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

Hey but let me know if religious views start trumping the law, because the moment that precedent is set anyone in the Cork area is invited to the first Very High Mass of the First Irish Church of Weed.

Cuban Pete wrote: »

Y'know what'd be just great? If we could have a thread on the same-sex marriage referendum that's actually about the ****ing referendum. Not bestiality, not paedophilia, not cakes or incest or parenting, religious institutions or the sanctity of democracy being undermined by *gasp* people campaigning, oh my!

Is that really so much to ask? To just stick to the actual bloody topic?

Agreed!

Shall we reboot it

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

Discuss....

gandalf wrote: »

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



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

Iona and other Catholic organisations are primarily behind the religious no vote here. Not orthodox Jews or evangelical Protestants (who do take the OT seriously). In Catholicism religious teachings come directly from the clergy, not the Bible - the only relevant bits are the gospels.

By all means criticise religion, just get your facts correct first. The Book of Leviticus is about as responsible for the No groups position as the Koran.

MessiHutz wrote: »

But some(not the stupid ones) of them issues are relevant (rightly or wrongly) to whether people vote yes or no so no point burying your head in the sand

The legal process in a different country is not relevant even remotely.

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.

There is the thing about surrogacy that been batted to and fro here (incl denials of a link to marriage by me) that it's all about marriage rights. I thought about it over lunch and I realized that no one had mentioned the chance that unmarried heterosexual couples probably have accessed surrogacy and AHR to enable them to have children.

If unmarried heterosexual couples use it, then surrogacy has no ABSOLUTE link when it comes to marriage at all, despite all the red herring tales being told about it. It was never the legal prerogative of heterosexual married couples at all. Seeing as there are no laws down here restricting who can avail of it, that seem's to be the definitive de facto case.

MessiHutz wrote: »

Yeah good man lower it down to just a cake that's a great argument, obviously there is more to it than a cake. I take it you're not just voting yes based on a ring on a finger?

If you still stand by that point, then I expect you to speak up in support when I claim that human sacrifice should be allowed, since it is part of a religion.

VG31 wrote: »

I saw a poster today reading God Says No! (and some Bible chapter reference) and Nature says No!
First poster I've seen that doesn't reference adoption/surrogacy etc.

Many people genuinely don't get that this is civil marriage and is seperate completely from religious marriage.

RollieFingers wrote: »

Yous would wanna hope this weather clears up by Friday or nobody will head out to vote

You just couldn't call it at this stage. It is encouraging though to see so many new people registering to vote. Whatever the outcome a high vote turnout is a good thing.

CaveCanem wrote: »

Because surrogacy on demand exploits vulnerable women, making their bodies and wombs available for hire, even though it may cause physical and mental distress.

That's true but there are laws to protect against stuff like that. If you have an issue with surogacy then change the laws.

Did you know what the adoption laws are like in Ireland? Lets sayt I want to adopt a child. In Ireland or say Vietnam.

In Ireland it costs about 40k for the process. You have to go through years of tests. You have to prove that you can support the child. This normally involves owning a house since they value consistency. You have to prove you have a support network of friends and family nearby. It takes years of processes to get an adoption.

And even if you decide to adopt from a poorer country where there are more orphans like vietnam, you have to go through the same tests in Ireland for the adoption to be legal there.

If you have an issue with women being taken advantage of due to surrogacy, then the laws need to be strengthened. Make sue that there is a fix price that can only be waved in case of friends or family being the surrogate (To stop baby farms abroad).

Make sure the surrogate undergoes scrutiny as well as the prospective parents.

None of this has any thing to do with gay marriage. The issues that potentially affect surrogacy for gay people are the same as the ones that affect straight people. These are simple enough to iron out with separate legislation.

But to claim it's a gay marriage issue when straight people have been doing it for decades is a straw man argument.

I wonder how many "No" supporters have received direct, personal, hate mail which blamed them for contracting cancer and called them ugly and stupid.

I'm willing to wager, none.