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

19-05-2015 01:14PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Nice tune, havent heard it in ages

what are the other prerequites you would impose on marriage and for what reasons?

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 19-05-2015 01:16PM

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...

Obviously, no-one can tell you what to do. But, if you married her, and she subsequently has a child, the legal presumption will be that you are the father unless you can demonstrate otherwise. So it's really just a case of whether that's a presumption that you want to be subject to.

Obviously, that concern is largely irrelevant to SSM.

You can have a vasectomy, although any responsible advisor would be slow to recommend that if you've no natural children, as people change their mind. Because in ten years time, maybe you'll meet an 18 year old that you do want to have a family with.

Bridge93 · 19-05-2015 01:16PM

gandalf wrote: »

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.

Sure wasn't Ronan Mullen the spokesman for one Archbishop named as a large protagonist in the protection of child abusers in the Murphy report?

Bannasidhe · 19-05-2015 01:19PM

endacl wrote: »

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?

You will need to take a ticket.
Bit of a queue forming I'm afraid.

19-05-2015 01:19PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Off the top of my head, I wouldn't allow marriage between people who are already family members, as it's pointless.

Not even if they love each other? If they were sterile?

endacl · 19-05-2015 01:20PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not even if they love each other? If they were sterile?

There's nothing left in that barrel you're scraping.

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 01:21PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

...if you married her, and she subsequently has a child, the legal presumption will be that you are the father unless you can demonstrate otherwise...

Eh, are you sure about that? Does the fathers name not have to be on the birth cert to be legally considered the father?

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 01:23PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Not even if they love each other? If they were sterile?

I see you conveniently didn't reply to this post. Too difficult for you was it?

molloyjh wrote: »

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.

Bannasidhe · 19-05-2015 01:23PM

molloyjh wrote: »

Eh, are you sure about that? Does the fathers name not have to be on the birth cert to be legally considered the father?

He's right.

19-05-2015 01:24PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

No. Because they're already family. It's pointless. What has sterility got to do with it?

Traditionally restrictions on marrying family members stems from genetic concerns. If its pointless then what is the point exactly in two gay people marrying?

osarusan · 19-05-2015 01:24PM

molloyjh wrote: »

Eh, are you sure about that? Does the fathers name not have to be on the birth cert to be legally considered the father?

There is a legal presumption of fatherhood based on marriage.

osarusan · 19-05-2015 01:25PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Traditionally restrictions on marrying family members stems from genetic concerns. If its pointless then what is the point exactly in two gay people marrying?

What point are you actually trying to make?

gandalf · 19-05-2015 01:26PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Traditionally restrictions on marrying family members stems from genetic concerns. If its pointless then what is the point exactly in two gay people marrying?

Why are you perpetuating with these dead end arguments.

Bannasidhe · 19-05-2015 01:27PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Traditionally restrictions on marrying family members stems from genetic concerns. If its pointless then what is the point exactly in two gay people marrying?

I'm sorry but you are arguing the slippery slope out of sequence.
We need to discuss marrying inanimate objects before we can return to incest.

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 01:27PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

He's right.

osarusan wrote: »

There is a legal presumption of fatherhood based on marriage.

Well that seems a little nuts....

19-05-2015 01:27PM

Iam asking what restrictions if any should be placed on marraige and why.

19-05-2015 01:28PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm sorry but you are arguing the slippery slope out of sequence.
We need to discuss marrying inanimate objects before we can return to incest.

pmsl

osarusan · 19-05-2015 01:29PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Iam asking what restrictions if any should be placed on marraige and why.

All you need to ask yourself is whether the restriction in place on same sex couples getting married is something you want to vote for or against.

That's the restriction this referendum will deal with.

You seems to be against restrictions in general, so I hope you're against this one too.

Are you?

endacl · 19-05-2015 01:30PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Iam asking what restrictions if any should be placed on marraige and why.

Gingers shouldn't be allowed to breed.

19-05-2015 01:31PM

endacl wrote: »

Gingers shouldn't be allowed to breed.

Or people with differently couloured eyes.

Grayson · 19-05-2015 01:31PM

RobertKK wrote: »

You see this is why the Yes side have not swept the surrogacy argument away. They think it is about the gay person, rather than it being about the child, as one is intentionally creating a child that will have no mother if it is surrogacy and no father if it is sperm donation.
One of the natural biological parents will intentionally not be in their lives, as the child is for the couple, and it is about the couple not the child that he/she(the child) will be created.

Then the argument has absolutely no place in a gay marriage referendum. If you are against surrogacy then argue against it, not against gay marriage. It shouldn't even be mentioned in the debate.

btw, if a child has a right to a parent of both sexes then shouldn't the government be supplying them. After all it's a "Right".

aloyisious · 19-05-2015 01:32PM

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 worry

SSM couples will only have the same right to APPLY to adopt as a heterosexual married couple have, and nothing more than that in Irish law. The adoption board (through it's chairman) have made that legal fact known over and over again in the past few in it's statements on the issue.

They have pointed out that it's the child's interest they have as their prime duty to safeguard, not any prospective adult's desire to adopt a child. Any adoption request is secondary, regardless of whatever gender/s the couple is/are.

The line "some people are worried about that" carries implicit overtones that children adopted by SSM couples would be at some unstated risk by being placed with SSM couples. It ignores the fact that Same Sex couples have been adopting children for years now. The only difference is that in law there is only one person listed as the parent while the child is in actual fact living (day in and day out) in a two-adult same sex home, with BOTH of the same sex adults taking care of the child.

Edit: plus the fact is that if, and when, there is an equal right of access to marriage between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples, that is one item, and it will NOT carry any overlying rights to adoption over that in the adoption laws here, which is another item altogether.

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 01:32PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Iam asking what restrictions if any should be placed on marraige and why.

Consent, for obvious reasons. This covers those who are unable to give consent for various reasons.

Age, to ensure people are not taken advantage of.

Consanguinity, in part to ensure people are not taken advantage of. It also needs to be done to technically cover off the genetic aspect of procreation with close relatives. You can ban the act itself, but it wouldn't make sense to ban the act and allow the marriage. So while banning the marriage isn't directly about banning the procreation it's just a comprehensive view of the whole thing.

Penny Tration · 19-05-2015 01:33PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Iam asking what restrictions if any should be placed on marraige and why.

Well, I guess that being able to spell the word 'marriage' should be a mandatory thing

19-05-2015 01:38PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I knew this was the road you were trying to take things down. As someone else pointed out, you might think you're being clever, but you're not.

The point in two gay people marrying is to make them a family. A brother and a sister, for example, are already a family. What is the point in making a family a family? It's redundant.

Should we be allowed many more than one then so we could make 'extra' families? Why limit it to just one? or would you restrict marriage to relations (how far out would you go with this? just immediate family members or beyond?) and to just one per person.

circadian · 19-05-2015 01:38PM

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.

First of all, from my point of view, if you aren't blood relatives then I don't see the issue.

Secondly, I don't see how a yes vote will change this in the way you state.

Thirdly, you should look it up and provide the info here to back up your absurd assertation.

19-05-2015 01:39PM

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

Well, I guess that being able to spell the word 'marriage' should be a mandatory thing

woops, didnt know I was being watched :eek:

aloyisious · 19-05-2015 01:40PM

Enjoying listening to David Quinn being interviewed by Aine on RTE News now. The interviewer is batting down all the fakes he's saying a yes vote will cause.

Penny Tration · 19-05-2015 01:41PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Should we be allowed many more than one then so we could make 'extra' families? Why limit it to just one? or would you restrict marriage to relations (how far out would you go with this? just immediate family members or beyond?) and to just one per person.

And shur, why limit it to humans?

I'll petition to marry my jack Russel tomorrow shall I?

osarusan · 19-05-2015 01:41PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Should we be allowed many more than one then so we could make 'extra' families? Why limit it to just one? or would you restrict marriage to relations (how far out would you go with this? just immediate family members or beyond?) and to just one per person.

Again, those are questions for a different time.

This time, the rederendum deals with removing the restriction on same sex couples getting married?

How do you feel about that particular restriction?

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

Comments