Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

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

1…214215217219220…327

Comments

  • #6482
    gk5000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 886 ✭✭✭gk5000


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Me, I'm still waiting for a No voter to present a valid argument for the No side. Not too late, guys, tell us why you are really voting No, you might convince someone!
    Thank you.

    I just want a separate and equal SSM which is distinct "legally" from current marriage.

    Here's one I posted earlier...in another thread.
    Live and Let Live
    Gay's and straights have gotten along ok, in that they largely do not interact much with each other - in a live an let live way.

    This referendum would change that in that we would all be packed into a single small legal marrriage/family framework.
    Every family/marriage/children's law, or courtcase would now have to be scrutinised to make sure its ok for all possibilities of gays's straight....

    So it shall be like a small rerun of this referendum every few months - forever.

    It's best to do it right once. Vote no to send back to drawing board - or to fully separate Same Sex Marriage.


  • #6483
    MessiHutz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 72 ✭✭MessiHutz


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    The referendum provides for access to civil secular marriage only, as well you know. No Church will or could be forced to provide same sex marriages no more than they can be forced to marry any couple they choose not to. Should a church or other religious organisation choose to marry people they will of course be free to do so should the referendum pass.

    We are talking about your crusade for religious freedom. I am a religious person. My religion tells me I must marry my partner. Now can you explain the blatant hypocrisy of talking about defending religious liberty while actively campaigning to have me deprived of my religious liberty to a marry my partner?

    I've already said earlier that it would be unfair of me to take my concerns out on gay people and I will be voting yes.


  • #6484
    MessiHutz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 72 ✭✭MessiHutz


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    So in otherwords you concede that you never really cared about religious freedom just religious freedom that discriminates against gay people. Whats that Cyndi Lauper song?

    Please tell me which bit of my post you managed to get that from???


  • #6485
    gk5000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 886 ✭✭✭gk5000


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Me, I'm still waiting for a No voter to present a valid argument for the No side. Not too late, guys, tell us why you are really voting No, you might convince someone!

    And here's a good one I posted in the LBGT forum...in the George ;-)
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057433247

    Why not "Same Sex Marriage" ?
    LGBT people want Same Sex Marriage, so why not have "Same Sex Marriage" in the Constitution, parallel and equivalent to man+woman marriage - say "Same Sex Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons of the same sex."

    This referendum shall probably pass 60/40 say, but you have done immence damage to your own LGBT cause long term - by pissing off 40% of the public at least - and don't say they are all homophobes. And this conflict shall rumble for a generation or two when every court case or decision shall bring it back up

    90 to 95% of the people would support Same Sex Marriage in parallel to man+woman marriage. You would not have to worry about the baggage of 100 years of existing case law, and hetero's would not have to worry about the confusion of the legal melting of same and opposite sex.

    LBGT leaders can still do something now. It's 11'th hour but still not too late.
    Do you want the current marriage referendum at any price, to the displeasure of over 40% of the people? OR do you want "Same Sex Marriage" with support of 90 to 95% of the people - your choice.


  • #6486
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    gk5000 wrote: »
    Thank you.

    I just want a separate and equal SSM which is distinct "legally" from current marriage.

    Here's one I posted earlier...in another thread.
    Live and Let Live
    Gay's and straights have gotten along ok, in that they largely do not interact much with each other - in a live an let live way.

    This referendum would change that in that we would all be packed into a single small legal marrriage/family framework.
    Every family/marriage/children's law, or courtcase would now have to be scrutinised to make sure its ok for all possibilities of gays's straight....

    So it shall be like a small rerun of this referendum every few months - forever.

    It's best to do it right once. Vote no to send back to drawing board - or to fully separate Same Sex Marriage.

    Could you clarify whether or not this post is satirical?

    Ordinarily I would assume it was, but with all the nonsense arguments from the no side, it's hard to tell.


  • Advertisement
  • #6487
    TenLeftFingers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 683 ✭✭✭TenLeftFingers


    SireOfSeth wrote: »
    What in particular concerns you (if you don't mind me asking)?

    My main issue is disentangling the concerns about children, and I don't feel assured by by either side. I'm refering to the debates on RTE with Ryan Tubrity, the one with Miriam O'Calaghan on RTE and the one on TV3 with Vincent Browne.

    I was hoping to read the opinion of some no voters on this thread but there don't seem to be any.

    The Yes side reassure that this referendum is not about children, but why does the ISPCC take a stance on it then? Also, the judges comments have been argued well on the Miriam O'Callaghan debate by a senator (Ronan Mullan I think). I'm interested to hear what the Yes voters here think of that.
    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    If you vote yes gay people will be for the first time equal citizens in this republic. If you vote no you are voting to continue to discriminate against gay people by excluding them from civil secular marriage. This is literally as simple as it is. And whilst you may not be voting against 'gay people' a no vote is most definitely against their interests.

    I know that a gay man's love, compassion, intellect and humanity is no less than that of a straight man. The same goes for gay and straight women. So yes, I think a gay couple are totally equal to my and my partner (who are not gay).

    However, a gay couple are not equal to a straight couple if you believe that a child should ideally have male and female influences from their primary carers, and that marriage. And yes, there is a bill. But a bill does not equal a constitutional change surely.

    I'm interested in your responses to that, and in particular Ronan Mullan's arguments on the Miriam O'Callaghan debate.


  • #6488
    Gerry T
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,563 ✭✭✭Gerry T


    gk5000 wrote: »
    Thank you.

    I just want a separate and equal SSM which is distinct "legally" from current marriage.

    Here's one I posted earlier...in another thread.
    Live and Let Live
    Gay's and straights have gotten along ok, in that they largely do not interact much with each other - in a live an let live way.

    This referendum would change that in that we would all be packed into a single small legal marrriage/family framework.
    Every family/marriage/children's law, or courtcase would now have to be scrutinised to make sure its ok for all possibilities of gays's straight....

    So it shall be like a small rerun of this referendum every few months - forever.

    It's best to do it right once. Vote no to send back to drawing board - or to fully separate Same Sex Marriage.

    What makes you think that, this whole debate is so a marriage is not discriminating. In other words THEY WON'T look at the persons sexual orientation in making decisions.

    Any other reason ?


  • #6489
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    MessiHutz wrote: »
    We are being asked to consider Gay marriage, not just here but everywhere it is up for debate. If we are asked to consider something people should be allowed to take one side or what is the point in asking the question? Those other things are not questions we are being asked but definitely wouldn't be baking cakes supporting Shariah Law anyway.

    Neither are we being asked about surrogacy or adoption.


  • #6490
    MessiHutz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 72 ✭✭MessiHutz


    galljga1 wrote: »
    Neither are we being asked about surrogacy or adoption.

    And where did I mention either of those things???


  • #6491
    Gerry T
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,563 ✭✭✭Gerry T


    gk5000 wrote: »
    And here's a good one I posted in the LBGT forum...in the George ;-)
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057433247

    LBGT leaders can still do something now. It's 11'th hour but still not too late.
    Do you want the current marriage referendum at any price, to the displeasure of over 40% of the people? OR do you want "Same Sex Marriage" with support of 90 to 95% of the people - your choice.

    It doesn't matter what way you try and look at this. There will be a large percentage of the population, mostly (not all) over 60 religious, that have been taught that being LBGT is a sin. They won't be ever changed and certainly not as the Church is against this.

    It's best that the majority decide if we threat all people the same without looking at their sexual orientation.


  • Advertisement
  • #6492
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    MessiHutz wrote: »
    And where did I mention either of those things???

    There just issues that'll we'll deal with further down the road when they arise as a result of a yes on Friday. Your not to think about them now apparently.


  • #6493
    ixoy
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 18,047 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    gk5000 wrote: »
    Gay's and straights have gotten along ok, in that they largely do not interact much with each other - in a live an let live wayg

    What? Most gay people have lots of interaction with their straight friends, family, colleagues, etc. Very few segregate themselves. Why would we do that? Our sexuality is not our defining characteristic despite what some seem to think.


  • #6494
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    gk5000 wrote: »
    And here's a good one I posted in the LBGT forum...in the George ;-)
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057433247

    Why not "Same Sex Marriage" ?
    LGBT people want Same Sex Marriage, so why not have "Same Sex Marriage" in the Constitution, parallel and equivalent to man+woman marriage - say "Same Sex Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons of the same sex."

    This referendum shall probably pass 60/40 say, but you have done immence damage to your own LGBT cause long term - by pissing off 40% of the public at least - and don't say they are all homophobes. And this conflict shall rumble for a generation or two when every court case or decision shall bring it back up

    90 to 95% of the people would support Same Sex Marriage in parallel to man+woman marriage. You would not have to worry about the baggage of 100 years of existing case law, and hetero's would not have to worry about the confusion of the legal melting of same and opposite sex.

    LBGT leaders can still do something now. It's 11'th hour but still not too late.
    Do you want the current marriage referendum at any price, to the displeasure of over 40% of the people? OR do you want "Same Sex Marriage" with support of 90 to 95% of the people - your choice.

    Oh, unfortunately for you it doesn't look like satire.

    No, we don't want separate but equal. What would that achieve?

    We would have the same rights but just a different name? Heterosexuals can't be that insecure that their main issue is our relationships having the same name as theirs would it? That's not very mature.

    They only thing it would achieve would be to create an artificial difference. If the relationships have the same rights and obligations, they are the same as a matter of law.

    And why would it justify the beauracracy of two separate systems?

    And if they are equal and carry the same rights, then the same legal rules would apply - so it wouldn't cure your (highly exaggerated) legal issues.

    If they aren't the same, then they aren't equal - and I would like to be equal.

    And funnily enough, marriage equality has been introduced in various common law countries, such as Canada, South Africa, NZ, the UK etc and no such legal issues have arisen.

    They all have broadly the same legal system, and share much of the same case law as us. So if there was no problems there, it's reasonable to conclude no problems here.

    And funnily enough, most of the people on the No side also bitterly opposed civil partnership.

    So it seems no matter what form of legal recognition is proposed for LGBT relationships, the 40% won't be happy.

    And why should we have to accept anything less than equality, just because of their immaturity?

    The white majority in the US South weren't happy with desegregation. Should black people have just put up with segregation then to avoid a big fuss?


  • #6495
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    MessiHutz wrote: »
    And where did I mention either of those things???

    To me fair Messi, you did not, but I actually never said you did.
    I was using the reply to your post to get the message across that the referendum is not about surrogacy or adoption, but possibly about Alpacas.


  • #6496
    gk5000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 886 ✭✭✭gk5000


    Gerry T wrote: »
    What makes you think that, this whole debate is so a marriage is not discriminating. In other words THEY WON'T look at the persons sexual orientation in making decisions.

    Any other reason ?
    Yes all family law shall now apply to both same sex and opposite sex camps, so both these camps shall scrutinise each law, courtcase etc.

    Whereas, if the two camps were still equal but legally distinct then no issue.

    So men and women themselves are different but treated equally. That is the way it should be for same sex and opposite sex - different but equal - instead of an impossible - one size fits all - but causing problems for all.


  • #6497
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    TenLeftFingers wrote: »
    My main issue is disentangling the concerns about children, and I don't feel assured by by either side. I'm refering to the debates on RTE with Ryan Tubrity, the one with Miriam O'Calaghan on RTE and the one on TV3 with Vincent Browne.

    I was hoping to read the opinion of some no voters on this thread but there don't seem to be any.

    The Yes side reassure that this referendum is not about children, but why does the ISPCC take a stance on it then? Also, the judges comments have been argued well on the Miriam O'Callaghan debate by a senator (Ronan Mullan I think). I'm interested to hear what the Yes voters here think of that.



    I know that a gay man's love, compassion, intellect and humanity is no less than that of a straight man. The same goes for gay and straight women. So yes, I think a gay couple are totally equal to my and my partner (who are not gay).

    However, a gay couple are not equal to a straight couple if you believe that a child should ideally have male and female influences from their primary carers, and that marriage. And yes, there is a bill. But a bill does not equal a constitutional change surely.

    I'm interested in your responses to that, and in particular Ronan Mullan's arguments on the Miriam O'Callaghan debate.

    The independent Referendum Commission has debunked every child related argument Ronan Mullen had. Repeatedly.

    As has the Law Society of Ireland. (edit Law Soc called for Yes, Lawyers4Yes, which includes some of the most prominent family lawyers in the country, did the debunking)

    Please go look it up - it's been well reported.

    And please also read what the children's charities have said - it is in the best interests of children because it will provide validation and rights to LGBT children and those raised by LGBT children.

    No other children will be effected.


  • #6498
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Some of them being Bishops in the Catholic church, and priests standing at lecterns in churches all around the country.

    I am well aware. I was attempting to be somewhat diplomatic! ;)


  • #6499
    CaveCanem
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 150 ✭✭CaveCanem


    floggg wrote: »
    The independent Referendum Commission has debunked every child related argument Ronan Mullen had. Repeatedly.

    As has the Law Society of Ireland.

    Please go look it up - it's been well reported.

    And please also read what the children's charities have said - it is in the best interests of children because it will provide validation and rights to LGBT children and those raised by LGBT children.

    No other children will be effected.

    I just read the Law Society position document earlier, seems to be very little reference to children and zero mention of surrogacy from what I could see. Did I just manage to skip over it because I would really love to have 100% clarity so I know when I vote yes there won't be a 'well this surrogacy thing seems to have been unforeseen but it's up to the Supreme Court and if they say yes....' afterwards?


  • #6500
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    gk5000 wrote: »
    Yes all family law shall now apply to both same sex and opposite sex camps, so both these camps shall scrutinise each law, courtcase etc.

    Whereas, if the two camps were still equal but legally distinct then no issue.

    So men and women themselves are different but treated equally. That is the way it should be for same sex and opposite sex - different but equal - instead of an impossible - one size fits all - but causing problems for all.

    So impossible that it is actually already in place without any significant issues in countries with very similar legal systems to us.

    And different but treated equally would mean allowing homo and heterosexual couples marry on the same terms.

    What you are proposing is different and treated unequally.


  • #6501
    Knasher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    MessiHutz wrote: »
    Sorry you've lost me , how do I not support religious freedom?

    I think it depends on what you mean by religious freedom. In some peoples view, their religious freedom requires it to be treated as an absolute right, trumping the rights and freedoms of all others. For secular people, religious freedom is just one right among many, and how these rights are balanced when they come into conflict is a matter for the courts.

    To give an example to illustrate the point, there are religions who believe exclusively in faith healing, and that any medical care show a lack of faith in prayer. If a child falls ill, should the religious freedom of these parents trump the rights of their children, or does the state owe the same duty of care to ensure they are being looked after, as it owes to other children? Even if it goes against their parents wishes, and religious views.


  • Advertisement
  • #6502
    gk5000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 886 ✭✭✭gk5000


    floggg wrote: »
    Oh, unfortunately for you it doesn't look like satire.

    No, we don't want separate but equal. What would that achieve?

    We would have the same rights but just a different name? Heterosexuals can't be that insecure that their main issue is our relationships having the same name as theirs would it? That's not very mature.

    They only thing it would achieve would be to create an artificial difference. If the relationships have the same rights and obligations, they are the same as a matter of law.

    And why would it justify the beauracracy of two separate systems?

    And if they are equal and carry the same rights, then the same legal rules would apply - so it wouldn't cure your (highly exaggerated) legal issues.

    If they aren't the same, then they aren't equal - and I would like to be equal.

    And funnily enough, marriage equality has been introduced in various common law countries, such as Canada, South Africa, NZ, the UK etc and no such legal issues have arisen.

    They all have broadly the same legal system, and share much of the same case law as us. So if there was no problems there, it's reasonable to conclude no problems here.

    And funnily enough, most of the people on the No side also bitterly opposed civil partnership.

    So it seems no matter what form of legal recognition is proposed for LGBT relationships, the 40% won't be happy.

    And why should we have to accept anything less than equality, just because of their immaturity?

    The white majority in the US South weren't happy with desegregation. Should black people have just put up with segregation then to avoid a big fuss?
    Same sex relationships are different to Opposite sex relationships, but can be equal. One Size does not fit all. There is no point argueing with you if you do not accept these things.


  • #6503
    Gerry T
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 1,563 ✭✭✭Gerry T


    gk5000 wrote: »
    Yes all family law shall now apply to both same sex and opposite sex camps, so both these camps shall scrutinise each law, courtcase etc.

    Whereas, if the two camps were still equal but legally distinct then no issue.

    So men and women themselves are different but treated equally. That is the way it should be for same sex and opposite sex - different but equal - instead of an impossible - one size fits all - but causing problems for all.

    In other words, if we don't let them get married then we won't create new family law cases ? seems a funny way of looking at things.

    Then you say different but equal -- how can it be equal if they can't get married, that's different.

    You fail to see the "one fits all" is what's needed. Because we are all the same, it doesn't matter what your sexual orientation is when getting married, having a restriction makes for a "them and us" scenario, its wrong.

    What harm does it do to let LBGT people marry, in what way does that undermine a heterosexual's marriage. How can a different couples marriage affect yours.


  • #6504
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    CaveCanem wrote: »
    I just read the Law Society position document earlier, seems to be very little reference to children and zero mention of surrogacy from what I could see. Did I just manage to skip over it because I would really love to have 100% clarity so I know when I vote yes there won't be a 'well this surrogacy thing seems to have been unforeseen but it's up to the Supreme Court and if they say yes....' afterwards?

    Sorry, the Law Soc has called for a Yes.

    It's Lawyers4Yes who have debunked all the arguments time and time again.

    As has the Ref Com.

    As has RTE's independent legal experts.

    As have two former Ministers for Justice (one of whom has long since left politics).

    Even Iona's legal opinion confirmed that a Yes would create no new legal rights - including surrogacy.

    If you choose to believe Ronan Mullen over all of them, then that's a rather bizarre choice.


  • #6505
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    gk5000 wrote: »
    Same sex relationships are different to Opposite sex relationships, but can be equal. One Size does not fit all. There is no point argueing with you if you do not accept these things.

    Every relationship is different to every other relationship unless you think that heterosexual married couples are some form of Stepford Wives and Husbands.

    There is a legal contract called marriage and it lays out a legal agreement between two different individuals who may be quite different to each other - once they sign that contract they are married - they are not suddenly the same.

    One size fits the wide verity of heterosexual relationships so why not homosexuals ones too?


  • #6506
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    Marriage Equality Referendum
    View this email in your browser


    What are you being asked in the Marriage Equality Referendum?
    This Friday, May 22nd, you will be asked to vote on whether or not to include an added article to the Constitution about marriage.

    This new article provides that two people may marry regardless of their sex. It is proposed to add the following to Article 41 of the Constitution:

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

    Will a Yes vote redefine marriage?
    No. This added article will not redefine marriage. It allows a married couple of the same sex to have the same constitutional status as a married heterosexual couple.

    How can people of the Roman Catholic or other faiths vote yes for something their church say is wrong?
    This is not a battle of faith versus human rights. The two co-exist. The human rights framework protects people’s freedom of religion or belief - but says that that this cannot be allowed to erode the rights of others. If passed, gay couples will be equal before the law. The independence of the Catholic and other churches and their rights to marry people of faith will not be affected. This referendum is about marriage, not religion.

    Will churches be forced to marry gay and lesbian couples?
    No. Civil marriage is different and distinct from religious marriage. Civil marriage is a state-recognised legal contract between spouses (via signing the civil marriage register) that establishes rights and obligations between them and towards any children they may have. A civil marriage takes place in a registry office or other non-church venue. This referendum is about civil marriage equality which, if passed, will allow civil marriage for any two people, as will be provided for in civil law, regardless of their gender.

    What are the key differences between civil partnership and marriage?
    A married heterosexual couple enjoys constitutional as well as legal protection. A civil partnership couple only enjoys legal protection. Legal protection can be taken away, amended or reduced by an Act of the Oireachtas. Constitutional protection can only be taken away by a vote of the people. If this article is added, all married couples will enjoy constitutional protection equally.

    Would close relatives of the same sex be allowed to marry? In other words, would the criteria be any different for same-sex marriage compared to opposite-sex marriage?
    No. The criteria will not be any different. The current law will still apply. There are prohibited degrees of relationships, as they are legally defined, in relation to close relatives. They apply to married persons. They also apply at the moment to civil partners.

    Will schools be obliged to change the way they teach about marriage?
    Children at the moment, in religious schools, are taught the religious meaning of marriage – that it is a permanent union between man and woman. This has not changed since divorce was introduced in 1995. Schools will continue to be able to conduct its religious class in accordance with its own ethos.

    If the referendum is passed, will same-sex couples have a right to access surrogacy services?

    This referendum is not about surrogacy.
    Surrogacy services are, at present, unregulated in Ireland. As such, there is no legal right to access them or no legal prohibition on anyone accessing them. The Government have announced that they have plans to bring in regulations governing surrogacy and Fianna Fáil realises this is a hugely complex and sensitive area and will be taking part in this debate to ensure commercial surrogacy is not introduced in Ireland.

    Would a Yes vote give same-sex couples a right to adopt children?
    This referendum will not change the adoption laws in Ireland. Nobody has a right to adopt a child. People have a right to apply to adopt children and this is outlined in the Adoption Act 1991. Any married couple or individual or same sex couple can apply for adoption as the law stands now. Under the legislation, it is the mother who decides who adopts the child and what’s in the best interest of the child.

    Does this referendum have anything to do with adoption or surrogacy?
    No. This referendum is about adding an article to our Constitution to allow same sex couples have the same constitutional rights to marriage as heterosexuals have.


  • #6507
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    gk5000 wrote: »
    Same sex relationships are different to Opposite sex relationships, but can be equal. One Size does not fit all. There is no point argueing with you if you do not accept these things.

    I am the one arguing for equality.

    You want some bizarre separate but parallel system.

    And you make no attempt to argue. You posted something, I rebutted with a reasoned analysis and then you accuse me of being unreasonable.

    A little transparent.


  • #6508
    CaveCanem
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 150 ✭✭CaveCanem


    floggg wrote: »
    Sorry, the Law Soc has called for a Yes.

    It's Lawyers4Yes who have debunked all the arguments time and time again.

    As has the Ref Com.

    As has RTE's independent legal experts.

    As have two former Ministers for Justice (one of whom has long since left politics).

    Even Iona's legal opinion confirmed that a Yes would create no new legal rights - including surrogacy.

    If you choose to believe Ronan Mullen over all of them, then that's a rather bizarre choice.

    I did know this, there is no right of a particular couple to have fertility services provided to them. But what if an equality body took the state to court saying any such legislation that bans surrogacy disproportionately infringes on the rights of several thousand families and is uniquely discriminatory?


  • #6509
    gk5000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 886 ✭✭✭gk5000


    Gerry T wrote: »
    In other words, if we don't let them get married then we won't create new family law cases ? seems a funny way of looking at things.

    Then you say different but equal -- how can it be equal if they can't get married, that's different.

    You fail to see the "one fits all" is what's needed. Because we are all the same, it doesn't matter what your sexual orientation is when getting married, having a restriction makes for a "them and us" scenario, its wrong.

    What harm does it do to let LBGT people marry, in what way does that undermine a heterosexual's marriage. How can a different couples marriage affect yours.

    I am saying that many gay people want a "Same Sex Marriage" so give constitutional protection to that "Same Sex Marriage" legally so that it is equal and they can get married.

    One size does not fit all in that "same sex" is fundamentally different to "opposite sex".

    It affect my marriage because the legal basis for my marriage - which is a man and a woman, shall have to be expanded to include man+man, and woman+woman which is complicated.

    The legal concept of husband, father, wife, mother have to change to accomodate same sex marriage - somehow.


  • #6510
    Knasher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    gk5000 wrote: »
    LBGT leaders can still do something now. It's 11'th hour but still not too late.
    There are problems with your plan in general, but it doesn't matter because it falls down on this, most basic of points. It is far too late to change the wording of a referendum the a day before the vote. Maybe the government could call the whole thing off, though I don't know why they would.

    For people who don't remember, 62% of the country turned out to vote in the divorce referendum, and it passed by 0.5%. Even if this referendum ends up being as divisive as that one, it is pretty crazy to suggest that it will take generations for people to get over it. I wonder if we ran that same referendum today, how many people would still vote against.


  • Advertisement
  • #6511
    Anita Blow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,935 ✭✭✭Anita Blow


    TenLeftFingers wrote: »
    The Yes side reassure that this referendum is not about children, but why does the ISPCC take a stance on it then? Also, the judges comments have been argued well on the Miriam O'Callaghan debate by a senator (Ronan Mullan I think). I'm interested to hear what the Yes voters here think of that.
    The ISPCC, along with 13 other children's charities have taken a stance because they see this as an issue for LGBT children and LGBT children only. The spokewoman for the ISPCC on the Late Late Debate stated they receive around 10,000 calls per year from struggling LGBT children, 20% of which had attempted suicide due to their struggles with being gay. Furthermore, RCSI report that gay children are 7x more likely to commit suicide than their heterosexual counterparts. So in the ISPCC's own words, constitutional discrimination actively harms the wellbeing of many Irish children and it is within their remit to defend that wellbeing.
    As the spokewoman also said, they felt obligated to join the debate due to the misinformation regarding same-sex parenting. Specifically she mentioned claims that same-sex parenting would damage a child's wellbeing, despite all evidence demonstrating the opposite.

    As for Ronan Mullen, I wouldn't give him the time of day. I tolerate (not necessarily understand) Breda O'Brien and the likes, but I find an Ronan Mullen abhorrent individual who cares nothing for the wellbeing of children, just to advance his own agenda.
    TenLeftFingers wrote: »
    However, a gay couple are not equal to a straight couple if you believe that a child should ideally have male and female influences from their primary carers, and that marriage. And yes, there is a bill. But a bill does not equal a constitutional change surely.
    Someone is perfectly free to believe that, but they must question where that belief stems from. Does it stem from a genuine concern that a child is brought up in the best environment? If so, the overwhelming evidence that suggests no difference (and in some cases better outcomes) from same-sex parenting should settle those fears somewhat, or at least be respected. Similarly, the support for SSM by the American, Canadian, Australian, British and Irish Psychological Societies as well as the leading pediatric society in the world (American Academy of Pediatrics) and the 14 children's charities and UNESCO Children & Family Research Centre should also support passing this referendum.
    TenLeftFingers wrote: »
    I know that a gay man's love, compassion, intellect and humanity is no less than that of a straight man. The same goes for gay and straight women. So yes, I think a gay couple are totally equal to my and my partner (who are not gay).
    This is genuinely all that you have to ask yourself. This whole debate, especially recently, I'm reminded of Occam's Razor (the saying that the simplest solution is often the correct one). People get so caught up in looking for potential negative consequences and look for links to other issues such as adoption or surrogacy where there are none, when really the referendum is a simple as do you believe two consenting adults who love each other should have the same right to have their love recognised as everyone else. Nothing more, nothing less.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement