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

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 12:14PM

eviltwin wrote: »

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

Identical anatomies is a medical reason, no?

bjork · 19-05-2015 12:15PM

molloyjh wrote: »

So the problem is that they are gay?

True colours.....

:pac:

So what if I am? I didn't know it was a requirement of the thread to declare my sexuality.

frostyjacks · 19-05-2015 12:15PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Wow...

what away to co-opt and trivialise the senseless and brutal murders of the Charlie Hebdo victims.

What a way to overreact.

SafeSurfer · 19-05-2015 12:16PM

Ironé wrote: »

This has all been very clearly explained to you.

The problem is you do not want to believe it. You do not want to apply logic to any of this. The facts are there in front of you but you are actively choosing to ignore it. So I can only assume your position is based on an irrational belief that same sex marriage is wrong - aka prejudice.

I don't believe that same sex marriage is wrong.

I brought up the issue to highlight the fact that their are already legislative restrictions on heterosexual marriage. Prohibition on marrying my late wife's auntie for example.

The current legislation will have to be changed to extend marriage restrictions already applying to heterosexual couples to homosexual couples.

The change in the constitution will not change this of itself.

That is my point.

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 12:18PM

bjork wrote: »

:pac:

So what if I am? I didn't know it was a requirement of the thread to declare my sexuality.

???????

osarusan · 19-05-2015 12:18PM

bjork wrote: »

:pac:

So what if I am? I didn't know it was a requirement of the thread to declare my sexuality.

'They' means gay couples, not you.

You have a problem with surrogacy for them, but apparently not with heterosexual couples who cannot conceive, although the introduction of a third party would be the same.

So their sexuality seems to be the problem for you.

Penny Tration · 19-05-2015 12:19PM

I assume, based on the no voters here, that if the yes vote wins out, it'll be mail order babies and sodomy for all?

Sign me up

SafeSurfer · 19-05-2015 12:19PM

SireOfSeth wrote: »

You obviously did not read the link that was posted to you.

I did.Read the legislation and tell me it won't have to be amended.

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 12:19PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I don't believe that same sex marriage is wrong.

I brought up the issue to highlight the fact that their are already legislative restrictions on heterosexual marriage. Prohibition on marrying my late wife's auntie for example.

The current legislation will have to be changed to extend marriage restrictions already applying to heterosexual couples to homosexual couples.

The change in the constitution will not change this of itself.

That is my point.

Nor should it. The current restrictions are not in the constitution either. The constitution shouldn't be going into that level of detail. That is what the law is there for. And the law will need to be changed, obviously. But that doesn't mean the Constitutional change we're being asked to vote on should be rejected. The law can't change until the Constitution does.

So what exactly is the point of this whole conversation?

osarusan · 19-05-2015 12:20PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I don't believe that same sex marriage is wrong.

I brought up the issue to highlight the fact that their are already legislative restrictions on heterosexual marriage. Prohibition on marrying my late wife's auntie for example.

The current legislation will have to be changed to extend marriage restrictions already applying to heterosexual couples to homosexual couples.

The change in the constitution will not change this of itself.

That is my point.

I believe you mentioned earlier in the thread that you would vote Yes - might this cause you to change your mind?

eviltwin · 19-05-2015 12:20PM

molloyjh wrote: »

Identical anatomies is a medical reason, no?

Is my point really that difficult to understand?

Bjork has issues with third party conception. I simply want to know if that concern is only reserved for gay couples. Does Bjork have the same concern when straight couples use donors?

Ironé · 19-05-2015 12:20PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I don't believe that same sex marriage is wrong.

I brought up the issue to highlight the fact that their are already legislative restrictions on heterosexual marriage. Prohibition on marrying my late wife's auntie for example.

The current legislation will have to be changed to extend marriage restrictions already applying to heterosexual couples to homosexual couples.

The change in the constitution will not change this of itself.

That is my point.

Ok Let's walk you through it. Two men want to get married. First Man, we'll call him John is not allowed to marry these people:

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)

His fiancé Paul, wants to know who he can't marry, (and this is the tricky bit) he reads the same list - they are the people he cannot marry. The same restrictions apply to SS couples as heterosexual couples.

WoolyJumper · 19-05-2015 12:21PM

molloyjh wrote: »

Is this really the level of desperation you've sunk to? That just says it all really.

I've seen him post this a lot in the last week. I think he really wants to marry his wife's auntie.

Sofiztikated · 19-05-2015 12:22PM

I know the mods are wary of "silencing" the no argument, but this nonsense keeps getting trotted out, over, and over, and over, and has been shut down, over, and over, and over.

Any chance a mod wants to get involved?

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 12:22PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Is my point really that difficult to understand?

Bjork has issues with third party conception. I simply want to know if that concern is only reserved for gay couples. Does Bjork have the same concern when straight couples use donors?

He/she has already confirmed that the problem only exists for same sex couples. It would not be a problem to him/her if the couples sexuality is "right". If it isn't then they shouldn't be allowed the same things as the straight couples are.

In other words Bjork believes in segregation based on sexuality. And we all know what that ultimately is.

Vivisectus · 19-05-2015 12:23PM

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

I assume, based on the no voters here, that if the yes vote wins out, it'll be mail order babies and sodomy for all?

Sign me up

Sounds like craigslist :P

SireOfSeth · 19-05-2015 12:26PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I did.Read the legislation and tell me it won't have to be amended.

Done. It won't have to be amended.

CaveCanem · 19-05-2015 12:26PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Wouldn't you just **** your togs with excitement of the 2 men were infertile?

What if myself and my wife wanted to use a surrogate, but we are both fertile? Do I have to justify a reason to you?

Surrogacy is banned in many countries because it facilitates the trading and control of women's bodies for gain. Some countries do allow it but only on compassionate grounds, like Israel and Australia, where a married man and woman can avail of it if they prove their marriage has turned out to be infertile. A man and a man cannot prove their marriage turned out to be infertile, and they cannot expect their marriage to be fertile. So the distinction is there, there is precedent and it is defendable in my opinion, in certain circumstances that do not promote the exploitation of vulnerable women.

If surrogacy was banned altogether or if legislation permitted it only to couples who entered marriage expecting to be fertile but infertility now threatens their marriage, I would vote Yes without hesitation, despite the fact that I think putting a permanent definition of marriage as being genderless in our constitution is absurd. At the moment I am voting Yes with hesitation because surrogacy law hasn't been clarified in advance and this vote may restrict what we can allow afterwards.

frostyjacks · 19-05-2015 12:26PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I know the mods are wary of "silencing" the no argument, but this nonsense keeps getting trotted out, over, and over, and over, and has been shut down, over, and over, and over.

Any chance a mod wants to get involved?

Yes, censor the no arguments. That'll work.

Sofiztikated · 19-05-2015 12:27PM

WoolyJumper wrote: »

I've seen him post this a lot in the last week. I think he really wants to marry his wife's auntie.

Is she a bit of a goer? Or does she have a bit of cash?

traprunner · 19-05-2015 12:27PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I did.Read the legislation and tell me it won't have to be amended.

From Mr. Justice Kevin Cross head of The Referendum Commission.

Q. This question arises from a point made by the No side. Would close relatives of the same sex be allowed to marry? In other words, would the criteria be any different for same-sex marriage compared to opposite-sex marriage?A. No. The proposal is that marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex. The important words there are “in accordance with law”.
There are prohibited degrees of relationships, as they are legally defined, in relation to close relatives. They apply to married persons. They apply at the moment to civil partners as well. Clearly, a same-sex married couple would be in precisely the same position as an opposite-sex married couple.

kunst nugget · 19-05-2015 12:27PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I did.Read the legislation and tell me it won't have to be amended.

As the RefCom website states:

There will be amendments to a number of Acts to replace the words “husband” and “wife” with the word “spouse”.

SafeSurfer · 19-05-2015 12:27PM

Ironé wrote: »

Ok Let's walk you through it. Two men want to get married. First Man, we'll call him John is not allowed to marry these people:

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)

His fiancé Paul, wants to know who he can't marry, (and this is the tricky bit) he reads the same list - they are the people he cannot marry. The same restrictions apply to SS couples as heterosexual couples.

Yes. The same restrictions apply to both. But same sex relations are not included in the list.

RollieFingers · 19-05-2015 12:29PM

What do Yes voters think of some of the gay men who have come out in favour of a No vote? They could hardly be labelled as homophobes!

SireOfSeth · 19-05-2015 12:29PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Yes. The same restrictions apply to both. But same sex relations are not included in the list.

So how is this not an existing problem for civil partnerships?

osarusan · 19-05-2015 12:30PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Yes. The same restrictions apply to both. But same sex relations are not included in the list.

Can you explain what relevance you think this has to the question asked in the referendum?

I mean, do you think it is a significant issue for you, or for others?

You've mentioned it repeatedly. What point are you trying to make?

Hyzepher · 19-05-2015 12:30PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Yes. The same restrictions apply to both. But same sex relations are not included in the list.

What's the point of your argument.

Either the law already caters for it or it will be amended.

What issue do you have with either of them

traprunner · 19-05-2015 12:30PM

RollieFingers wrote: »

What do Yes voters think of some of the gay men who have come out in favour of a No vote? They could hardly be labelled as homophobes!

There are straight people against straight marriage too. :rolleyes:

traprunner · 19-05-2015 12:31PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Yes. The same restrictions apply to both. But same sex relations are not included in the list.

So a gay man is not a man?

Cuban Pete · 19-05-2015 12:32PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Yes, censor the no arguments. That'll work.

It's not an argument, it's an irrelevant point. It's basically trolling the thread; like going into a thread about cars and continually bringing up trains.

RollieFingers wrote: »

What do Yes voters think of some of the gay men who have come out in favour of a No vote? They could hardly be labelled as homophobes!

They could if their reasons for doing so are homophobic.

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

Comments