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

1…168169171173174…327

Comments

  • #5102
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    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.

    All it can restrict is different rules regarding surrogacy based on sexuality, though. All problems with surrogacy that are not based on that are equally applicable to all surrogacy.

    There is no more or less capacity for exploitation of the surrogate mother if the couple can "expect" to be fertile or not, for instance.


  • #5103
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Yes, censor the no arguments. That'll work.

    Have you even looked at the Referendum Commission website?


  • #5104
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Yes, censor the no arguments. That'll work.

    Help! help! He is being repressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!


  • #5105
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Everyone knows all the no side are a bunch of neanderthal homophobes whatever there sexual orientation is, ssshhheeessh havent you been following the media at all


  • #5106
    arayess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭arayess


    galljga1 wrote: »
    Yes, the whole adoption, surrogacy nonsense is hemorrhaging votes big time. The minute they come up in conversation, they should be shot down. I saw a debate beside Stephen's Green shopping centre on BBC earlier today (not all of it). One uncountered point was that surrogacy services spiked in countries after ssm was introduced. It would have been easy to point out that surrogacy services are spiking across the world due to societal changes in general and also to ask for figures of SSM vs 'traditional' couples availing of these services and how they have changed in countries where SSM has been made available.

    it wasn't countered on the adoption front .
    Within the ranks of Yes voters are people who believe that ssm couples shouldn't be able to adopt. You need to change that opinion to progress and I don't think enough was worked in from that side.
    Shouting that "it's nothing to do with the referendum" isn't enough. The issues are whatever is being discussed.

    now marriage will give ssm couples equal footing as a straight couple in the adoption process - whereas is ssm marriage wasn't available this wouldn't have been the case. Some people are worried about that - it's a question that isn't being answered and that causes them concern.

    the Yes campaign should have anticipated this though as rarely to we have a referendum that doesn't stray into what ifs and tangential issues.
    the yes campaign was too busy with winning hearts and minds and clap happy social media campaigns, fawning over wall murals instead of the nuts and bolts on how elections/referendums are won.


  • Advertisement
  • #5107
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,435 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Yes, identify the irrelevancies, scaremongering, veiled bigotry, and downright bullsh1t in the no arguments. That'll work.
    Better.

    :)


  • #5108
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,398 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    Hyzepher wrote: »
    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

    My point is that marriage is already not a universal right. It is restricted by legislation and could be unrestricted by legislation.

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



  • #5109
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    Vivisectus wrote: »
    Help! help! He is being repressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!

    I've no issue with people disagreeing with the no side, but this thread would be a bit pointless if it was just the yes side high fiveing each other.


  • #5110
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Everyone knows all the no side are a bunch of neanderthal homophobes whatever there sexual orientation is, ssshhheeessh havent you been following the media at all

    The media haven't labelled or implied anyone is a homophobe since the members of the no side had that word banned on threat of legal action don't you remember?


  • #5111
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    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!
    Many women campaigned against universal suffrage. Many slaves fought against abolition of slavery.

    There are many reasons why a gay man would vote against it, ranging from religious belief, to confusion or ignorance of the issues, or just plain old self-loathing.

    Being gay doesn't actually mean you can't be homophobic. A small survey in the US suggested that some of the most racist cops against black people, were black cops.


  • Advertisement
  • #5112
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,892 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    My point is that marriage is already not a universal right. It is restricted by legislation and could be unrestricted by legislation.

    Agreed.

    Why do you think this is relevant to the referendum though?


  • #5113
    CaveCanem
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 150 ✭✭CaveCanem


    Vivisectus wrote: »
    All it can restrict is different rules regarding surrogacy based on sexualityI , though. All problems with surrogacy that are not based on that are equally applicable to all surrogacy.

    There is no more or less capacity for exploitation of the surrogate mother if the couple can "expect" to be fertile or not, for instance.

    The distinction is there to reduce demand which leads to exploitation and under-the-table payments where a couple and a surrogate pretend they know each other and are doing it for altruistic reasons. It is then a fallback, rather than a up-front on demand service. This reduces exploitation. There is no logical sense for a married man and woman to opt for surrogacy as a first option (unless she is a supermodel and is doing it for her career). Married men will almost have to go into the marriage assuming surrogacy is the first and only option, since adoptions are so few.


  • #5114
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    So all gays are either religious, confused, ignorant, self-loathing or homophobes? judgemental much?


  • #5115
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


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

    Beeeecause Same-sex marriage isn't legal yet...


  • #5116
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    I've no issue with people disagreeing with the no side, but this thread would be a bit pointless if it was just the yes side high fiveing each other.

    This thread is already pointless when the No side have repeatedly failed to conjure up an argument that either makes sense, isn't insulting and/or isn't riddled with lies/ignorance.


  • #5117
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Deleted User wrote: »
    So all gays are either religious, confused, ignorant, self-loathing or homophobes? judgemental much?

    What?


  • #5118
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,892 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    CaveCanem wrote: »
    The distinction is there to reduce demand which leads to exploitation and under-the-table payments where a couple and a surrogate pretend they know each other and are doing it for altruistic reasons. It is then a fallback, rather than a up-front on demand service. This reduces exploitation. There is no logical sense for a married man and woman to opt for surrogacy as a first option (unless she is a supermodel and is doing it for her career). Married men will almost have to go into the marriage assuming surrogacy is the first and only option, since adoptions are so few.
    It's just a numbers issue then?

    There is no distinction made about the likelihood of a same sex couple exploiting a vulnerable person compared to a husband and wife who, it turns out, need a surrogate, is there?


  • #5119
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,435 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    So all gays are either religious, confused, ignorant, self-loathing or homophobes? judgemental much?

    Heh?


  • #5120
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    arayess wrote: »
    Shouting that "it's nothing to do with the referendum" isn't enough. The issues are whatever is being discussed.

    now marriage will give ssm couples equal footing as a straight couple in the adoption process - whereas is ssm marriage wasn't available this wouldn't have been the case. Some people are worried about that - it's a question that isn't being answered and that causes them concern.

    That's not the case. The Adoption Authority of Ireland has already confirmed this.


  • #5121
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Vivisectus wrote: »
    Help! help! He is being repressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!

    A moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me once - bloody reenacters :mad:


  • Advertisement
  • #5122
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    seamus wrote: »
    Many women campaigned against universal suffrage. Many slaves fought against abolition of slavery.

    There are many reasons why a gay man would vote against it, ranging from religious belief, to confusion or ignorance of the issues, or just plain old self-loathing.

    Being gay doesn't actually mean you can't be homophobic. A small survey in the US suggested that some of the most racist cops against black people, were black cops.

    in reply to this


  • #5123
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    The media haven't labelled or implied anyone is a homophobe since the members of the no side had that word banned on threat of legal action don't you remember?

    Include the word there 'social' sorry


  • #5124
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,435 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    SireOfSeth wrote: »
    That's not the case. The Adoption Authority of Ireland has already confirmed this.

    So? Just because that's a fact, doesn't mean it counts.

    :rolleyes:


  • #5125
    ixoy
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 18,046 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    in reply to this
    No that's not in reply as Seamus mentioned the reasons a gay person might vote against it. He was talking about that particular group clearly, not all gay people.


  • #5126
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    And you've somehow extended a comment about all gay people againstgay marriage to gay people as a whole?

    Ok then all gay people who are opposed to gay marriage are either religious, confused, ignorant, self-loathing or homophobes? Better?


  • #5127
    CaveCanem
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 150 ✭✭CaveCanem


    osarusan wrote: »
    It's just a numbers issue then?

    There is no distinction made about the likelihood of a same sex couple exploiting a vulnerable person compared to a husband and wife who, it turns out, need a surrogate, is there?

    No, but it reduces the demand and prevents it being a commodity industry. If we can't restrict it to people who committed to each other for the rest of their lives with the hope and expectation of children but now find one of them is infertile, then it must be open for all, or for no-one.

    I am just advocating elbow room for compassionate grounds. If there is a ban on money changing hands (except reasonable expense) and it is for couples who find themselves infertile, there is little room for exploitation to flourish. It is inherently self-limiting.


  • #5128
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Or just against marriage in general, I'd imagine. But yeah, I'd say that's more accurate.

    Thats pretty sad that you think like that :(


  • #5129
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Ok then all gay people who are opposed to gay marriage are either religious, confused, ignorant, self-loathing or homophobes? Better?

    The ones actively campaigning against pretty much.

    The ones who believe it is hetero-normative are keeping out of it, at least until they became so incensed by the No Campaign that they got involved in the Yes campaign.


  • #5130
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,892 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    CaveCanem wrote: »
    No, but it reduces the demand and prevents it being a commodity industry. If we can't restrict it to people who committed to each other for the rest of their lives with the hope and expectation of children but now find one of them is infertile, then it must be open for all, or for no-one.
    Similarly, surrogacy would be off limits to any couple who married in the knowledge that they would not be able to have a child?


  • Advertisement
  • #5131
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Thats pretty sad that you think like that :(

    I know one gay man voting No for this reason. He is against marriage for all.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement