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

_Redzer_ wrote: »

To be honest, fúck their religion. I'm not religious, so just because your faith has a problem with it, why should I have to conform to your beliefs?

This has nothing to do with religion, this is a civil issue, the churches aren't being forced to do anything, so it sickens my guts that they're campaigning so hard for a no. Horrible busybodies, and high time they get told to fúck off into their place and out of other people's lives!

I'm not particularly religious, but, tbh, your comments sickened me, because you want respect for your beliefs, but you have no problem saying "F*ck their" beliefs

Akrasia wrote: »

There's a big difference in perceptions when introducing people.

'This is my girlfriend - implies short term, not necessarily serious or permanent
vs
"This is my Wife - Implies permanent committed relationship
vs
'This is my partner - Implies business relationship or similar to boyfriend/girlfriend but more likely to be used by older people.

While it might not matter to you how you introduce your relationship, it does influence other peoples perception of your relationship whether they know it or not.

Wife/Husband are protected terms that are the highest level of commitment reserved for married couples.
Partner is not a protected term, Anyone can use it to describe any kind of relationship, romantic or otherwise.

I'd regard a partner in those circumstances as being someone with whom you're in a long-term relationship, just like marriage is a long-term relationship. You can no longer regard marriage as a lifetime commitment since divorce is legal. The most you can regard marriage as is a desire to make a lifetime commitment.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't want to win their votes. I want them to vote their conscience, and then have the Yes vote crush theirs, drive them before us and hear the lamentations of their women.

That's not very tolerant of you, is it?

Akrasia wrote: »

Ashers, the bakery who refused to make acake promoting Gay marriage were found guilty of discrimination today.

Previously there had been inaccurate reports that they would be found not guilty
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/ashers-bakery-found-guilty-of-discrimination-1.2218032

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

You're quite right. While it should be quite easy to do, there is a huge reluctance in specifying what exactly the law will look like afterwards. And the Referendum Commission, in some of their statements, are trying to paper over the cracks - when they should just be saying "we don't know". Kevin Cross might be a good lawyer, but he has no mandate to tell us what the Oireachtas will subsequently enact as legislation.

I think there's a worry, on the Yes side, that specifying the technical changes will cause an emotional reaction. Because, as the Amendment says "without distinction", the list will have to be gender neutral.

So, just as a gay man will be prohibited from marrying his sister, presumably a straight man will now be specifically prohibited from marrying his brother - because we'll all be formally generally entitled to marry people of the same sex.

The lack of candour could well cost them the campaign. Which is an awful pity, as they've raised both individual and international expectations by holding the vote.

Agreed. There is no appetite in the "Yes" camp for stating the simple truth that no one knows what future legislation can be drafted, but that whatever is enshrined in the Constitution must be adhered to in any future legislation.

VinLieger wrote: »

So religious freedoms trump equality and its okay to discriminate but only if its on religious grounds?

It's not ok to discriminate. Can you not see that the mans freedom of conscience was interfered with, in a Country that supposedly endorses religious freedom? For a cake? That some other bakery would have probably quite happily baked?

I think the gay couple had a right to have whatever they wanted printed on their cake. But I also think the baker should have had a right to refuse to bake it. A little mutual tolerance would go a long way.
As the judgement stands, politics and gay rights are more equal than religious freedom. Why is it so difficult to understand that denying people the exercise of their freedom if conscience would make them uneasy?

Two wrongs will always be two wrongs. The law may say one wrong was right, but don't expect ordinary people to think the same way judges do.

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.

True. There is no right to surrogacy. However, surrogacy legislation is imminent, and the rights enshrined in the constitution will have to be considered when enacting that legislation, since the constitution trumps legislation in the grand scale of things. People get nervous when they sense they are being told half-truths, particularly in Ireland where it's fair to say that a significant portion of the electorate don't particularly trust politicians.

HIB wrote: »

I think peoples main concern here is that they think kids of himosexual couples will suffer from bullying more.
And they feel its unfair to put a child in that situation.[/,QUOTE]

My 12 year old asked me the last day how I was going to vote (funny what kids discuss, isn't it?)
I asked her why, and her reply was "Mum, I'm so glad you and Dad aren't a gay couple, because I have nothing against gays, but the slagging the kids would get at school would be savage.!"

Now, she has been taught not to discriminate at home, that part I understand. It would appear, however, that her classmates have had no such teaching, so, I think those fears are not entirely groundless.
Now, it's clearly wrong that that should be the case, but it is also wrong, imo, to deny the possibility of such bullying. BTW, my daughter has been well warned not to engage in such bullying if it ever becomes an issue, to which her response was "I know THAT!"

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You lose.

and the 'nuns y'see' made it a blanket comment by implying all nuns are the same.

Nonsense. You throw in links to a few Nuns who are voting yes. Should I bother to put up links for Nuns voting No? No, because it derails the thread.

I stand by the point I made, (not the point you think I made, or the point you wish I made,) I'd be willing to bet that the Nuns in the post I quoted would vote no to SSM.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Nuns y'see... eh.

You generalised. You were called on it.

Move on stewie. Let it go.

You let go first.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm eating me dinner while watching Channel 4 news mate

A multi-tasker eh?

Mate of mine was walking home from work through town with yes badges on his bag. He noticed someone was walking very close behind him but didn't take much notice as Dublin is busy in the evenings. Anyway when my mate got home he found that the guy had scribbled out his yes badges and wrote no on them! Great advertising for the no campaign and the type of bigot it attracts.

Had a till operator wearing a Yes Badge today being served in a petrol station. Very unprofessional.

MessiHutz wrote: »

????
How does that make sense?

If you vote yes you are not restricting anyone from marrying who they wish (outside of the existing familial restrictions of course)

If you vote not you are codifying your vision of marriage and excluding those who may share a different view, even a religiously held view.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Did they spit in your petrol tank?
Refuse to give you your change unless you vote yes?
Demand you arrange for them to get a baby?
Spray you with glitter?

Do you maybe think it's up to their employer really?

So you don't think it's unprofessional to wear it pushing a personal agenda?I know his employer very well but tbh won't mention it, life's too short.

Best keep his opinions for his private life and the polling booths imo.