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

Delirium · 22-05-2015 09:50AM

Hermy wrote: »

I have to challenge that ascertion.
If there is a Yes vote your opinion of marriage and mine will both be recognised in law.
If there is a No vote only your opinion of what constitutes a marriage will be recognised.

RobertKK wrote: »

No, a Yes vote does not recognise what I believe marriage to be, which is an expanded definition.

A yes vote will not remove legal recognition of male+female marriages,

Pherekydes · 22-05-2015 09:50AM

RobertKK wrote: »

This referendum will pass it has the might of the state behind it - all political parties, a former president, the Gardai, the GAA's GPA, the rich and famous, the IDA, Google, Twitter and other multinationals, the media with soft interviews of Yes. David Quinn was asked how he voted on the divorce which was irrelevant, how did homosexual people come about, a tweet that was taken out of context and only brought up by a Yes campaigner months after just as the campaign for the referendum began.

It will be a miracle if Yes don't win this. I would bet my house and other assets on it being a Yes vote. Think it will be 60% Yes, 40% No.

But, but, but...97%* of the country is Christian. How can they possibly lose?

*Statistic heard on a radio debate recently.

Leroy42 · 22-05-2015 09:50AM

If your a silent no, or a silent yes, then that's just fine. Keep it to yourself. Nobody has the right to even ask you what way you vote. If you allow them to by answering that is up to you.

Vote whatever way you feel makes sense to you. Don't vote one way because you think that is what others are doing, you think that is the way the result is going to go, the way your parent are voting, your friends etc.

Jebus, we are given a responsibility to vote that has an effect on the whole country and people are worried about being embarrassed? I thank jebus that we have such a well observed and respected democratic process as it appears that many people simply couldn't function if there was even the slightest pressure on them.

RobertKK · 22-05-2015 09:51AM

SW wrote: »

A yes vote will not remove legal recognition of male+female marriages,

I never said it did, it redefines civil marriage.

titan18 · 22-05-2015 09:52AM

Would be on the yes side but so annoyed at the antics of the yes side, tempted to not vote. Whatever people say about the No vote side (and Iona are asses), I feel the yes side have come out worse.

molloyjh · 22-05-2015 09:54AM

RobertKK wrote: »

I never said it did, it redefines civil marriage.

If you believe in heterosexual marriage the Constitution will continue to recognise those marriages. So your point was rubbish. Not that any of us are at all surprised.

MrWalsh · 22-05-2015 09:55AM

titan18 wrote: »

Would be on the yes side but so annoyed at the antics of the yes side, tempted to not vote. Whatever people say about the No vote side (and Iona are asses), I feel the yes side have come out worse.

It's not X Factor ffs. You're not voting on the popular act. You're voting on civil rights.

the nikkei is rising · 22-05-2015 09:55AM

Could any democracy experts confirm if my vote counts if I don't share it on facebook with a trite message about the difference each vote makes.

jooksavage · 22-05-2015 09:55AM

Pherekydes wrote: »

But, but, but...97%* of the country is Christian. How can they possibly lose?

*Statistic heard on a radio debate recently.

Ha, I heard that statistic too. Was it from "Birdie" on the George Hook debate? The one where she advised us that if SSM was legalised years ago, none of us would be around to debate it today?

MonkeyTennis · 22-05-2015 09:55AM

RobertKK wrote: »

No, a Yes vote does not recognise what I believe marriage to be, which is an expanded definition.

Well its a good thing you have just the one vote, same as the rest of us.

osarusan · 22-05-2015 09:55AM

titan18 wrote: »

Would be on the yes side but so annoyed at the antics of the yes side, tempted to not vote. Whatever people say about the No vote side (and Iona are asses), I feel the yes side have come out worse.

I can understand that some of the comments of the Yes side might have disappointed you (although I'm surprised you say they are worse than the No side) but please remember that you are voting for same sex marriage equality, nothing else.

Please don't punish the wrong people because of the behaviour of some Yes advocates.

molloyjh · 22-05-2015 09:56AM

titan18 wrote: »

Would be on the yes side but so annoyed at the antics of the yes side, tempted to not vote. Whatever people say about the No vote side (and Iona are asses), I feel the yes side have come out worse.

Whether that is true or not (and it's debatable) it shouldn't change your belief on whether we should allow gay marriage. Vote on what you believe is right, not on the behaviour of a group of people.

opiniated · 22-05-2015 09:56AM

LookingFor wrote: »

On the issue of surrogacy legislation and this constitutional change, others have shared more professional opinion - but...

...based on the CFR and the precedence around adoption etc., if the government introduces regulation/legislation it won't discriminate between parent couples regardless of the outcome of the marriage referendum.

Now, one can claim that that legislation could be challenged. However that would require going to court and making a case.

The No campaign's complaint in the event the ref passes is that...in the case of surrogacy legislation, it would have to go to court and make a case for discrimination. (It was, previously, the complaint that it would be 'impossible' to make such a case. Refcom has confirmed it would not be, the children's ref enshrines overriding protection of children's interests that an argument can be put forward on - if research/evidence etc. shows such an argument)

No case or law, however, can be made against surrogacy in general. Effective regulation of altruistic surrogacy/ahr is impossible really. You can't stop people having babies together - either heterosexual or gay couples with the help of a friend. Commercial surrogacy is another matter, and whether the ref passes or not, I think a group would have to come up with a persuasive case to challenge a lack of discrimination against same sex couples. Given that it's something they can do anyway via altruistic means, given that they can adopt as couples, given that there is no 'right to a mother and a father' as the no campaign once claimed etc. etc.

I think in either case it is A Good Thing that any case for discrimination should have go through the rigor of the courts rather than be out in the court of popular opinion. If people believe there is a strong case for discrimination in the interests of a child, that case can be made and won even if marref passes. If they're confident in the strength of that case, let them make it.

I disagree. Married couples have a right to parenthood, under the constitution.
Which is why Enda Kenny has suddenly developed an interest in surrogacy legislation.

As to going to court and challenging the legislation, there seems to be a lot of money available to various groups for that very purpose.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No. I don't have to tolerate this bigoted nonsense.

You got a problem with that?

Frankly, a random stranger posting vitriol on the internet isn't important enough to me to cause me a problem. However, it does tend to harden my attitude from quite a strong degree of sympathy to irritation.
Isn't it a good thing that my morals will not allow me to label an entire group of people as being the same, unlike the kind of malicious nonsense that you posted.

Anita Blow wrote: »

Again though, this has nothing to do with the referendum. Gay people have been adopting since the early 90s. Furthermore there's many children of same-sex couples publicly advocating a yes vote who have stated they endured no such bullying.

If we're going to amend our constitution based on the potential for taunting in the primary school yard we should also ban ginger kids. Would be awful to deliberately bring a child into the world that may be slagged in school for their hair.

What's wrong with ginger kids?:D
I haven't stated that the constitution shouldn't be changed because of the potential for taunting. I've said that I believe the kids in question will be taunted, in some cases.

Ironé wrote: »

More reason for us all to Vote Yes and show that same sex couples are normal and equal. And that future generations will grow up without these sort of prejudices.

What makes you think that changing the constitution is going to change attitudes?
If anything, I suspect that in some cases it will harden them.
Those who are genuinely homophobic aren't going to change their attitudes overnight, and those of us who are not homophobic aren't exactly causing the gay community major problems.

hotmail.com · 22-05-2015 09:57AM

titan18 wrote:

Would be on the yes side but so annoyed at the antics of the yes side, tempted to not vote. Whatever people say about the No vote side (and Iona are asses), I feel the yes side have come out worse.

Look all the positives of the Yes side! It's been wonderful.

namloc1980 · 22-05-2015 09:57AM

RobertKK wrote: »

I never said it did, it redefines civil marriage.

It doesn't redefine anything. It simply states that marriage can harken between any two people without distinction as to their sex. That's it.

traprunner · 22-05-2015 09:58AM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Don't let the carry on of a few eejits (myself included) turn you against voting.

Look what ya did ya big eejit!

titan18 · 22-05-2015 09:58AM

osarusan wrote: »

I can understand that some of the comments of the Yes side might have disappointed you (although I'm surprised you say they are worse than the No side) but please remember that you are voting for same sex marriage equality, nothing else.

Please don't punish the wrong people because of the behaviour of some Yes advocates.

I'd see it as voting for their equality, and if I think you're an assh0le, I'm hardly going to want to treat you equally. I'll probably still vote, cos I do have friends who are affected by it, but some of the yes side really annoyed me.

Zubeneschamali · 22-05-2015 09:58AM

titan18 wrote: »

Would be on the yes side but so annoyed at the antics of the yes side, tempted to not vote.

I didin't realize we were supposed to vote based on which side in the campaign is more annoying.

Let's see: Ronan Mullen, David Quinn, John Waters and Keith Mills...

Still voting Yes.

iDave · 22-05-2015 09:58AM

titan18 wrote: »

Would be on the yes side but so annoyed at the antics of the yes side, tempted to not vote. Whatever people say about the No vote side (and Iona are asses), I feel the yes side have come out worse.

The no side won't be put off by the death threats and hate mail their colleages have sent around.

Adamantium · 22-05-2015 09:58AM

One wonders that if allowing same sex marraige was such an obviously good thing. Why hasn't it happened before?

if its so good, why has it not already happened and more importantly if it had happened in places like Ancient Rome and Greece (which it did, but all but law), Where are all the great 1000+year feminist and gay societies now? Where are they, where's they go? Where? Why'd they go? Why the lack of continuity?

The idea that that we're not the first generation to think of different ideas for living and that all this has happened before is too damn much for young people and they'll vote out of emotions and feelings rather than logic and reason. They'll want to give it a chance by voting yes. Why should they have to hurt a generation when a simple look at the thousands of years of recorded history could yield an answer that would save so much strife and trouble. The written word and the internet had made it so damn easy and yet they make it so damn hard by refusing to acknowledge simple truths.

A common saying from my brother and my like is "it's a different generation".
So human nature changes and wipes a total clean slate because 1 number moves on a calendar on the 31st December?

RobertKK · 22-05-2015 09:58AM

Pherekydes wrote: »

But, but, but...97%* of the country is Christian. How can they possibly lose?

*Statistic heard on a radio debate recently.

I read a tweet by Noel Whelan who accused the Archbishop of Dublin of appearing on TV and being against SSM, due to pressure from the Iona institute.

What this showed is: while lots of people may say they are Catholic, there are those shocked when people are actually Catholic.
Noel Whelan should have known the Archbishop is Catholic and is not going to support SSM.

The biggest joke of the week was Enda Kenny on Six1, saying he is a devout Catholic, he told Gay Byrne he goes to mass every Sunday as he sees it as a community get together, doesn't believe Jesus is the son of God, or the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ. This passes for a devout Catholic these days...

So saying you are catholic is one thing, being Catholic is another. Yes wins.

Delirium · 22-05-2015 09:59AM

RobertKK wrote: »

I never said it did, it redefines civil marriage.

RobertKK wrote: »

No, a Yes vote does not recognise what I believe marriage to be, which is an expanded definition.

You believe marriage to only be between a man and a woman. The Yes vote carrying does not mean the state will no recognise those marriages.

It accepts those unions and will also allow for same-sex unions.

Therefore a Yes vote accomdates both the beliefs of the No and Yes camp with regards to what is marriage.

StewartGriffin · 22-05-2015 09:59AM

I am going to climb Croagh Patrick tonight and as the day breaks over Clew Bay I will weep with unrestrained joy, I shall strip naked to greet the dawn, a dawn upon this new land where everyone and everything is equal, and I shall cry out "Welcome! Welcome Sun, to our new Utopian Republic!"

Edit: Just checked the weather forecast. Scrap that.

kunst nugget · 22-05-2015 10:00AM

the nikkei is rising wrote: »

Could any democracy experts confirm if my vote counts if I don't share it on facebook with a trite message about the difference each vote makes.

Only if you put an equally trite message on a forum to show how above it all you are…

Woodville56 · 22-05-2015 10:01AM

RobertKK wrote: »

This referendum will pass it has the might of the state behind it - all political parties, a former president, the Gardai, the GAA's GPA, the rich and famous, the IDA, Google, Twitter and other multinationals, the media with soft interviews of Yes. David Quinn was asked how he voted on the divorce which was irrelevant, how did homosexual people come about, a tweet that was taken out of context and only brought up by a Yes campaigner months after just as the campaign for the referendum began.

It will be a miracle if Yes don't win this. I would bet my house and other assets on it being a Yes vote. Think it will be 60% Yes, 40% No.

And add to the above list the various state funded charities and legal agencies that have been press ganged into supporting a Yes vote at the risk of losing their comfy state funded/quango status. I know of some people who heretofore supported and fundraised for one of these charities who will no longer be doing so. I'm sure the pink pound will make up the shortfall for their new found allies though

MrWalsh · 22-05-2015 10:01AM

titan18 wrote: »

I'd see it as voting for their equality, and if I think you're an assh0le, I'm hardly going to want to treat you equally. I'll probably still vote, cos I do have friends who are affected by it, but some of the yes side really annoyed me.

Because everyone who has annoyed you is gay?

You do realise that the vast majority of Yes voters are straight?

Hermy · 22-05-2015 10:02AM

Adamantium wrote: »

One wonders that if allowing same sex marraige was such an obviously good thing. Why hasn't it happened before?

Ask 'the chrurch'.

RobertKK · 22-05-2015 10:02AM

SW wrote: »

You believe marriage to only be between a man and a woman. The Yes vote carrying does not mean the state will no recognise those marriages.

It accepts those unions and will also allow for same-sex unions.

Therefore a Yes vote accomdates both the beliefs of the No and Yes camp with regards to what is marriage.

But you at looking at it in a myopic way, rather than the overall picture, which is a redefinition of marriage. An expanded meaning is a redefinition.

Zubeneschamali · 22-05-2015 10:02AM

opiniated wrote: »

Isn't it a good thing that my morals will not allow me to label an entire group of people as being the same, unlike the kind of malicious nonsense that you posted.

You mean like labeling all homosexuals as undeserving of equal rights?

Your high horse seems to be standing in a hole.

the nikkei is rising · 22-05-2015 10:04AM

kunst nugget wrote: »

Only if you put an equally trite message on a forum to show how above it all you are…

But without my name attached people won't know how progressive I am!

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

Comments