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

gk5000 · 20-05-2015 06:58PM

Gerry T wrote: »

That's what the vote on Fri is about, giving constitutional protection to same sex marriage...nothing more.

Its only different because you think it is, I don't. I see 2 people that want to love and live together as a married couple, no different to me or you.

Your marriage is not affected, its between two loving people, that won't change on Sat. No legal rights you would have on Fri will disappear on Sat. Everything will be the same for you. This vote just allows another segment of our population to have the same rights as you. This vote is all about removing the restrictions people in our community live with. It's time they were removed (the barriers, not the people )

I'm no legal eagle but all you need address legally is parent & partner, legally why have a differentiator with parents. I'm speaking legally. Both parents should stand as equals in front of the law, not different. father, mother, wife, husband should not be used in a legal argument. Parent is sufficient.

Religiously yes I can appreciate why people would be against this. But the vote is nothing to do with your church or belief system. This is about the legal system. I believe if you object on religious grounds then abstain from voting, your church won't be changing its marriage laws so you should be happy. Don't force your religious beliefs on others (not speaking to you specifically GK1000, thats a general statement to others)

Parent may be sufficient in your eyes, but 100 years of case law referrs to father mother etc. shall not change overnight, and no amount of wishful thinking on your part can make that so.

So legally my marriage must change. You cannot change the constitutional definition without affecting the subordinate laws. You cannot have an omlette without breaking egges...if you prefer.

20-05-2015 06:58PM

endacl wrote: »

Surrogacy is not an issue. It didn't even become a smoke screen talking point until those opposed to passing the referendum actually thought about why they were opposed, and couldn't come up with any reason that didn't sound like 'gay people? Eeeeuuuuuggggghhhh'.

Nice mature 'all no voters are homophobic' comment, not seen one in a while, just aswel you came along things were getting far too rational, thanks.

endacl · 20-05-2015 06:58PM

late wrote: »

Promises like this from the government are totally meaningless, any government can change these laws in the future, due to pressure from same sex married couples.
Now is the only chance we will get to say no to children being deliberately left motherless or fatherless, so vote NO.

No it's not. Relax. Have a nice cup of tea. It'll all be better on Saturday.

Gerry T · 20-05-2015 06:59PM

late wrote: »

I agree this Referendum is not about surrogacy, but if the yes side wins, then we will, down the road, when the government go legislating for surrogacy, have a clammier for surrogacy to be made available, to same sex male couples, as this is the only way, they will be able to produce babies. Babies (for the want of a better term),will become commodities, they will claim they have a equal right to have babies.
I don't believe we should set out to produce babies for same sex couples and denying the little child, the right to a mother and a father, therefore the only option is to vote NO on Friday. I don't have a problem, where in special circumstances a child is reared by a same sex couple, if this is deemed to be in the best interest of that child.
By voting NO, will give a clear message we want where possible, little children, to have the right to a mother and a father.

You must be having a laugh....seriously ????? have you just time warped from the '40's.
Where do you think gay daddys get the babies, order catalogue, auction houses ? no... they get them from people that don't want the babies... that's the "mother and father" you suggest is the best place for them. babies come from mothers and fathers, if they kept their babies we wouldn't have adoption.
This vote is not about surrogacy, anyone (not a 5yr old) can get a baby through surrogacy, so don't bring that into the topic, its not relevant to the vote in any way.

Bannasidhe · 20-05-2015 07:00PM

late wrote: »

Promises like this from the government are totally meaningless, any government can change these laws in the future, due to pressure from same sex married couples.
Now is the only chance we will get to say no to children being deliberately left motherless or fatherless, so vote NO.

How do you think voting No would prevent people?

All it will prevent people doing is getting married.
Married =/= surrogacy.

late · 20-05-2015 07:02PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

'they' - you do realise you are talking about real live Irish people reading this thread not some out there strangers sure who knows what 'they' will want like Ted.

The government has said it is going to legislate - if you don't believe the government that is hardly the fault of gay people.

There is no 'right' to have babies and if such a 'right' suddenly emerges it will apply to straight people as much as gay people and as it is straight people who are the majority seeking to avail surrogacy of perhaps we should prevent heterosexual marriage.

That is nit picking. I did say same sex couple, you know it would not make since to keep keep repeating, same sex couples.

Zen65 · 20-05-2015 07:02PM

gk5000 wrote: »

So legally my marriage must change. You cannot change the constitutional definition without affecting the subordinate laws. You cannot have an omlette without breaking egges...if you prefer.

The Referendum Commissioner has stated that there will be no change to the definition of marriage (because there is / will be no definition of what marriage is).

My game of tennis did not change one bit when the tennis club decided to admit female membership

Z

jobbridge4life · 20-05-2015 07:03PM

late wrote: »

Promises like this from the government are totally meaningless, any government can change these laws in the future, due to pressure from same sex married couples.
Now is the only chance we will get to say no to children being deliberately left motherless or fatherless, so vote NO.

Then campaign for a ban on surrogacy to be placed in the Constitution. It has nothing to do with this referendum.

Oh and by the way gay people can adopt as couples thanks to the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 so... guess you were late on that one.

Bannasidhe · 20-05-2015 07:03PM

gk5000 wrote: »

Parent may be sufficient in your eyes, but 100 years of case law referrs to father mother etc. shall not change overnight, and no amount of wishful thinking on your part can make that so.

So legally my marriage must change. You cannot change the constitutional definition without affecting the subordinate laws. You cannot have an omlette without breaking egges...if you prefer.

Were you also against divorce?

It redefined 'husband' and 'wife' and indeed 'parent'
It meant over turning over 100 years of case law.
It meant ending a Constitutionally protected family.
It meant your marriage changed in a very profound way - it became voidable.

endacl · 20-05-2015 07:04PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How do you think voting No would prevent people?

All it will prevent people doing is getting married.
Married =/= surrogacy.

You'd think somebody would have posted that before now. If that was post #1, this thread would've been a lot shorter...

jobbridge4life · 20-05-2015 07:04PM

gk5000 wrote: »

Parent may be sufficient in your eyes, but 100 years of case law referrs to father mother etc. shall not change overnight, and no amount of wishful thinking on your part can make that so.

So legally my marriage must change. You cannot change the constitutional definition without affecting the subordinate laws. You cannot have an omlette without breaking egges...if you prefer.

So which of you will be transitioning? Also you really need to lay of the useless analogies tractors, trailers, eggs....

endacl · 20-05-2015 07:06PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Nice mature 'all no voters are homophobic' comment, not seen one in a while, just aswel you came along things were getting far too rational, thanks.

"Things were getting far to rational".

Having a laugh, or accidental irony?

20-05-2015 07:08PM

endacl wrote: »

"Things were getting far too rational".

Having a laugh, or accidental irony?

I'll go with accidental irony, there haden't been an animal or baked goods brought up in a while, name calling adds zero to any discussion though.

Gerry T · 20-05-2015 07:09PM

gk5000 wrote: »

Parent may be sufficient in your eyes, but 100 years of case law referrs to father mother etc. shall not change overnight, and no amount of wishful thinking on your part can make that so.

So legally my marriage must change. You cannot change the constitutional definition without affecting the subordinate laws. You cannot have an omlette without breaking egges...if you prefer.

In your case the courts will refer to the relevant case stating mother / father and apply it. So no change to you.

What may happen is a new batch of case law concerning same sex couples which again doesn't affect you.

Do you expect to be in court a lot with marriage issues

gandalf · 20-05-2015 07:10PM

Ah Gk you're back, did you bother to answer the questions I put to you before?

With regard to your marriage nothing changes for you or other married people like me and my wife for example. Suggesting it will is FUD of the highest order.

CiDeRmAn · 20-05-2015 07:17PM

Just had a most unpleasant conversation with an educated man who should have known better.
He thought a Yes vote would "muddy the waters" whatever that meant in this context I don't know.
He thought gay people should be happy with civil partnership, when I asked how he'd feel about having his own marriage turned into one he just changed the subject.
To preface this when I walked into the room he was berating a woman for advocating a Yes vote, and wouldn't let her reply, kept shouting her down and laughing inappropriately when she tried to talk.
Sadly for him it didn't work with me and I just reiterated some of the wisdom of this thread as well as my own experience and that was that.
He left with an agreement that we live in a democracy and we ask the people to answer the question and will accept the response, even if we don't like it.
Took some time for him to accept this way if thinking.
He also questioned why a man or woman of faith should be forced to accept same sex marriage, I said you don't, no ones asking you to, all you're being asked to do is vote one of two ways and leave the rest to the will of the people.

namloc1980 · 20-05-2015 08:04PM

late wrote: »

Promises like this from the government are totally meaningless, any government can change these laws in the future, due to pressure from same sex married couples.
Now is the only chance we will get to say no to children being deliberately left motherless or fatherless, so vote NO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RybNI0KB1bg

Kiwi in IE · 20-05-2015 08:21PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Then campaign for a ban on surrogacy to be placed in the Constitution. It has nothing to do with this referendum.

Oh and by the way gay people can adopt as couples thanks to the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 so... guess you were late on that one.

Ah for fecks sake! I've been gone for a few hours, I come back and still it's surrogacy!

Anyone want to talk to me about Llama and Alpaca farming again?

ronivek · 20-05-2015 08:25PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Ah for fecks sake! I've been gone for a few hours, I come back and still it's surrogacy!

Anyone want to talk to me about Llama and Alpaca farming again?

Well it's turned to abortion in the other SSM thread; it's all fun and games.

I'll just leave this here; we should really discuss these tornadoes next.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMaUKT6lFLs

goat2 · 20-05-2015 08:28PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

We'll you are speaking of emotion and personal experience. Do you think that a male gynaecologist can speak with more authority on childbirth than a mother?

Can a virgin priest who has studied human reproduction describe lovemaking better than a sexual couple?

practice what we preach, that is my answer, ha ha

Bannasidhe · 20-05-2015 08:33PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Ah for fecks sake! I've been gone for a few hours, I come back and still it's surrogacy!

Anyone want to talk to me about Llama and Alpaca farming again?

My friend with the Alpaca Farm had her first school tour of the year today. It went very well.

Kermit.de.frog · 20-05-2015 08:34PM

"Homophobia" is the natural disposition against people who say they are gay - hence most of the anti gay prejudice can be observed among children like they are on auto pilot and much more so than adults who are less inclined to upset anyone.

Vivisectus · 20-05-2015 08:35PM

late wrote: »

Promises like this from the government are totally meaningless, any government can change these laws in the future, due to pressure from same sex married couples.
Now is the only chance we will get to say no to children being deliberately left motherless or fatherless, so vote NO.

Fortunately we do not have to rely on speculation: we can simply check if this is what happens in countries that have had gay marriages for years, like my native The Netherlands. There, same-sex marriage has been in place for over a decade.

And guess what? The Netherlands have an outright ban on commercial surrogacy, and laws so strict even on non-commercial surrogacy that most couples looking to avail of something like that go elsewhere.

There is no pressure being exerted to change this. No gay married couples have asserted some sort of right to a child to change surrogacy laws.

Bannasidhe · 20-05-2015 08:36PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

"Homophobia" is the natural disposition against people who say they are gay - hence most of the anti gay prejudice can be observed among children like they are on auto pilot and much more so than adults who are less inclined to upset anyone.

Homophobia is a learned beheavour so if it is observed in children it had it's origins in an adult.

Hate is 'natural' in your world eh?
Glad I'm not a frog.

Kermit.de.frog · 20-05-2015 08:40PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Homophobia is a learned beheavour

Not in the case of homosexuality, it's not. It's very much picked up at a very young age without any help at all. It's the natural disposition and why wouldn't it be? Nature did not intend procreation among human beings of the same sex.

Knasher · 20-05-2015 08:41PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

"Homophobia" is the natural disposition against people who say they are gay - hence most of the anti gay prejudice can be observed among children like they are on auto pilot and much more so than adults who are less inclined to upset anyone.

Completely untrue, kids learn to throw around words without knowing what they mean. They learn them from older kids, who know what they mean, but don't yet know enough to understand why you shouldn't be throwing them around.

I remember being asked quite a lot on the playground was I finger touching finger, circle touching circle, or finger in circle. Which was the "right" answer seemed only to depend on which one I didn't say. The fact I was given all three options, doesn't exactly reflect highly on the knowledge of the person asking the question either.

The Adversary · 20-05-2015 08:41PM

Why can't you wear badges/T-shirts when going to the polling station?

What would happen if I turned up wearing a badge? Also, will a garda age card be accepted as a valid form of identification?

marienbad · 20-05-2015 08:42PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

"Homophobia" is the natural disposition against people who say they are gay - hence most of the anti gay prejudice can be observed among children like they are on auto pilot and much more so than adults who are less inclined to upset anyone.

Astonishing that people believe this s***e in this day and age , depressing stuff.

PopePalpatine · 20-05-2015 08:43PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

"Homophobia" is the natural disposition against people who say they are gay - hence most of the anti gay prejudice can be observed among children like they are on auto pilot and much more so than adults who are less inclined to upset anyone.

Are other kinds of bigotry justifiable in such a manner?

That_Guy · 20-05-2015 08:44PM

The Adversary wrote: »

Why can't you wear badges/T-shirts when going to the polling station?

What would happen if I turned up wearing a badge? Also, will a garda age card be a valid form of identification?

You can't canvas on the day of the election or within a certain distance from the polling stations as far as I'm aware.

A yes t-shirt or a no badge etc can be deemed as canvassing. I'm not sure if they count your vote as spoiled or whether you have to go home and come back at a later time to vote though.

Even something like rainbow shoe laces or rainbow wristband could be seen as canvassing.

EDIT: A Garda age card should be fine. I'd bring a utilities bill too just in case.

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

Comments