a couple of the same sex.
    At a marriage ceremony, the parties to a marriage will declare that they accept each other as “husband and wife” or as “spouses of each other”.
    There will be amendments to a number of Acts to replace the words “husband” and “wife” with the word “spouse”.
    A change of gender would have no effect on a marriage.

    From the Refcom Site. This is a fact. Check it out.


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


    SireOfSeth wrote: »
    No it isn't. And the Referendum Commission have already stated same. However, if you are privy to some undisclosed facts, please do disclose them.

    Can you provide me a quick link to where the Referendum Commission refutes this?

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 260 ✭✭Ironé


    bjork wrote: »
    It's not. It's wondering how those that do will go about it and what is the default position the constitution will have on the issue. To ignore it would presume no gay couples will want children?

    Surrogacy is not something that will be dealt with in the constitution - it will be enacted in legislation. The government annolunced that they will be banning commercial surrogacy in this country and that those who want to go ahead with altruistic surrogacy will still have to go through the courts.

    This is a separate issue. It is currently not legislated for. It impacts both straight and SS couples. And whether you are married or not married has absolutely no bearing on it.

    There are already SS families - you can't just conveniently forget about these people. These families deserve the same constitutional rights as other families.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Irish law, through legislation currently prohibits certain heterosexuals from marrying. For example I cannot marry my late wife's auntie. After a yes vote on Friday no laws exist to prohibit me from marrying my late wife's uncle or her father, or her brother or my brother for that matter.
    That is a fact. Check it out.

    Knock yourself out.... apart from your brother, I believe that is not allowed under some sort of direct relation clause.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭StewartGriffin


    For some it is support for free speech under attack by mass murderers in Paris, for everyone else is is a sign that they don't care about free speech under attack by mass murderers in Paris, and want to hijack a meaningful slogan for some bullsh!t cause like declining gay cake business.

    Ah, get over yourself.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Can you provide me a quick link to where the Referendum Commission refutes this?

    http://refcom2015.ie/marriage/


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Lyaiera wrote: »
    I've heard gay couples are already applying for social welfare buggies to leave at the bus stop.

    A car! They'll be given a car each!

    Only a Renault, but still! A free car!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    What changes with a gay marriage, though? Gay men and women can already involve a third party into any plans they have for childbearing.

    Yes they can but is it the default position of the constitution that a third party is involved




    eviltwin wrote: »
    So you are saying a third party is okay once it's for medical reasons only?

    So you are saying homosexuality is a medical issue? or a flaw in biology or what?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    bjork wrote: »
    That is irrelevant. What about the ones that do?

    What about them? A couple uses a donor to have a baby....so what. Why does it matter? Do you see families with donor conceived children as different to those who have biological children?


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


    Do we not have incest laws here? not that we should its a free for all apparently, but do the current incest laws cover only relatives of the opposite sex? Genuinly would like to know?

    Yes, we have incest laws. See... http://refcom2015.ie/marriage/

    "The same prohibited degrees of relationship will apply to same-sex marriages as to opposite-sex marriages."


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭Lyaiera


    A car! They'll be given a car each!

    Only a Renault, but still! A free car!

    A gay baby driving a car to the bus stop and leaving it there! This is pure madness.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    bjork wrote: »
    Yes they can but is it the default position of the constitution that a third party is involved







    So you are saying homosexuality is a medical issue? or a flaw in biology or what?

    Don't put words in my mouth Bjork. I am asking you why a third party is not okay.


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


    From the Refcom Site. This is a fact. Check it out.

    The degrees of relationship currently prohibited are set out in legislation. All the prohibited relationships are gendered, eg a man may not, a woman may not. The legislation would have to be amended to include the new possible relationships.

    Consanguinity – blood relationships
    A man may not marry his:
    • Grandmother
    • Mother
    • Father’s sister (aunt)
    • Mother’s sister (aunt)
    • Sister
    • Father’s Daughter (half sister)
    • Mother’s Daughter (half sister)
    • Daughter
    • Son’s Daughter (granddaughter)
    • Daughter’s Daughter (granddaughter)
    • Brother’s Daughter (niece)
    • Sister’s Daughter (niece)
    A woman may not marry her:
    • Grandfather
    • Father.
    • Father’s Brother (uncle)
    • Mother’s Brother (uncle)
    • Brother
    • Father’s Son (half brother)
    • Mother’s Son (half brother)
    • Son
    • Son’s Son (grandson)
    • Daughter’s Son (grandson)
    • Brother’s Son (nephew)
    • Sister’s Son (nephew)
    Affinity – relationship by marriage
    A man may not marry his:
    • Grandfather’s Wife (step-grandmother)
    • Father’s Wife (stepmother)
    • Father’s Brother’s Wife
    • Mother’s Brother’s Wife
    • Son’s Wife
    • Son’s Son’s Wife
    • Daughter’s Son’s Wife
    • Brother’s Son’s Wife
    • Sister’s Son’s Wife
    • Wife’s grandmother (grandmother-in-law)
    • Wife’s Mother (mother-in-law)
    • Wife’s Father’s Sister
    • Wife’s Mother’s Sister
    • Wife’s Daughter (stepdaughter)
    • Wife’s Son’s Daughter
    • Wife’s Daughter’s Daughter
    • Wife’s Brother’s Daughter
    • Wife’s Sister’s Daughter
    A woman may not marry her:
    • Grandmother’s Husband (step-grandfather)
    • Mother’s Husband (stepfather)
    • Father’s Sister’s Husband
    • Mother’s Sister’s Husband
    • Daughter’s Husband
    • Son’s Daughter’s Husband
    • Daughter’s Daughter’s Husband
    • Brother’s Daughter’s Husband
    • Sister’s Daughter’s Husband
    • Husband’s Grandfather (grandfather-in-law)
    • Husband’s Father (father-in-law)
    • Husband’s Father’s Brother
    • Husband’s Mother’s Brother
    • Husband’s Son (stepson)
    • Husband’s Son’s Son
    • Husband’s Daughter’s Son
    • Husband’s Brother’s Son
    • Husband’s Sister’s Son

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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Can you provide me a quick link to where the Referendum Commission refutes this?
    Here you go:
    http://refcom2015.ie/marriage/

    Under the section titled, "Proposed changes to marriage rules if referendum is passed"


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    bjork wrote: »
    That is irrelevant. What about the ones that do?

    What if they do want children? Do you think there will be more ssm couples seeking to have children because they are married as opposed to being in a civil partnership?


  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 15,255 Mod ✭✭✭✭FutureGuy


    Did anyone hear the SSM debate on Newstalk earlier?
    One of the No campaigners was absolutely all over the place in her "summing up"
    I think her name was "Birdie" but one of her reasons was that if we had SSM years ago and men were marrying men, we wouldn't be here today because it's a "sterile relationship". She stressed she wasn't homophobic but also stressed that 97% of Ireland were Christian.

    I would imagine that some of the more credible No campaigners are embarrassed by some of the No arguments.

    I was at the debate myself. Yep her name was Birdie and she was in favour of a No vote.

    I would say that the room was about 90-95% in favour of a yes vote.

    Her argument for a No vote was, quite frankly, ridiculous. I actually felt sorry for her - she was clearly deeply religous but her points were utter non-sense. Her comment that 97% of people in Ireland summed up the rest of her points - deeply inaccurate and hurtful. As predicted by more than one person, she framed her argument with "I'm not homophobic, but..."

    As a yes campaigner, I really wish the Yes side nailed the lies and inaccuracies regarding the surrogacy issue but they did not. If I had no clue about the facts and I was undecided, I would be vote no based on it.


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


    bjork wrote: »
    I suppose it goes back to the whole uncertainty of the production of children. By default same a sex couple need a third party involved to produce children.

    Technically they would need a 3rd or even a 4th.

    bjork wrote: »
    So by permitting same sex marriage, are we effectively permitting the involvement of a third party as a default position?

    No. Regardless of sexual orientation, many couples do not wish to have children. At the moment it is possible for a gay couple or a straight couple to involve a 3rd person to have children. That is not going to change.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Don't put words in my mouth Bjork. I am asking you why a third party is not okay.

    No you are comparing 2 men trying to have a child to a couple with medical issues.

    What is your point? because that is suggesting that homosexuality is a medical issue


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement