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

Grayson wrote: »

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".

We are actually changing the section on the family, and families in the constitution have the right to beget children.

Now, clearly if a husband moves to Australia and his wife lives here, they have no right to claim the state must fly him back so they can get pregnant. That is not supported by law.

However, say Tipperary Co. Council spilled a trailer of 'Compound X' into the water supply by accident and its only side effect is to make women infertile, then the married people of Tipperary could claim that the state has unjustly removed their capacity and right to have children. They may win a case to be compensated for that, above and beyond what single people would get.

This is the crux of the issue, the courts have said the state does not have to facilitate the right to have children, but we don't know and it seems unlikely that they can make a ruling that inherently prevents a whole class of families from ever having children (gay married men if surrogacy is banned or restricted).

This is the argument. This is why we are talking about it.

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.

Still nothing I see. You obviously don't like people answering your questions.

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.

molloyjh wrote: »

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.

circadian wrote: »

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.

I have already done so and been pilloried for doing so more than once.

molloyjh wrote: »

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.

Yeah, consanguinity is always a tough one because the dynamic of families isn't simple. If you ban a woman from marrying (for example), her uncle, there are massive ranges that that relationship can take. An uncle could be a man 50 years her senior that has lived in the same house as her every day for her entire life. Or he could be a man five years her junior that she never even met until they were in their 20s.

Any road, the distinction really is in the creation of a family and its benefit to the state. Allowing the union of two people who are already part of a family or extended family doesn't seem to fulfill that purpose.

While common sense would seem to indicate that it should be possible to make a special application for extended family to marry where there are exceptional circumstances, it doesn't seem like big enough an issue to build a whole process around.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I have already done so and been pilloried for doing so more than once.

I refer you back to this post. It's a genuine question. There's no point in discussing this level of detail unless we know it in detail.

molloyjh wrote: »

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.

Excellent! So, we can stop discussing surrogacy now, and get back to discussing stuff that actually relates to the actual referendum we're voting on. What does everyone think?

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

I've already got three babies ordered in from China, I hope they don't ship them before the weekend though because I don't know what I'll do with them if the referendum doesn't pass!

I don't even know why I ordered them. I mean I'm a straight man, with a long term cohabiting partner. We could just make our own - but I wanted to be part of the fun.

molloyjh wrote: »

But that's surrogacy, which as I said before needs to be legislated for badly. Its still a completely separate issue though with no bearing on Fridays referendum. The State allows the right to couples to have children, it doesn't facilitate that right.

My wife and I are currently having difficulty having a family. Trust me, the State is doing literally nothing for us. And won't ever. This referendum changes nothing in that regard. It is a completely separate thing that needs to be dealt with in law in the appropriate manner. It should have absolutely no bearing on anyone's decision this week.

The reason it is a relevant and live issue is because the government had an open goal with the recent legislation to clear this up before the referendum, it would have buried the issue there and then.

However they chose not to, which suggests they feel the majority of people would not approve the referendum if they knew in advance how they intend to deal with surrogacy,or what the result will actually allow them to do. They created this doubt themselves, and if you doubt the referendum will have only positive consequences, you have to question your vote.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Which lie was it that convinced you?

No offense but Im not getting into it.

He doesn't want to get into it, he said.

Looking at the poll results on top of near 800 yes 200 no it looks as though its going to be a complete walk over. Do people on here think that will be the percentages on polling day??

loveta wrote: »

Looking at the poll results on top of near 800 yes 200 no it looks as though its going to be a complete walk over. Do people on here think that will be the percentages on polling day??

No