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

Lollipops23 · 19-05-2015 03:55PM

Lads I will honestly be ashamed of the country if this doesn't pass. It'll mean we're dumb enough to fall for the phony stories Iona have been feeding into the sphere.

Anita Blow · 19-05-2015 03:55PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Why have gender quotas on state boards and in candidate selection for elections? Its because of equality and the acknowledgement that different genders bring different strengths, viewpoints etc.

Should children be afforded the right to gender balance of parental roles?

I don't know. Lots of same sex couples make exceptional parents and lots of mothers and fathers are terrible parents who should not be allowed near kids.

I wholeheartedly support gay adoption. I have reservations about surrogacy regardless of the gender of the parents. I don't think commercial surrogacy should be allowed as there is too much potential for exploitation.

As the minister for health declared on national television last night, commercial surrogacy will be banned outright. Furthermore he, a large group of lawyers, the RefCom, Adoption Authority and Mary McAleese (who herself is a constitutional and canon lawyer) have all stated, no right to surrogacy exists within the constitution and this referendum will not change that.

Surely you can see that surrogacy is entirely irrelevant to the outcome of this referendum.

And on the gender quota point, many institutions worldwide have racial quotes also. Does this mean we should ban marriages of the same race? Should children not be afforded racial balance and the different strengths, viewpoints etc. that different races bring?

Red Alert · 19-05-2015 03:56PM

My issue is that a heterosexual marriage naturally provides parents with the opportunity to have children. A homosexual one does not, which means that if the entire meaning of the word marriage is in play then the children issue is relevant and does need to be discussed.

The Yes side hate being pinned down to specifics because their argument is an emotive one for the most part. The No side have been able to focus on this, which is actually failing on the part of the government.

They didn't publish any consultation papers on the issue, and went headlong into it to tug at heartstrings. They could have easily sidestepped this by sorting out the surrogacy and adoption rules beforehand, and publishing a combined revision to the total definition of the family (to include non-parents, parents and children). Then let people vote on the package.

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 03:58PM

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Lads I will honestly be ashamed of the country if this doesn't pass. It'll mean we're dumb enough to fall for the phony stories Iona have been feeding into the sphere.

We were dumb enough to fall for Declan Ganley and his Libertas crew. This is just more of the same.

SireOfSeth · 19-05-2015 03:58PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

Go on then don't just leave me with that cliffhanger what's your point.

So far research seems to point to (unsurprisingly) there being no difference between children having heterosexual or homosexual parents. Once the home is a loving, caring environment... children flourish. You should be able to find these studies yourself.

Honestly, I'd prefer to get back on topic... that is, discussing the referendum.

MessiHutz · 19-05-2015 03:58PM

molloyjh wrote: »

So what is it on? Adoption/surrogacy/parenting. Because that's irrelevant. The NI bakery case? Because that's irrelevant. The actions of a view Yes voters who are acting the eejit? Because that too is irrelevant and not limited to the Yes side.

So if it's not any of those and it's not religion, then what is it? Unless of course it is one of those and you are voting on Friday for reasons unrelated to what you are voting on.

I am not 100% sure I will vote no because I do think it will upset gay people if it was a No vote and I'd feel guilty if that was the case but the Bakery case went against religious freedom and in my opinion that is happening down here during this campaign as well. That's my point to the other person looking for it as well.

gandalf · 19-05-2015 03:58PM

You know the basis for the religious no vote people is the fact that it states in the bible that a man cannot lie with a man. This comes from the Book of Leviticus in the bible. Here are a list of 76 things that are banned in this book.

They are taken from http://leviticusbans.tumblr.com/post/23730370413/76-things-banned-in-leviticus

1. Burning any yeast or honey in offerings to God (2:11)
2. Failing to include salt in offerings to God (2:13)
3. Eating fat (3:17)
4. Eating blood (3:17)
5. Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve witnessed (5:1)
6. Failing to testify against any wrongdoing you’ve been told about (5:1)
7. Touching an unclean animal (5:2)
8. Carelessly making an oath (5:4)
9. Deceiving a neighbour about something trusted to them (6:2)
10. Finding lost property and lying about it (6:3)
11. Bringing unauthorised fire before God (10:1)
12. Letting your hair become unkempt (10:6)
13. Tearing your clothes (10:6)
14. Drinking alcohol in holy places (bit of a problem for Catholics, this ‘un) (10:9)
15. Eating an animal which doesn’t both chew cud and has a divided hoof (cf: camel, rabbit, pig) (11:4-7)
16. Touching the carcass of any of the above (problems here for rugby) (11:8)
17. Eating – or touching the carcass of – any seafood without fins or scales (11:10-12)
18. Eating – or touching the carcass of - eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (11:13-19)
19. Eating – or touching the carcass of – flying insects with four legs, unless those legs are jointed (11:20-22)
20. Eating any animal which walks on all four and has paws (good news for cats) (11:27)
21. Eating – or touching the carcass of – the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink and the chameleon (11:29)
22. Eating – or touching the carcass of – any creature which crawls on many legs, or its belly (11:41-42)
23. Going to church within 33 days after giving birth to a boy (12:4)
24. Going to church within 66 days after giving birth to a girl (12:5)
25. Having sex with your mother (18:7)
26. Having sex with your father’s wife (18:8)
27. Having sex with your sister (18:9)
28. Having sex with your granddaughter (18:10)
29. Having sex with your half-sister (18:11)
30. Having sex with your biological aunt (18:12-13)
31. Having sex with your uncle’s wife (18:14)
32. Having sex with your daughter-in-law (18:15)
33. Having sex with your sister-in-law (18:16)
34. Having sex with a woman and also having sex with her daughter or granddaughter (bad news for Alan Clark) (18:17)
35. Marrying your wife’s sister while your wife still lives (18:18)
36. Having sex with a woman during her period (18:19)
37. Having sex with your neighbour’s wife (18:20)
38. Giving your children to be sacrificed to Molek (18:21)
39. Having sex with a man “as one does with a woman” (18:22)
40. Having sex with an animal (18:23)
41. Making idols or “metal gods” (19:4)
42. Reaping to the very edges of a field (19:9)
43. Picking up grapes that have fallen in your vineyard (19:10)
44. Stealing (19:11)
45. Lying (19:11)
46. Swearing falsely on God’s name (19:12)
47. Defrauding your neighbour (19:13)
48. Holding back the wages of an employee overnight (not well observed these days) (19:13)
49. Cursing the deaf or abusing the blind (19:14)
50. Perverting justice, showing partiality to either the poor or the rich (19:15)
51. Spreading slander (19:16)
52. Doing anything to endanger a neighbour’s life (19:16)
53. Seeking revenge or bearing a grudge (19:18)
54. Mixing fabrics in clothing (19:19)
55. Cross-breeding animals (19:19)
56. Planting different seeds in the same field (19:19)
57. Sleeping with another man’s slave (19:20)
58. Eating fruit from a tree within four years of planting it (19:23)
59. Practising divination or seeking omens (tut, tut astrology) (19:26)
60. Trimming your beard (19:27)
61. Cutting your hair at the sides (19:27)
62. Getting tattoos (19:28)
63. Making your daughter prostitute herself (19:29)
64. Turning to mediums or spiritualists (19:31)
65. Not standing in the presence of the elderly (19:32)
66. Mistreating foreigners – “the foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born” (19:33-34)
67. Using dishonest weights and scales (19:35-36)
68. Cursing your father or mother (punishable by death) (20:9)
69. Marrying a prostitute, divorcee or widow if you are a priest (21:7,13)
70. Entering a place where there’s a dead body as a priest (21:11)
71. Slaughtering a cow/sheep and its young on the same day (22:28)
72. Working on the Sabbath (23:3)
73. Blasphemy (punishable by stoning to death) (24:14)
74. Inflicting an injury; killing someone else’s animal; killing a person must be punished in kind (24:17-22)
75. Selling land permanently (25:23)
76. Selling an Israelite as a slave (foreigners are fine) (25:42)

I have a feeling that quite a few people on the no side are breaking quite a number of those "rules". Hmmmmm...

SafeSurfer · 19-05-2015 03:59PM

I visited Robben Island, where Nelson Mandela was imprisoned while on honeymoon.
I learned that the island used to be a leper colony before it was a prison. The lepers were cared for by an order of Irish nuns.

When AIDS first came to the fore in the 1980s the disease was shrouded in fear and ignorance. Individuals dying from AIDS were often abandoned by their partners, their friends, even their family. In many cases it was dedicated members of religious orders, notably the Sisters of Charity who cared for these people in their dying days.

How would these deeply religious and devoted people vote on Friday? I find it hard to believe that they would vote to exclude, vote to deny.
They would be generous, they would be caring, they would be inclusive.
I don't want to use my vote on Friday to deny people a right that I am afforded simply by the gender of the person I love.

I have thought long and hard about it. I have thrown a few red herrings into the debate. I think, I have called some posters on their misinformation, on both sides. I think some of the tone of debate has been counterproductive.
I am happy now to vote yes on Friday.

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 04:00PM

Red Alert wrote: »

My issue is that a heterosexual marriage naturally provides parents with the opportunity to have children. A homosexual one does not, which means that if the entire meaning of the word marriage is in play then the children issue is relevant and does need to be discussed.

The Yes side hate being pinned down to specifics because their argument is an emotive one for the most part. The No side have been able to focus on this, which is actually failing on the part of the government.

They didn't publish any consultation papers on the issue, and went headlong into it to tug at heartstrings. They could have easily sidestepped this by sorting out the surrogacy and adoption rules beforehand, and publishing a combined revision to the total definition of the family (to include non-parents, parents and children). Then let people vote on the package.

Marriage and procreation are not the same thing.

This referendum has nothing to do with children (other than ensuring children with same sex parents are as protected as all other children) , the ability to have children, the access to adoption or surrogacy.

Please, please, please can we move on from this straw man. It's lies. All of it.

Anita Blow · 19-05-2015 04:00PM

Red Alert wrote: »

My issue is that a heterosexual marriage naturally provides parents with the opportunity to have children. A homosexual one does not, which means that if the entire meaning of the word marriage is in play then the children issue is relevant and does need to be discussed.

The Yes side hate being pinned down to specifics because their argument is an emotive one for the most part. The No side have been able to focus on this, which is actually failing on the part of the government.

They didn't publish any consultation papers on the issue, and went headlong into it to tug at heartstrings. They could have easily sidestepped this by sorting out the surrogacy and adoption rules beforehand, and publishing a combined revision to the total definition of the family (to include non-parents, parents and children). Then let people vote on the package.

A marriage doesn't provide parents with the opportunity to have children. They can do so regardless. In the constitutional definition (which we are voting to change), a family does not need children to be considered a family. The supreme court ruled in Murray V Ireland 1985 that "A married couple without children can properly be described as a ‘unit group’ of society such as is referred to in Article 41 and the lifelong relationship to which each married person is committed is certainly a ‘moral institution’.".
No mention of gender in that definition and no requirement for kids.

Red Alert · 19-05-2015 04:00PM

There is no right to surrogacy, but surrogacy is not explicitly banned. They also should have had the foresight to see that the children issue would be a lightning rod, and decide on the legal statements around children in gay marriages. Then let the people vote on it, knowing all the information. What's tempting a lot of people to vote "No" is this very fuzzy lack of information. The Yes side's sanctimonious and emotionally pointed campaign is having the same effect as well.

SireOfSeth · 19-05-2015 04:02PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

I am not 100% sure I will vote no because I do think it will upset gay people if it was a No vote and I'd feel guilty if that was the case but the Bakery case went against religious freedom and in my opinion that is happening down here during this campaign as well. That's my point to the other person looking for it as well.

Again... it wasn't against religious freedoms. At best, it was against bakers freedoms. The bakery is not a religious organisation. Religious organisations are allowed to discriminate, companies are not.

MessiHutz · 19-05-2015 04:02PM

I think most religious people base their opinion on marriage from how it is talked about in Romans rather than Leviticus

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 04:04PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

I am not 100% sure I will vote no because I do think it will upset gay people if it was a No vote and I'd feel guilty if that was the case but the Bakery case went against religious freedom and in my opinion that is happening down here during this campaign as well. That's my point to the other person looking for it as well.

But religious freedom in that case would enable me to have slaves. Don't you see how daft that is?

Religious freedom does not allow people to look down upon and discriminate against others. And it is right that this is the case. There are certain hard line Muslims who feel that women shouldn't have the same rights as men. If they treated your mother or your sister or your wife/gf like a second class citizen would you tell them to accept it because it is their right under religious freedom to do it?

Ghost Buster · 19-05-2015 04:05PM

The_Minister wrote: »

Lad on my Facebook just put up a 'sorry, I've thought about it a lot, I'm voting No because of my faith, no hard feelings' post and is getting just awful, awful personal abuse. Real venomous, bileful dog-pile stuff.

No matter how many prats are on my side, I'm still leaning towards a Yes, but people need to realise that that stuff isn't helpful.

Don't agree with him getting grief but its a contradiction to say you've thought about something and then give your faith as a reason. He clearly had his thinking done for him.

MessiHutz · 19-05-2015 04:05PM

SireOfSeth wrote: »

Again... it wasn't against religious freedoms. At best, it was against bakers freedoms. The bakery is not a religious organisation. Religious organisations are allowed to discriminate, companies are not.

I'm talking about their rights as individuals i don't really care about organisations because the leaders of them aren't even genuine Christians. It was 100% against their religious freedom and an absolute disgrace in my opinion.

gandalf · 19-05-2015 04:05PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

I think most religious people base their opinion on marriage from how it is talked about in Romans rather than Leviticus

Ah but Leviticus is the one that is quoted time and again?

Based on that list I am fecked cause I love rashers, black pudding, shellfish, I've cut my hair on the sides I have cursed my parents and I have blasphemed !!!

SireOfSeth · 19-05-2015 04:05PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

I think most religious people base their opinion on marriage from how it is talked about in Romans rather than Leviticus

The Muslims and Hindus might disagree with that.

Anita Blow · 19-05-2015 04:06PM

Red Alert wrote: »

There is no right to surrogacy, but surrogacy is not explicitly banned. They also should have had the foresight to see that the children issue would be a lightning rod, and decide on the legal statements around children in gay marriages. Then let the people vote on it, knowing all the information. What's tempting a lot of people to vote "No" is this very fuzzy lack of information. The Yes side's sanctimonious and emotionally pointed campaign is having the same effect as well.

I don't think people are voting no for a lack of information. It has been repeated ad nauseam by government, constitutional lawyers, irish children's charities and the independent RefCom and Adoption Authorities that this referendum has no impact on these peripheral issues. A group of lawyers advocating a yes even released a comprehensive document explaining the implications (or lack thereof) of a Yes vote using evidence in case law.

It's more a case that people don't want to hear.

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 04:06PM

Red Alert wrote: »

There is no right to surrogacy, but surrogacy is not explicitly banned. They also should have had the foresight to see that the children issue would be a lightning rod, and decide on the legal statements around children in gay marriages. Then let the people vote on it, knowing all the information. What's tempting a lot of people to vote "No" is this very fuzzy lack of information. The Yes side's sanctimonious and emotionally pointed campaign is having the same effect as well.

We have access to all the information we need. That is how so many of us know that this children issue is a straw man. Because we informed ourselves. It is irrelevant. That you don't know that is a failing on your part, nobody else's. There is absolutely no excuse in the modern digital age for being ignorant of the facts.

Bannasidhe · 19-05-2015 04:07PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

I am not 100% sure I will vote no because I do think it will upset gay people if it was a No vote and I'd feel guilty if that was the case but the Bakery case went against religious freedom and in my opinion that is happening down here during this campaign as well. That's my point to the other person looking for it as well.

sigh... the bakery in Belfast?

There is no 'religious freedom' in for profit organisations (only in for Prophet ones

) That's the law up there in the different country where the bakery is situated and down here in this country where the referendum is taking place. A law that wasn't written by gay people for gay people by the way.

Gay people will not be 'upset' Gay people will be devastated that their countrymen and women do not see then as deserving the same rights and protections as not Gay people.

Ghost Buster · 19-05-2015 04:07PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

I think most religious people base their opinion on marriage from how it is talked about in Romans rather than Leviticus

I think most religious people wouldn't know Romans or Leviticus if it bit them

MessiHutz · 19-05-2015 04:07PM

SireOfSeth wrote: »

The Muslims and Hindus might disagree with that.

Sorry yeah Christians, who are way more relevant to this referendum to be fair.

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 04:08PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

I think most religious people wouldn't know Romans or Leviticus if it bit them

What did the Romans ever do for us?

SireOfSeth · 19-05-2015 04:08PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

I'm talking about their rights as individuals i don't really care about organisations because the leaders of them aren't even genuine Christians. It was 100% against their religious freedom and an absolute disgrace in my opinion.

But it was against the law. They can't have slaves either (regardless of their religious freedoms). Their religious freedoms can't trump the law.

gandalf · 19-05-2015 04:09PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

Sorry yeah Christians, who are way more relevant to this referendum to be fair.

So Muslims and Hindu's are irrelevant then? So it's not just the gay minority you want to exclude

SireOfSeth · 19-05-2015 04:09PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

Sorry yeah Christians, who are way more relevant to this referendum to be fair.

To be fair, I think it's gay couples that are way more relevant to this referendum.

Bannasidhe · 19-05-2015 04:10PM

molloyjh wrote: »

What did the Romans ever do for us?

Left some coins in Newgrange but apart from that feck all.

Vivisectus · 19-05-2015 04:12PM

MessiHutz wrote: »

I'm talking about their rights as individuals i don't really care about organisations because the leaders of them aren't even genuine Christians. It was 100% against their religious freedom and an absolute disgrace in my opinion.

The problem is that it is against the law to discriminate based on sexuality as a business: just like here in Ireland, a public for-profit company is not allowed to refuse access to services to a person based on their sexuality.

That will remain the case whether we vote yes or no.

If we set a precedent where religious views trump the law of the land, then someone could simply start the international church of murder.

LookingFor · 19-05-2015 04:14PM

Red Alert wrote: »

My issue is that a heterosexual marriage naturally provides parents with the opportunity to have children. A homosexual one does not, which means that if the entire meaning of the word marriage is in play then the children issue is relevant and does need to be discussed.

Heterosexual marriages do not inherently carry this property.

The constitution does not require the desire or ability to procreate in order to rubber stamp a marriage.

With regard to procreation, the constitution and law already admits couples no different to gay couples.

This isn't an emotive argument, nor is it a complex one. Saying 'it's about love and equal opportunity' does boil it down to this, even if it's indirect, but perhaps the simplicity of that is just a bit too simple for some. But it is how it is. The constitution requires no more - in spirit or otherwise - of two people but of them to choose each other, and to be otherwise in harmony with the law wrt age, etc. There and then they become a family. Kids can be added, but it's an additional type of family under that one umbrella rather than the exclusive kind.

(Coming at it from another angle, marriage is also not a gate keeper to parenthood.

On one had, the question of whether gay people can be parents 'naturally' - and thus whether they should be precluded from marriage - is irrelevant, given the existing classes of couples that are admitted to marriage.

On the other hand the question of whether gay people should be parents is irrelevant because it's not held in the balance by their access to marriage.

The only relevance to children here - lgbt kids aside - is whether the children who are raised by same sex parents are a part of families who have or should have the same opportunity in the law for status and protection, or not.)

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

Comments