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

Pherekydes · 21-05-2015 12:13AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I wonder where jobbridge has got to?

The job centre?

Iwasfrozen · 21-05-2015 12:13AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I wonder where jobbridge has got to?

Maybe gone for seconds? :cool:

galljga1 · 21-05-2015 12:15AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm worried the kippers will smoke too much and forget to vote.
Happened in the Scottish Referendum and it could happen here.

On that note, I am going for a kip er I will be wrecked in the morning. No doubt, I will be herring from you in the morn.

Runs away.

aloyisious · 21-05-2015 12:16AM

endacl wrote: »

I hear that if the referendum passes, we'll all have to drive on the right?

Any truth to this?

Only if you're a cithog

Bannasidhe · 21-05-2015 12:17AM

galljga1 wrote: »

On that note, I am going for a kip er I will be wrecked in the morning. No doubt, I will be herring from you in the morn.

Runs away.

Aw you're codding.

CaveCanem · 21-05-2015 12:19AM

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Some men can't seem to move past the idea of gay sex. It's like they think it'll be bloody mandatory if they vote yes. :rolleyes:

I really don't think this is true, for 95% of people anyway. The reason is the no campaign actually have to remind people over and again that we have civil partnerships. It came in and was forgotten about, people got over it in a flash. I haven't heard a single argument from anyone that civil partnership should be abolished. The same will happen with this I hope.

I think a lot of people are generally disorientated that the morals they grew up with decades ago are seen as so immoral now, having to admit that can be hard when it's more safe and comfortable to retreat back into them. I don't think there are really masses of people who actually hate gay people but gay culture threatens the safety of a moral upbringing that was so absolute.

endacl · 21-05-2015 12:19AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Aw you're codding.

Should be battered for that one.

LordSutch · 21-05-2015 12:19AM

efb wrote: »

Why is it wrong?

Marriage is between a man and a woman who then have the option of creating new life . . .

Yes many married couples can't have babies for lots of reasons, and yes of course many couples create babies without being married, none of this is news! But what is news is that people may very well vote for two men to marry each other, or for two women to marry each other, even though they would be incapable of making babies (without external help), ie adoption. Therefore the word "Marriage" would not be the applicable term for such unions.

The institution of Marriage is for couples who can attempt to procreate by themselves. (Non hetrosexual couples cannot do this) hence the word 'marriage' does not currently apply.

Whats wrong with the term "Civil partnership" for gay & lesbian couples? I presume its as good as marriage? But if not, then it should be urgently amended so that to all intents and purposes Civil Partnership is marriage, but by a different name, Why? (see the 1st sentence again).

Maximus Alexander · 21-05-2015 12:20AM

blacklilly wrote: »

Just to comment on this, I'm not rural, not elderly and not catholic but I'm undecided on how I will vote on this issue and I am considering not casting a vote. I know many people who are undecided also.

Personally I think it will pass with a small majority based on historic turnout indicators

Do you mind me asking what would be worrying you that would keep you from voting in favour?

Not a NSA agent · 21-05-2015 12:21AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Is anyone worried about this referendum not passing? I know it says 69% on this thread but boards demographic tend to be young tech males.

When you factor in the rural vote, the elderly vote, the catholic vote and yes voters apathy I'm genuinely worried this referendum might fail.

Thoughts?

The boards demographic would also include a few more of those on the other extreme end as well.

I'd say it will be lucky to hit 60%. It has the support but its getting people to vote and easing scaremongering iona and friends took part in.

endacl wrote: »

I hear that if the referendum passes, we'll all have to drive on the right?

Any truth to this?

The yes side has never addressed this, they must be hiding something.

Pherekydes · 21-05-2015 12:21AM

I, too, saw Jaws (Mullen) tonight outside Stephen's Green. My daughter (15) was with me.

She: Is that the guy off the telly last night?
Me: Yes, Ronan Mullen.
She: Can I punch him...?

PS She never saw him before last night's debate.

Bannasidhe · 21-05-2015 12:22AM

endacl wrote: »

Should be battered for that one.

Don't hit me - I'm only a shrimp.

ixoy · 21-05-2015 12:23AM

LordSutch wrote: »

Marriage is between a man and a woman who then have the option of creating new life . . .

Yes many married couples can't have babies for lots of reasons

But by your own logic these couples can't exercise the option to create life so therefore should not be married. If you agree with that then you're at least logically consistent.

endacl · 21-05-2015 12:23AM

LordSutch wrote: »

Marriage is between a man and a woman who then have the option of creating new life . . .

Yes many married couples can't have babies for lots of reasons, and yes of course many couples create babies without being married, none of this is news! But what is news is that people may very well vote for two men to marry each other, or for two women to marry each other, even though they would be incapable of making babies (without external help), ie adoption. Therefore the word "Marriage" would not be the applicable term for such unions.

The institution of Marriage is for couples who can attempt to procreate by themselves. (Non hetrosexual couples cannot do this) hence the word 'marriage' does not currently apply.

Whats wrong with the term "Civil partnership" for gay & lesbian couples? I presume its as good as marriage? But if not, then it should be urgently amended so that to all intents and purposes Civil Partnership is marriage, but by a different name, Why? (see the 1st sentence again).

I hear that if Punxatawney Pete sees his shadow, the referendum will be postponed, and we'll have six more weeks of bullsh1t.

Maximus Alexander · 21-05-2015 12:24AM

LordSutch wrote: »

Whats wrong with the term "Civil partnership" for gay & lesbian couples? I presume its as good as marriage? But if not, then it should be urgently amended so that to all intents and purposes Civil Partnership is marriage, but by a different name, Why? (see the 1st sentence again).

Civil partnership is not the same as marriage, and even if it was, the issue remains that it would not have the constitutional protection that marriage has, and thus could be limited or taken away at any time. So, civil partnership will never be the same as marriage.

But even if we imagine that they could be made identical, what would be the point of having two identical legal contracts with different names? Why not just call them both marriage?

endacl · 21-05-2015 12:25AM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Civil partnership is not the same as marriage, and even if it was, the issue remains that it would not have the constitutional protection that marriage has, and thus could be limited or taken away at any time. So, civil partnership will never be the same as marriage.

But even if we imagine that they could be made identical, what would be the point of having two identical legal contracts with different names? Why not just call them both marriage?

Why not call them both 'civil partnership'? For divilment.

Maximus Alexander · 21-05-2015 12:25AM

endacl wrote: »

Why not call them both 'civil partnership'? For divilment.

Sure. Either or.

Woodville56 · 21-05-2015 12:26AM

If the referendum passes it may well be a Pyrrhic victory for the gay community given the amount of bad blood, name calling and divisiveness stirred up in the course of the debate which won't be forgotten. The fact will remain that probably close to 50% of those eligible to vote won't bother to do so and dont give a toss either way about same sex marriage. So while they may win the day, the gay community still have a bit to travel in achieving the widespread respect and acceptance they would proclaim with a victory on Friday. Certain activists on the pro same sex marriage side both here and in other social media have persisted throughout this campaign in labeling anyone who opposed their views in the most demeaning and pejorative fashion, calling them idiots, bigots, homophobes, imbeciles and worse. This will ultimately damage public perceptions of the gay community and may well be a rather unfortunate legacy of this fractious debate. But sure it's the end result that matters, gays will be able to get married and win their equality battle, if not the full acceptance and respect of the broader population. The end justifies the means etc

Iwasfrozen · 21-05-2015 12:26AM

Pherekydes wrote: »

I, too, saw Jaws (Mullen) tonight outside Stephen's Green. My daughter (15) was with me.

She: Is that the guy off the telly last night?
Me: Yes, Ronan Mullen.
She: Can I punch him...?

PS She never saw him before last night's debate.

He does have that affect.

Zen65 · 21-05-2015 12:27AM

LordSutch wrote: »

Marriage is between a man and a woman who then have the option of creating new life . . .

You know a man and a woman can create new life without getting married, don't you? So the "then" in your sentence is incorrect.

Try this - "a marriage between a man and a woman can be a good way to plan for creating new life".

Does that still give you the warm feeling you like?

Ave Sodalis · 21-05-2015 12:27AM

It's interesting to note how many people are giving out about redefining marriage and then continue their rant with their version of what marriage actually means...

LordSutch · 21-05-2015 12:28AM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

But even if we imagine that they could be made identical, what would be the point of having two identical legal contracts with different names? Why not just call them both marriage?

Please see post#6902, 1st sentence.

Kiwi in IE · 21-05-2015 12:28AM

Can an Alpaca have a civil partnership or are they only for Llamas?

Ave Sodalis · 21-05-2015 12:29AM

LordSutch wrote: »

Please see post#6902, 1st sentence.

It can't happen. It doesn't work that way. You cannot have the same thing with two different names.

abff · 21-05-2015 12:29AM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

By anyone saying here that children are NOT born with a homophobic disposition it completely annihilates any pretense of argument they may have had by saying someone is born gay.

Argument won.

?

endacl · 21-05-2015 12:29AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Can an Alpaca have a civil partnership or are they only for Llamas?

Llamas are Buddhist. Their minds are on higher things.

Maximus Alexander · 21-05-2015 12:31AM

Woodville56 wrote: »

This will ultimately damage public perceptions of the gay community and may well be a rather unfortunate legacy of this fractious debate.

I can absolutely guarantee you that it is the people who opposed this referendum and others like it who will be judged harshly by future generations. The world is moving on, as it has done many times before.

Bannasidhe · 21-05-2015 12:32AM

LordSutch wrote: »

Marriage is between a man and a woman who then have the option of creating new life . . .

Yes many married couples can't have babies for lots of reasons, and yes of course many couples create babies without being married, none of this is news! But what is news is that people may very well vote for two men to marry each other, or for two women to marry each other, even though they would be incapable of making babies (without external help), ie adoption. Therefore the word "Marriage" would not be the applicable term for such unions.

The institution of Marriage is for couples who can attempt to procreate by themselves. (Non hetrosexual couples cannot do this) hence the word 'marriage' does not currently apply.

Whats wrong with the term "Civil partnership" for gay & lesbian couples? I presume its as good as marriage? But if not, then it should be urgently amended so that to all intents and purposes Civil Partnership is marriage, but by a different name, Why? (see the 1st sentence again).

That is the popular perception of what marriage is about but not the legal one, and it is legal recognition and protection that gay couples want.

The legal definition of marriage is that it is a contract that makes two non-blood related people in to a legal family creating a relationship that takes precedence over all blood connections.
In Ireland this is further complicated because only a married couple are legally considered to be a family and therefore given Constitutional protection.

No children are necessary for this contract. There are no preconditions that required children - biological or not.

It is simply a legal contract which states that these two adults are now a protected family unit.

Civil Partnership does not and cannot do that.

You will be voting No because what you believe marriage is is actually incorrect.

Zen65 · 21-05-2015 12:32AM

Woodville56 wrote: »

If the referendum passes it may well be a Pyrrhic victory for the gay community given the amount of bad blood, name calling and divisiveness stirred up in the course of the debate which won't be forgotten.

People forgot about the divisiveness in the divorce campaign.

In truth when Graham Norton is presenting the Eurovision on Saturday everyone will love gays again, and it will all be cool.

Anyone who does not like Graham Norton, or not watch the Eurovision, is probably a big, bitter homophobe.

marienbad · 21-05-2015 12:32AM

Woodville56 wrote: »

But sure it's the end result that matters, gays will be able to get married and win their equality battle, if not the full acceptance and respect of the broader population. The end justifies the means etc

By definition You don't have respect and acceptance if you are unequal. I would have thought that was obvious

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

Comments