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

Bannasidhe · 21-05-2015 12:23PM

kona wrote: »

Are they legally separated? As far as I know they enjoy all the rights I do.

Isn't the only difference between marrige and civil law is one can be written out of law, an one needs to be voted on for change?

'They' do not enjoy the same rights as you if you are heterosexual.

'They' do not have legal recognition as a family.

'They' do not have Constitution protection.

'They' could have a future ultra Conservative government repeal Civil Partnership and there goes their (not) 'same rights' - this cannot happen with Marriage.

'They' are Irish citizens just as, presumably, you are so why should 'they' not have exactly the same rights?

Kiwi in IE · 21-05-2015 12:23PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

Kiwi raises a legitimate concern that the Yes side have remained suspiciously quiet about. Further to this, is there any legislation to stop two llamas/alpacas adopting a camel via surrogacy?

This is a matter of urgency! There needs to be legislation passed as soon as possible because a camel cannot grow up without a camel role model! This has been ignored and swept under the carpet by the government. Vote no!

arayess · 21-05-2015 12:24PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That was Keith Mills not Paddy Manning.

Not even bothering to find out his name - now that's outcast stuff there.

i treat everybody equally :pac:

Riverireland · 21-05-2015 12:25PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

'Cast out by the gay community'.
The hell is the gay community? You'd swear we have an AGM and weren't just regular people going about their normal days.

I agree with you, you would actually think that! I remember a magazine a friend of mine used to read in the 90's called " the gay community news". Maybe that is where the term came from. Not sure if it's still around, didn't realise it was a derogatory term, apologies if it is, it was not intended that way.

SireOfSeth · 21-05-2015 12:26PM

kona wrote: »

No but SS couples ain't treated differently legally either.

Ehh... not quite right. Like at all. In fact, totally incorrect. Sorry

See the "Civil Partnerships, including how they differ from marriages" section here:
http://refcom2015.ie/marriage/

Hope that clarifies.

myons1 · 21-05-2015 12:27PM

For those of you who are interested, I've written a rather long piece on the topic, which you can find here: [SNIP]

MOD: Don't pimp your blog here.

gazzer · 21-05-2015 12:27PM

The irony of this (as a person who entered a Civil Partnership but who would love to marry my partner) is not lost on me http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/civil-partnership-certificate-not-a-valid-id-for-voting-677219.html

Bannasidhe · 21-05-2015 12:28PM

arayess wrote: »

i treat everybody equally :pac:

The State can't - that is what the vote is for - to give the State absolute permission from the people of Ireland to treat Gay couples the same as Straight couples.

Surely that is worth putting an X in a Yes box?

Anita Blow · 21-05-2015 12:28PM

Riverireland wrote: »

I agree with you, you would actually think that! I remember a magazine a friend of mine used to read in the 90's called " the gay community news". Maybe that is where the term came from. Not sure if it's still around, didn't realise it was a derogatory term, apologies if it is, it was not intended that way.

Haha I was only kidding dude! No harm

osarusan · 21-05-2015 12:28PM

I think when people talk about giving them all the rights but not wanting to call it 'marriage' because it's 'not the same', this is what is going through their minds.

SireOfSeth · 21-05-2015 12:29PM

gazzer wrote: »

The irony of this (as a person who entered a Civil Partnership but who would love to marry my partner) is not lost on me http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/civil-partnership-certificate-not-a-valid-id-for-voting-677219.html

+1

kona · 21-05-2015 12:31PM

SireOfSeth wrote: »

Good. I'm guessing you'll be voting YES then.

What's that got to do with anything ? I'm asking a question I have from my understanding of the subject.

Personally I don't feel comfortable with the way it's been written, I also think that SSC should be treated equally. That's why I'm asking.

Bannasidhe · 21-05-2015 12:31PM

myons1 wrote: »

For those of you who are interested, I've written a rather long piece on the topic, which you can find here: ontheirishmarriagereferendum[dot]wordpress[dot]com. I posted a version on another thread here, but I have made some corrections to it since then. Hopefully it might provide some food for thought.

Any chance you could post a précis - dunno about anyone else but it's giving me all I can do to keep up with the treads here...

endacl · 21-05-2015 12:33PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Any chance you could post a précis - dunno about anyone else but it's giving me all I can do to keep up with the treads here...

It starting to effect your spelling. That's serious.

:P

VinLieger · 21-05-2015 12:33PM

osarusan wrote: »

I think when people talk about giving them all the rights but not wanting to call it 'marriage' because it's 'not the same', this is what is going through their minds.

I imagine them as the seagulls from finding nemo just repeating over and over again "mine, mine, mine, mine"

kona · 21-05-2015 12:33PM

SireOfSeth wrote: »

Ehh... not quite right. Like at all. In fact, totally incorrect. Sorry

See the "Civil Partnerships, including how they differ from marriages" section here:
http://refcom2015.ie/marriage/

Hope that clarifies.

Just about the family bit. I define a family as kids and parents. I define a couple as a couple.

Man and woman can have kids. SSC cannot.

Riverireland · 21-05-2015 12:34PM

traprunner wrote: »

Unfortunately what you or I think at the moment doesn't matter a jot. It's the law and constitution that counts.

SSM is not permitted at the moment.

Children of SS parents are not equal to children of heterosexual married parents in the eyes of the law.

This constitutional amendment would allow SS parents marry and make them and their children equal in the eyes of the law.

Well if you consider them unequal I would see that as your predjuce. Do you consider them to be equal to the children is single parents?

myons1 · 21-05-2015 12:34PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Any chance you could post a précis - dunno about anyone else but it's giving me all I can do to keep up with the treads here...

I'm not 100% sure - I will see if I am able to generate one first and then get back to you. Thanks for the interest anyway.

SireOfSeth · 21-05-2015 12:35PM

kona wrote: »

What's that got to do with anything ? I'm asking a question I have from my understanding of the subject.

Personally I don't feel comfortable with the way it's been written, I also think that SSC should be treated equally. That's why I'm asking.

Apologies. I'm confused. Can you explain the bit you are uncomfortable with?

For that matter, are you talking about this?
“Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.”

Anita Blow · 21-05-2015 12:35PM

kona wrote: »

Just about the family bit. I define a family as kids and parents. I define a couple as a couple.

Man and woman can have kids. SSC cannot.

That's grand to believe that, but constitutionally a family is defined as a couple with or without kids. Nothing about that definition changes, so you're getting hung up on a technicality.

traprunner · 21-05-2015 12:38PM

Riverireland wrote: »

Well if you consider them unequal I would see that as your predjuce. Do you consider them to be equal to the children is single parents?

Please re-read what I actually said. I did mention the law a number of times.

SireOfSeth · 21-05-2015 12:38PM

kona wrote: »

Just about the family bit. I define a family as kids and parents. I define a couple as a couple.

Man and woman can have kids. SSC cannot.

Ah. I get you now. However, the law has a different definition to you. It states that a family is a married man + woman with or without children. Please remember that it's the law you are voting on, not your definition.

arayess · 21-05-2015 12:41PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The State can't - that is what the vote is for - to give the State absolute permission from the people of Ireland to treat Gay couples the same as Straight couples.

Surely that is worth putting an X in a Yes box?

i will vote yes.

perhaps my questioning of the yes campaign lead you to believe otherwise.

I have to admit i'm voting yes in spite of a decent number of the yes campaigners who have behaved badly but I'm not going to vote out of spite.

Bannasidhe · 21-05-2015 12:42PM

endacl wrote: »

It starting to effect your spelling. That's serious.

:P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR_mjkxc7Ys

*

*KeithM alert.

ps - I see it's getting to you too.

traprunner · 21-05-2015 12:43PM

arayess wrote: »

i will vote yes.

perhaps my questioning of the yes campaign lead you to believe otherwise.

I have to admit i'm voting yes in spite of a decent number of the yes campaigners who have behaved badly but I'm not going to vote out of spite.

Sure we are all just having a bit of craic here and hopefully helping others too

Riverireland · 21-05-2015 12:44PM

traprunner wrote: »

Please re-read what I actually said. I did mention the law a number of times.

I see the word "legally". Can you answer my question? Do you consider children of SSC's to be equal to the children of single parents either legally or in any other way?

Others please answer this if trap runner does not as I genuinely would like to know if there is a difference.

Bannasidhe · 21-05-2015 12:44PM

arayess wrote: »

i will vote yes.

perhaps my questioning of the yes campaign lead you to believe otherwise.

I have to admit i'm voting yes in spite of a decent number of the yes campaigners who have behaved badly but I'm not going to vote out of spite.

Thank you.

People on both sides behaved badly but to be honest I think only one side based their whole campaign on misinformation and thinly veiled insults.

matrim · 21-05-2015 12:45PM

I have the solution. When a couple (heterosexual or homosexual) want to commit they can become marred, then when they have kids (or adopt) we can upgrade them to married. So we can have marrage and marriage. Maybe we could add a number for each kid they have, so it could be

marrage
marr1age
marr2age
marr3age

CaveCanem · 21-05-2015 12:46PM

kona wrote: »

Just about the family bit. I define a family as kids and parents. I define a couple as a couple.

Man and woman can have kids. SSC cannot.

I do sympathise with this view. Marriage has probably always featured in human communities from the paleolithic on because communities realise that what two opposite sex people do with their libidos before and during marriage has consequences for society that same sex relationships don't ie. they can leave children behind that need someone to take responsibility for. This is why I think adding a new definition of marriage into our constitution is a bit absurd. Marriage has always been about regulating the creation of children in society.

However, all couples are entitled to full protection and equal status under the law. That is unarguable at this point.

If the best legal minds in the country say we must make this particular change in the constitution to achieve this then we all have a duty to vote yes tomorrow.

arayess · 21-05-2015 12:47PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Thank you.

People on both sides behaved badly but to be honest I think only one side based their whole campaign on misinformation and thinly veiled insults.

no probs.

That's true but they generally were politer about being nasty (imo of course)
I do genuinely object the the homophobic slur that was banded about

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

Comments