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

kunst nugget wrote: »

I'm not saying that all of the No vote will come from homophobia but it will come from an intolerance based on an inability to embrace change.

But making something law doesn't guarantee its legitimacy. This is the whole reason EU membership is such a big issue in the UK. People see all these laws and regulations being made for them that do not reflect their values and traditions. As a result in the UK these laws are undermined by their lack of legitimacy and they may leave the EU to restore a common understanding that UK laws and regulations are and will be legitimate.

A vote no on Friday could be for the reason that the wording being put in the constitution lacks legitimacy. I am voting yes and I am now asking others to vote yes too because making civil partnership equal in status to traditional marriage is a no-brainier. Despite that I think inserting a currently popular idea, that marriage itself is genderless lacks full legitimacy.

keeponhurling wrote: »

Yes something like ensuring child's benefits and allowance are completely equal, regardless of who looks after the child, as long as they are competant parents.

Does this amendmnet not increase the number of people to whom children of unmarried couples are considered less important to?

Like my own - I am not married and yet raise my kids together with my significant other.

On the other hand, we increase the amount of children who receive the special protection and tax breaks. As well as letting gay people marry in cases where no children at all are involved. And generally making gay people feel more accepted and included.

I see no significant harm i leveling the playing field between straight and gay. The rest will come in due time.

Deleted User wrote: »

Can someone explain what the story is with the legality regarding consummation? just heard a bit on the radio on the way to work. Does it mean that legally a gay marriage will always be voidable as consummation cannot happen whereas a straight marriage that is lost upon consummation?

Consummation is just the act of having sex.

Riverireland wrote: »

Just to clarify for those who have asked. I am not voting for the following reason. I can not vote yes as I believe marriage as an institution is unnecessary. I can not vote No as I don't like denying anyone something they want, even if it is imo unnecessary.

You don't like denying them what they want, but you won't vote for them to be able to get what they want because marriage isn't important to you. I see.

Riverireland wrote: »

Won't be changing my mind so don't bother trying. Am enjoying the debate even if it does seem all a bit surreal at times.

Grand, won't bother trying to change your mind. I'll just ask you to have a think about things that you may affect you that may come to a vote in the future (father's rights, to pick an example off the top of my head (don't know if you're a man or a father, just picking something as an example)), and how you'd feel about people expressing the opinion that they were all for fathers having greater rights (for example) but because they're women it won't affect them so they won't be bothered voting.

On a main road near where I live, all the YES posters have been taken down, and the following NO posters put up in their place:

DON'T BE SILENCED
VOTE NO

Silenced? Wha?

Is this just targeting the Don't Knows?

I don't know what this referendum is all about, but I've just decided that I'm going to vote no because I don't want to be silenced!

keeponhurling wrote: »

Yes something like ensuring child's benefits and allowance are completely equal, regardless of who looks after the child, as long as they are competant parents.

Does this amendmnet not increase the number of people to whom children of unmarried couples are considered less important to?

That is really a very disingenuous argument.

While families headed by Single and unmarried heterosexual parents don't have the same constitutional protection, it is at least open to them to marry if they wish. They can benefit from marriage if and when they choose to do so.

I do not have that option as matters stand.

The disingenuous nature of your "argument" that a yes would further disadvantage unmarried people can be easily shown by simply inverting the proposition - a yes increases the number of people who can benefit from constitutional protection.

A No vote won't help single or unmarried people in any way shape or form. They will continue on as before - with the heterosexual among them being lucky enough to have the option of marrying.

A yes vote won't hurt or harm any unmarried person - but what it will do is equalise the position amongst them by giving them all the same opportunity to marry on equal terms (which some of them are presently denied).

The entire argument feels rather disingenuous to me. I'd really rather people were just honest about their reasoning instead of these sham argument.

Either that or you gave it absolutely zero thought before throwing it out into the world.

In which case I would really rather people actually stopped and thought about their vote for even a second before casting it. Particualrly when that vote gets to determine my rights.

Mr E wrote: »

On a main road near where I live, all the YES posters have been taken down, and the following NO posters put up in their place

Same in Wicklow town last night. Lots of Labour's Vote YES posters taken down. Lots of Vote NO posters went up. Could be a coincidence?

keeponhurling wrote: »

Does this amendmnet not increase the number of people to whom children of unmarried couples are considered less important to?

The 2006 all party committee on the constitution highlighted 7 problems with the section on the family, and SSM is only one of those. The 7 are:

The family: how to define it
Cohabiting heterosexual couples
Same-sex couples
Children
The natural or birth father
Lone parents
Woman in the home

Children's rights were the subject of a referendum already.

But all of these issues will be addressed eventually, including the definition of the family (currently based on marriage - but maybe not in future), and the position of co-habiting couples, with or without children.

And yes, even John Waters' hobby-horse, fathers rights will be dealt with eventually, although I bet he will say it doesn't go far enough and organize another No campaign.

keeponhurling wrote: »

3. Why do you think it just so happens to be only allowed between 2 adults, one male and one female?

If we lived in a muslim country it wouldn't be. If we lived in a mormon country it wouldn't be.

It's like saying why do we drink so much guinness. It's because it's made here. If we lived in the UK it would be warm bitter we drank.

I like guinness. However I'm not about to outlaw other drinks.

btw, the logical reason your argument was wrong was because you were turning a contingent truth into a tautology.

A contingent truth is something like "It is 35 degrees outside". And it is where I am. A Tautology is something like a triangle had three sides.

The definition of marriage as between a man and a woman is contingent upon where you are and what you belief system is. It can change from place to place and from time to time.

So it may be that today the definition of marriage as being something between a man and a woman is contingently true in Ireland. In Two days it may be a different contingent truth.

Literally what we ae talking about is the definition of a word and that can change.

The reasons why it should change are the important parts of the discussion.

Riverireland wrote: »

Why go looking for problems? We are perfectly happy as we are as are a lot of our friends both with and without children. Commitment, love and honesty are what we both value and thankfully we have that, no piece of paper can provide those three things.

My relationship has those things too. What it won't have if the vote fails is the equal recognition, protection and vindication of the State.

It will be declared lesser or unequal as a matter of law.

You might say so what, but that's easy to say when you are not in that position. You are not the one who is being told that the state values your commitment less. Or who has to accept the seconds class status. Who isn't allowed describe his relationship in the same terms as everybody else's - even if you know that your love and commitment is the same.

So I'm not looking for the state to endorse me or to make me feel special. I have a wonderful boyfriend who does that every single day.

All I want is for the state to recognise and protect us. To agree that our love is no better or worse than anybody else's, but is equally worthy and deserving.

To allow us to use the words which match the commitment we are making to each other.

Baggy Trousers wrote: »

It's been a long debate.

What are people's predictions at this point?

I am losing confidence with every passing day but....

YES 56% NO 44%

I'm going to guess:

YES 61% NO 39%

I really do believe that this might be the one vote that might get under-25s off their arses to vote.