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

SireOfSeth · 19-05-2015 12:53PM

eviltwin wrote: »

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

But voting no doesn't stop marriage for all

frostyjacks · 19-05-2015 12:53PM

endacl wrote: »

Better.

Could you at least strike through my original post and then type your words after it? I believe that's the proper etiquette.

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 12:53PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

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

Are the Degrees of Consanguinity and Affinity written as a list in law though? I'm struggling to find where they are actually defined in law so I don't know. If they are defined in the manner quoted then they need to be added to. If it's set out in broader terms then it is possible that simply changing the terms "husband" and "wife" to "spouse" (as will be done) will do the trick.

19-05-2015 12:53PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Do you have any better explanations yourself?

No I dont unfortunately but I wouldent presume to make judgements about people I dont know.

CaveCanem · 19-05-2015 12:54PM

osarusan wrote: »

Similarly, surrogacy would be off limits to any couple who married in the knowledge that they would not be able to have a child?

There's no legal requirement to register infertility, how could you ever prove both knew this before marriage?

Bannasidhe · 19-05-2015 12:54PM

Deleted User wrote: »

No I dont unfortunately but I wouldent presume to make judgements about people I dont know.

Oh if only the No Campaign was like you.

jobbridge4life · 19-05-2015 12:55PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Thats pretty sad that you think like that

I think it is more sad that you think it is appropriate to deny countless thousands of people the right to marry the one they love because, including those who have never labelled anyone a homophobe such as the young gay children who are not engaged in this debate because of the actions of a few angry people.

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 12:56PM

Deleted User wrote: »

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

I'm pretty sure nobody said that. Ever.

Bannasidhe · 19-05-2015 12:56PM

CaveCanem wrote: »

There's no legal requirement to register infertility, how could you ever prove both knew this before marriage?

My sister knew she didn't have Fallopian tubes when she married.
The hospital knew too.
They removed them to save her life.

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 12:58PM

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Jesus Christ but this is awful childish nonsense.

Seamus just put forward possible reasons that a gay individual might want to vote No. It was a perfectly rational and reasonable post. Grow up.

endacl · 19-05-2015 12:58PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Could you at least strike through my original post and then type your words after it? I believe that's the proper etiquette.

You believe all sorts of crap though. There is no 'etiquette' as such.

CaveCanem · 19-05-2015 01:00PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My sister knew she didn't have Fallopian tubes when she married.
The hospital knew too.
They removed them to save her life.

But the fact remains that a man may not know this in advance of marriage, you can hardly compel this to be declared at the ceremony?

(There shouldn't have been a smiley on top of this post, finger slip!)

19-05-2015 01:01PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I think it is more sad that you think it is appropriate to deny countless thousands of people the right to marry the one they love because, including those who have never labelled anyone a homophobe such as the young gay children who are not engaged in this debate because of the actions of a few angry people.

The State already denies people the right to marry 'the one they love'. So basically if people love each other they should be allowed marry? Thats the only prerequisite?

Hyzepher · 19-05-2015 01:02PM

arayess wrote: »

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.

And why would this be an issue
Is there something wrong with gay couples raising children?

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 01:03PM

CaveCanem wrote: »

But the fact remains that a man may not know this in advance of marriage, you can hardly compel this to be declared at the ceremony?

(There shouldn't have been a smiley on top of this post, finger slip!)

I'm really confused here. What exactly is the issue?

Surrogacy is a very tricky subject regardless of the sexuality of the couple trying to become parents. That needs to be legislated for badly, again regardless of anyone's sexuality.

So what is the difference between same sex couples and heterosexual couples in relation to this?

Bannasidhe · 19-05-2015 01:04PM

CaveCanem wrote: »

But the fact remains that a man may not know this in advance of marriage, you can hardly compel this to be declared at the ceremony?

He knew.
That would be a pretty big thing to keep from the person you are about to marry no?
Is this kind of secret keeping standard practice for heterosexuals? :eek:

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 01:04PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The State already denies people the right to marry 'the one they love'. So basically if people love each other they should be allowed marry? Thats the only prerequisite?

Of course not. But then nobody has ever said that either. Being consenting adults and Degrees of Consanguinity and Affinity are important too. Nobody has ever tried to deny that. So I really don't know where you think you are going with this. Maybe you think you're being clever, but you really are not. At all.

gandalf · 19-05-2015 01:05PM

Just reminding everyone what we are actually voting on.

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

frostyjacks · 19-05-2015 01:05PM

endacl wrote: »

I apologise unreservedly.

Apology accepted.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 19-05-2015 01:05PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

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

You're quite right. While it should be quite easy to do, there is a huge reluctance in specifying what exactly the law will look like afterwards. And the Referendum Commission, in some of their statements, are trying to paper over the cracks - when they should just be saying "we don't know". Kevin Cross might be a good lawyer, but he has no mandate to tell us what the Oireachtas will subsequently enact as legislation.

I think there's a worry, on the Yes side, that specifying the technical changes will cause an emotional reaction. Because, as the Amendment says "without distinction", the list will have to be gender neutral.

So, just as a gay man will be prohibited from marrying his sister, presumably a straight man will now be specifically prohibited from marrying his brother - because we'll all be formally generally entitled to marry people of the same sex.

The lack of candour could well cost them the campaign. Which is an awful pity, as they've raised both individual and international expectations by holding the vote.

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 01:06PM

arayess wrote: »

now marriage will give ssm couples equal footing as a straight couple in the adoption process

Sorry, but how are same sex couple treated differently in the adoption process now?

Bannasidhe · 19-05-2015 01:07PM

molloyjh wrote: »

I'm really confused here. What exactly is the issue?

Surrogacy is a very tricky subject regardless of the sexuality of the couple trying to become parents. That needs to be legislated for badly, again regardless of anyone's sexuality.

So what is the difference between same sex couples and heterosexual couples in relation to this?

Well... gay people shouldn't be allowed to be parents because they will do something undefined but very bad to the children whereas all heterosexuals are fabulous parents because they can procreate together even when they can't.

endacl · 19-05-2015 01:07PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

He knew.
That would be a pretty big thing to keep from the person you are about to marry no?
Is this kind of secret keeping standard practice for heterosexuals? :eek:

My partner has two grown kids. She doesn't want any more. I don't want kids. Should we be banned from marrying?

Hypothetically? Very happily unmarried together for nine years now...

endacl · 19-05-2015 01:08PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Apology accepted.

Good man.

osarusan · 19-05-2015 01:11PM

CaveCanem wrote: »

There's no legal requirement to register infertility, how could you ever prove both knew this before marriage?

Why would both need to know - only the woman would need to know that she would not be able to have children, and therefore did not enter marriage with the reasonable expectation that she would have them.

As Bannasidhe points out, people have medical procedures which mean they won't be able to have kids.

And those people would be ineligible for surrogacy, based on the legislation you would support:

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

Having said all that, if a man married a woman expecting to have children in the marriage, and she told him she had known all along she wouldn't be able to, I don't think surrogacy would be the first thing on his mind.

Bannasidhe · 19-05-2015 01:11PM

endacl wrote: »

My partner has two grown kids. She doesn't want any more. I don't want kids. Should we be banned from marrying?

Hypothetically? Very happily unmarried together for nine years now...

Ahhhh... but theoretically you could and since this is all about theoretical children...

19-05-2015 01:12PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ahhhh... but theoretically you could and since this is all about theoretical children...

Perhaps if we could get a time machine.

endacl · 19-05-2015 01:14PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ahhhh... but theoretically you could and since this is all about theoretical children...

I might add... Her children were born out of wedlock. And she's divorced! And we've been together since before she was divorced!

Answer the question. Will we be allowed to marry gay surrogate babies?

Zubeneschamali · 19-05-2015 01:14PM

molloyjh wrote: »

So what is the difference between same sex couples and heterosexual couples in relation to this?

Bum sex.

The answer to all such questions is bum sex.

gandalf · 19-05-2015 01:14PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ahhhh... but theoretically you could and since this is all about theoretical children...

Ah the religious right in this country excel at protecting imaginary children, their track record with real ones, especially the vulnerable ones is absolutely disgraceful.

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

Comments