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

Riverireland wrote: »

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.

I have no idea what you are trying to achieve. My views have been very clear on this thread.

In my eyes all children should be equal. However, they are not due to the constitution.

For same sex couples the line "Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex" needs to be in the constitution to guarantee them and their children equal rights as heterosexual couples.

Children of single parents is another issue altogether. I believe their children should be treated as equals too but we are not being asked to vote on that.

Tinder Surprise wrote: »

thanks.

This video seems quite insightful, and I would be grateful if somebody could explain to me a point that was made in it:

"Don't redefine marriage but put Civil partnership into the constitution"

Is that too simplistic a point, and why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6HD8KLQBvA

This video is nonsense.

"I'll be voting no to same sex marriage because I believe children deserve a mother and a father where possible"

We are only 19 seconds in and he is already talking rubbish. I didn't realize that all married couples are forced to have children. Getting married and having kids are not the same thing and doing one does not automatically mean that you must do the other.

So his opening reason for voting No to same sex marriage has nothing to do with marriage. Great.

"For me marriage is about children and the family and not a way to measure adult relationships". Yes. For you. Not for everyone. 22 seconds in and you've already made two REALLY poor points. This is not going well.

Then some talk about how gay he is. This is the NO sides equivalent of "I'm not racist! I have loads of black friends". Embarrassing.

We are a quarter of the way into the video and not a single good point has been made.

Next up, we already have civil partnerships and it's the same as marriage. You can even say "I do"!

So the argument here is that because we already have A (civil partnerships) we shouldn't also have B (marriage)? How is that an argument for voting No? Surely if a same sex couple want to be married we should just let them? Where is the valid reason why we shouldn't let them be married?

OK. "Don't redefine marriage". Listen, human beings have been around for many thousands of years and we were around for thousands of years before there was even a concept of marriage. WE (Homo Sapiens) defined "marriage". Why can't we now redefine it? Is it possible that we didn't get it EXACTLY right when we first defined it?

"marriage is, at it's heart, about children" No it isn't. Can a heterosexual couple get married and also never have children? Yes. So why can't a homosexual couple do the same?

I find this whole "won't someone think of the children" angle to be extremely dishonest. The guy in this video should be ashamed of himself for spouting this utter garbage. i do not for a second think that he honestly believes that marriage is "all about the children".

"Everyone knows that marriage is almost always about children". Interesting that he uses "almost always" like he kind of understands that sometimes there are people who don't always conform to the majority.

A bunch of talk about surrogacy and adoption THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE YOU CLOWN!

Halfway through the video and he hasn't presented an honest reason for voting No and has made points that have nothing to do with marriage at all.

"If you approve the governments amendment you will be saying that there is no distinction between the union of a man and a woman and of two men or two women". Yes. That's the way it should be.

"There are many people who feel the same way as I do but they are afraid to speak out" This has nothing to do with any argument in favor of a "No" vote. Who are these "many people"? It seems more like you are trying to convince people "hey, listen lots of people agree with me" without actually providing evidence of this.

"extraordinary bullying" 3/4 of the way though the video and we come to attacks on the opposing side. He STILL hasn't made any kind of argument in favor of voting No to same sex marriage.

Ah, so its all about intimidation. All these people who want to vote no are not speaking out because of intimidation. It's nothing to do with the fact that they don't have any valid points or arguments, right?

Family business and professional careers are being threatened? Catholic schools must teach the governments vision of marriage? THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH VOTING YES OR NO.

Anecdotes of careers and businesses being threatened are of no value here. We don't know the circumstances. If you are telling people at work to vote no because "homosexuality is a sin" then obviously it will cause trouble.

"True equality recognizes difference and it doesn't deliberately take away a childs right to a mother and father". Two men or two women getting married will not take away any childrens rights.

3:27 Some nonsense about putting the rights of adults over the rights of children. Its just flat out misinformation at this point.

The possibility that someone could see/hear this utter tripe and be swayed towards a "no" vote angers me SO much.

It's dishonest. It addresses points that have nothing to do with same sex marriage.

It actually comes across as an exercise in giving people who are voting "No" (for some questionable reasons) permission to not feel bad about using nonsense reasoning to deny people they right to get married.

Cos, if some gay guy is voting No then it's OK for me to vote No too, right? No need to use rational thought at all. Yay!

mailforkev wrote: »

But what about a childless couple like me and my wife? Where do we fit in?

I'm in the same boat. We must be outcasts.

RobertKK wrote: »

It goes to show how the government rushed this referendum, and no doubt other loopholes will emerge.

How could they have the legislation for something that was still constitutionally illegal?

traprunner wrote: »

I'm in the same boat. We must be outcasts.

Me too - this outcast area is getting very crowded!!

kona wrote: »

Which is why I don't agree with how it's written. The whole thing needs modification IMO to include children in the family unit.

That's why I think there should be two separate parts in the constitution, one for SSC and families.

A SSC when they adopt a child could be considered a family also.

But as it stands the Constitution holds that a married couple irrespective of thei parental status are a family under the law.