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

frostyjacks · 19-05-2015 05:47PM

traprunner wrote: »

Please someone. Just one valid reason! It's such a black and white issue.

It's up to the people looking to change the constitution to make their case, not the other way round. Just because you don't agree with the No arguments, doesn't make them invalid.

jobbridge4life · 19-05-2015 05:48PM

HIB wrote: »

Is this one?

Surrogacy has not yet been legislated for. If the lawmakers want to deny homosexual couples the right to adopt through surrogacy, then under the current constituition, one way to do this is to state that only married couples can adopt through surrogacy. If we vote yes, it would be impossible to deny homosexual couples equal treatment to heterosexual couples in relation to surrogacy.

And before everyone jumps down my throat, I actually am not against surrogate adoption by gay couples.

But if you are against it, then shouldn't you be voting no?

The argument fails because the bolded above is completely unsubstantiated. There is no right to surrogacy under the Constitution and this referendum cannot change that.

gandalf · 19-05-2015 05:48PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's up to the people looking to change the constitution to make their case, not the other way round. Just because you don't agree with the No arguments, doesn't make them invalid.

It does if they have nothing to do with what the referendum is about.

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 05:48PM

HIB wrote: »

Is this one?

Surrogacy has not yet been legislated for. If the lawmakers want to deny homosexual couples the right to adopt through surrogacy, then under the current constituition, one way to do this is to state that only married couples can adopt through surrogacy. If we vote yes, it would be impossible to deny homosexual couples equal treatment to heterosexual couples in relation to surrogacy.

And before everyone jumps down my throat, I actually am not against surrogate adoption by gay couples.

But if you are against it, then shouldn't you be voting no?

If you're not against surrogacy for same sex couples then why would you want anything but equal treatment for them?

Ironé · 19-05-2015 05:48PM

traprunner wrote: »

It is ok No voters. If you are voting No due to homophobia it's not too late to change your ways. Redemption awaits.

I think it is nearly impossible to change some people's minds. If people are on the fence then all the red herrings have been refuted clearly and consistently. If that's not enough for people.

I think the Yes Campaign was well run and they couldn't have done much more.

Hopefully we'll be watching happy celebrations on the news on Friday evening and not devastated families and couples, along with the headlines about what a conservative intolerant country we are.

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 05:49PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's up to the people looking to change the constitution to make their case, not the other way round. Just because you don't agree with the No arguments, doesn't make them invalid.

No what makes them invalid is the fact they have nothing to do with the matter at hand. They were invalid before anyone else saw or heard them. We're just pointing that out.

TwoShedsJackson · 19-05-2015 05:50PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

That can't be real.

Particularly like the way they insult her for almost the entire letter and then sign it 'best wishes'...

It'd be like starting a letter 'Dear Ba$tard...'

suicide_circus · 19-05-2015 05:50PM

Ironé wrote: »

I think it is nearly impossible to change some people's minds. If people are on the fence then all the red herrings have been refuted clearly and consistently. If that's not enough for people.

I think the Yes Campaign was well run and they couldn't have done much more.

Hopefully we'll be watching happy celebrations on the news on Friday evening and not devastated families and couples, along with the headlines about what a conservative intolerant country we are.

Gawd yeah, what will the neighbours say!

endacl · 19-05-2015 05:50PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Una Mullally twweeted it.

I presume she didn't tweet the signature because the brave correspondent didn't have the balls to sign it?

seamus · 19-05-2015 05:51PM

HIB wrote: »

Is this one?

Surrogacy has not yet been legislated for. If the lawmakers want to deny homosexual couples the right to adopt through surrogacy, then under the current constituition, one way to do this is to state that only married couples can adopt through surrogacy. If we vote yes, it would be impossible to deny homosexual couples equal treatment to heterosexual couples in relation to surrogacy.

And before everyone jumps down my throat, I actually am not against surrogate adoption by gay couples.

But if you are against it, then shouldn't you be voting no?

But is that not exactly the same argument as, "If you are against gay marriage, vote no"? It's the same argument with a different focus. Ultimately it's not a valid reason to vote no, because you still haven't given reasons why a gay couple should be treated differently.

eviltwin · 19-05-2015 05:51PM

endacl wrote: »

I presume she didn't tweet the signature because the brave correspondent didn't have the balls to sign it?

They did, she just decided not to release it

traprunner · 19-05-2015 05:52PM

HIB wrote: »

Is this one?

Surrogacy has not yet been legislated for. If the lawmakers want to deny homosexual couples the right to adopt through surrogacy, then under the current constituition, one way to do this is to state that only married couples can adopt through surrogacy. If we vote yes, it would be impossible to deny homosexual couples equal treatment to heterosexual couples in relation to surrogacy.

And before everyone jumps down my throat, I actually am not against surrogate adoption by gay couples.

But if you are against it, then shouldn't you be voting no?

so we should vote no in every referendum because there may be a law unpublished?

Surrogacy will have the exact same implications for both same sex and opposite sex couples. It's therefore a red herring. It's not something that will not occur due to SSM.

Sofiztikated · 19-05-2015 05:53PM

I genuinely don't know how you do it.

How do you continually put up with bullshít and bolóxology being spouted at and about you, day after day, hour after hour?

It's not a bit of wonder that suicide is higher among LGBT teens and young adults, if you constantly have to fight and defend yourself, and reason that you are JUST THE SAME as everyone else.

I'm exhausted from keeping up with this thread, and I'm a straight, 30 something, married man.

I really do hope it's a yes result on Saturday, just so the constant focus on who you happen to be attracted to is shifted to something else, and obviously so that you can marry your partner, should you so wish to.

Ironé · 19-05-2015 05:54PM

endacl wrote: »

I presume she didn't tweet the signature because the brave correspondent didn't have the balls to sign it?

Apparently they did sign it.

endacl · 19-05-2015 05:54PM

eviltwin wrote: »

They did, she just decided not to release it

Wonder why....? Probably considered how her action might negatively affect another person, or some other outlandish shyte like that.

endacl · 19-05-2015 05:55PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I genuinely don't know how you do it.

How do you continually put up with bullshít and bolóxology being spouted at and about you, day after day, hour after hour?

It's not a bit of wonder that suicide is higher among LGBT teens and young adults, if you constantly have to fight and defend yourself, and reason that you are JUST THE SAME as everyone else.

I'm exhausted from keeping up with this thread, and I'm a straight, 30 something, married man.

I really do hope it's a yes result on Saturday, just so the constant focus on who you happen to be attracted to is shifted to something else, and obviously so that you can marry your partner, should you so wish to.

I hear ya. They'd leave you tired.

TwoShedsJackson · 19-05-2015 05:55PM

She should have shown the signature, you own your own words and all that.

eviltwin · 19-05-2015 05:56PM

endacl wrote: »

Wonder why....? Probably considered how her action might negatively affect another person, or some other outlandish shyte like that.

I don't think it really matters who wrote it, it was a disgusting letter. Its bad enough to target a gay person on a personal level but Una is dealing with cancer at the moment, surely there were other people this person could have written to.

Ironé · 19-05-2015 05:57PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I genuinely don't know how you do it.

How do you continually put up with bullshít and bolóxology being spouted at and about you, day after day, hour after hour?

It's not a bit of wonder that suicide is higher among LGBT teens and young adults, if you constantly have to fight and defend yourself, and reason that you are JUST THE SAME as everyone else.

I'm exhausted from keeping up with this thread, and I'm a straight, 30 something, married man.

I really do hope it's a yes result on Saturday, just so the constant focus on who you happen to be attracted to is shifted to something else, and obviously so that you can marry your partner, should you so wish to.

And after all that if it turns out to be No it will be absolutely devastating to so many people.

frostyjacks · 19-05-2015 05:58PM

endacl wrote: »

Wonder why....? Probably considered how her action might negatively affect another person, or some other outlandish shyte like that.

How did they find out about her medical history?

Ironé · 19-05-2015 06:01PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

How did they find out about her medical history?

She wrote an article in the Irish Times talking about her illness

seamus · 19-05-2015 06:01PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

How did they find out about her medical history?

She gave an interview about the fact that she was recently diagnosed with cancer.

HIB · 19-05-2015 06:02PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

The argument fails because the bolded above is completely unsubstantiated. There is no right to surrogacy under the Constitution and this referendum cannot change that.

There's no right maybe, but surely they could ( and I'm not saying they should!!!!), phrase the legislation I'm such a way as to exclude couples who are not married e,g.

'A child born to a surrogate mother can only be adopted by a married couple'

This would exclude homosexual couples.

Or am I missing something obvious here?

HIB · 19-05-2015 06:04PM

seamus wrote: »

But is that not exactly the same argument as, "If you are against gay marriage, vote no"? It's the same argument with a different focus. Ultimately it's not a valid reason to vote no, because you still haven't given reasons why a gay couple should be treated differently.

True I guess. But I understand the point of view of people who are against gay adoption specifically, better than I understand the view of people who are against gay people being happy, full stop!

Ironé · 19-05-2015 06:05PM

HIB wrote: »

There's no right maybe, but surely they could ( and I'm not saying they should!!!!), phrase the legislation I'm such a way as to exclude couples who are not married e,g.

'A child born to a surrogate mother can only be adopted by a married couple'

This would exclude homosexual couples.

Or am I missing something obvious here?

Why would they legislate in that way? For adoption a couple do not have to be married. People don't have to be married to have kids so why would we force it for Surrogacy? And who would we want to exclude homosexual couples from Surrogacy?

seamus · 19-05-2015 06:05PM

HIB wrote: »

There's no right maybe, but surely they could ( and I'm not saying they should!!!!), phrase the legislation I'm such a way as to exclude couples who are not married e,g.

'A child born to a surrogate mother can only be adopted by a married couple'

This would exclude homosexual couples.

Or am I missing something obvious here?

Yes, but legislation could also be framed to say that only a male and female married couple may avail of surrogacy services.

Provided there was good reason for excluding homsexual married couples, it would be perfectly constitutional.

If there's no good reason, then there's no good reason.

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 06:06PM

HIB wrote: »

There's no right maybe, but surely they could ( and I'm not saying they should!!!!), phrase the legislation I'm such a way as to exclude couples who are not married e,g.

'A child born to a surrogate mother can only be adopted by a married couple'

This would exclude homosexual couples.

Or am I missing something obvious here?

There's so much to address in this post...

First this is a constitutional change not a legislative one. Therefore it's far more high level. Legislation the deals with the detail.

Secondly, why should unmarried people be excluded from surrogacy regardless of the same sex element? Plenty of straight people don't get married despite being together their whole lives. And many of those have children or look to have children.

Thirdly, why should there be a specific article in surrogacy legislation relating to same sex parents?

Finally, what has any of this got to do with Friday's referendum?

Ironé · 19-05-2015 06:07PM

HIB wrote: »

True I guess. But I understand the point of view of people who are against gay adoption specifically, better than I understand the view of people who are against gay people being happy, full stop!

People can be against gay adoption all they like but it has nothing to do with this referendum. It has been happening here for 20 years. These families exist whether you agree with them or not ... they deserve the same constitutional protection as anyone else.

molloyjh · 19-05-2015 06:07PM

HIB wrote: »

True I guess. But I understand the point of view of people who are against gay adoption specifically, better than I understand the view of people who are against gay people being happy, full stop!

"Gay adoption" is currently legal and nothing will change as a result of this referendum. Why are we talking about it?

Bannasidhe · 19-05-2015 06:09PM

HIB wrote: »

There's no right maybe, but surely they could ( and I'm not saying they should!!!!), phrase the legislation I'm such a way as to exclude couples who are not married e,g.

'A child born to a surrogate mother can only be adopted by a married couple'

This would exclude homosexual couples.

Or am I missing something obvious here?

Explaining why homosexual couples should be excluded.

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

Comments