Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

Doctor Jimbob

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How can you vote 'yes' or 'no' based on wording you haven't even seen yet? That's my point - as much as I'm an advocate for marriage equality, I'd like to see what I'm being asked to vote on first before I make my decision so that we're not left in some legal quagmire 20 years from now.

I think most people are operating under the assumption that it's going to be a simple yes or no to marriage equality. Obviously if this changes closer to the time it could change things, but I think for now it's a reasonable assumption to make.

tayto lover

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How can you vote 'yes' or 'no' based on wording you haven't even seen yet? That's my point - as much as I'm an advocate for marriage equality, I'd like to see what I'm being asked to vote on first before I make my decision so that we're not left in some legal quagmire 20 years from now.

The wording could certainly cause problems.
Needs to be just a simple Yes or No to SSM marriage.

Doctor Jimbob

From the link you posted: "This means that if you are living with a same-sex or opposite-sex partner, you may apply to the Authority to adopt a child in your own right, intending to raise the child with your partner. However, your partner would have no legal rights in relation to the child. The fact you are in a relationship is relevant only when evaluating circumstances that might affect the child's welfare"


Edit: Quoted post ninja deleted.

keeponhurling

So somebody makes a point that they are concerned how any new legislation might affect children.

Daith comes back with some false information.
Gonzalez comes back with some snide remarks about Christianity.

Good debate here:pac:

Daith

TheQuietFella wrote: »

Bulls**t thank God!

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/cohabiting_couples/adoption_and_unmarried_couples.html

The Minister continued: “The proposals enabling civil partners to adopt children jointly were welcomed when this Scheme was originally published. I am now providing for cohabiting couples, living together for 3 years in a committed relationship, to be eligible to adopt children jointly.”

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PR14000257

Daith

keeponhurling wrote: »

Daith comes back with some false information.

What false information?

This referendum will have no bearing on gay couples adopting children. How about you give out to the No side for not realizing this?

Doctor Jimbob

keeponhurling wrote: »

So somebody makes a point that they are concerned how any new legislation might affect children.

Daith comes back with some false information.
Gonzalez comes back with some snide remarks about Christianity.

Good debate here:pac:

In fairness the claims that it will affect children have been addressed multiple times in this thread already. It won't. At all. Simple as that. I get that snide remarks don't help but it does get tiresome having to refute the same incorrect claims from the same posters over and over.

eyescreamcone

Anyone like to bet the Iona-ists are lobbying hard to muddy the water with the actual question to be put to the voters?

It's good that Lucinda et al are not in power.

Nice job dumping those "conscience voters" before this referendum!!!

Doctor Jimbob

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Anyone like to bet the Iona-ists are lobbying hard to muddy the water with the actual question to be put to the voters?

It's good that Lucinda et al are not in power.

Nice job dumping those "conscience voters" before this referendum!!!

Bet? They're already on here making vague reference to children and mysterious 'consequences' that have yet to be defined.

keeponhurling

Daith wrote: »

What false information?

Misleading then, or craftily worded.

Daith

keeponhurling wrote: »

Misleading then, or craftily worded.

Sorry, can you give me an actual example?

eyescreamcone

keeponhurling wrote: »

Misleading then, or craftily worded.

And lies!!!

B_Wayne

fran17 wrote: »

Yes you see what is quite evident here that every now and then the mask slips and the true feelings and beliefs of people such as this one surfaces.



I would highly recommend that this person,not all people,work on his own life and issues before attempting to become a parent as he wishes to do.There probably are some gay couples out there who would make fine parents and that should be dealt with on a case by case basis.However in the case of the average,garden variety type I believe opening up this to all would be a social and civic calamity.
As our law currently stands a couple must be married to make an application to adopt a child and if this referendum is passed then Pandora's box is opened and the people of Ireland need to think long and hard about this.There is far more involved here than marriage.

Adoption issues will be sorted prior to any referendum because one's sexual orientation doesn't impact upon parenting ability. So you're not actually voting on anything related to adoption.

Doctor Jimbob

B_Wayne wrote: »

Adoption issues will be sorted prior to any referendum because one's sexual orientation doesn't impact upon parenting ability. So you're not actually voting on anything related to adoption.

I'd hazard a guess that he's perfectly aware of this.

fran17

Daith wrote: »

No the ability of gay couples to adopt has nothing to do with this referendum. It has been explained dozens of times already.

If the referendum fails, gay couples will still be able to adopt

The only question is whether two people regardless of sexuality can marry.

Why must the yes side persist in untruths.Our law as stated requires for a couple to be legally married to make an application for adoption.A gay couple cannot make an application however if this referendum is passed then a gay couple can legally marry thus an application for adoption of a child can be made.Those are the facts.

Daith

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'd hazard a guess that he's perfectly aware of this.

Yet it's an example of what the debate will be like where the focus will be on children despite all of this.

kylith

fran17 wrote: »

As our law currently stands a couple must be married to make an application to adopt a child and if this referendum is passed then Pandora's box is opened and the people of Ireland need to think long and hard about this.There is far more involved here than marriage.

That is untrue. Single people can adopt by themselves. Gay people can already adopt. Single gay people can adopt. NO unmarried couples are allowed to adopt regardless of sexual orientation.

This referendum will not effect adoptions in any way, shape or form, other than allowing married gay people to adopt as a couple.

Daith

fran17 wrote: »

Why must the yes side persist in untruths.Our law as stated requires for a couple to be legally married to make an application for adoption.A gay couple cannot make an application however if this referendum is passed then a gay couple can legally marry thus an application for adoption of a child can be made.Those are the facts.

As stated yes but it will not be the referendum that changes it. It will be the Children and Family Bill.

Couples who are in a civil partnership will be able to adopt.

I would suggest you read up on it more at it seems to be a big concern of yours

http://www.thejournal.ie/child-and-family-relationship-bill-1690019-Sep2014/

Doctor Jimbob

fran17 wrote: »

Why must the yes side persist in untruths.Our law as stated requires for a couple to be legally married to make an application for adoption.A gay couple cannot make an application however if this referendum is passed then a gay couple can legally marry thus an application for adoption of a child can be made.Those are the facts.

'Untruths' in this case having the unique definition of 'truths that I don't like'.

fran17

kylith wrote: »

That is untrue. Single people can adopt by themselves. Gay people can already adopt. Single gay people can adopt. NO unmarried couples are allowed to adopt regardless of sexual orientation.

This referendum will not effect adoptions in any way, shape or form, other than allowing married gay people to adopt as a couple.

So in a roundabout way what I said is true.

Daith

fran17 wrote: »

So in a roundabout way what I said is true.

Only that it's not because if the referendum fails, civil partnered couples will still be able to adopt.

The Children and Family Bill as I said is what you need to read up on.

CiDeRmAn

I look forward to this vote and the opportunity to support my fellow citizens.
These rights are a benefit to all.
So many countries around the world are failing to support the rights of all of their citizens, including minorities, and a vote in this is a show of support for an inclusive Ireland.
You say it doesn't affect you because you aren't gay?
What about your extended family, what about those who see their sexual orientation being described as something other than mainstream and therefore to be hidden, in shame.
These are people who should be supported, as having the same rights as the rest of the "normal" citizens of the country.

People should stop hiding their intolerance behind a defence of the institution of marriage as well, it's simply beyond belief that a heterosexual marriage could be under threat, in any way, by gay marriage.
We heard the same nonsense during the divorce referendum.

One eyed Jack

Daith wrote: »

As stated yes but it will not be the referendum that changes it. It will be the Children and Family Bill.

Couples who are in a civil partnership will be able to adopt.

I would suggest you read up on it more at it seems to be a big concern of yours

http://www.thejournal.ie/child-and-family-relationship-bill-1690019-Sep2014/

See that right there? That's why I'm saying that the Government have gone arse about face in putting the children and families bill before the referendum, and that's why I'm saying I will be careful in how I approach any referendum question, because it won't be worded as a simple 'yes' or 'no', just like the divorce referendum wasn't worded as a simple 'yes' or 'no', just like the abortion referendum wasn't worded as a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

Isn't the whole reason why marriage equality is so important is because there are over 160 differences between civil partnership, and civil marriage?

Are you still convinced that if this referendum fails it will have no effect on children?

Like I said from the beginning, this referendum affects everyone in society, so that's why it's so important that we consider as many people as possible and not be so dismissive of people just because they aren't middle class LGBT adults who aren't thinking of anyone but themselves.

Daith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Are you still convinced that if this referendum fails it will have no effect on children?

What effects will it have?

We already have effects on children being raised by two same sex parents but the law only recognizes one parent. Do you want this to be put to popular vote?

There are plenty of children in "non-traditional" families that need the same rights as other children.

shruikan2553

fran17 wrote: »

Why must the yes side persist in untruths.Our law as stated requires for a couple to be legally married to make an application for adoption.A gay couple cannot make an application however if this referendum is passed then a gay couple can legally marry thus an application for adoption of a child can be made.Those are the facts.

Untruths? This is coming from the same person who claims the majority are against SSM and ignores anything to show they are wrong?

You're joking right?

fran17

Daith wrote: »

As stated yes but it will not be the referendum that changes it. It will be the Children and Family Bill.

Couples who are in a civil partnership will be able to adopt.

I would suggest you read up on it more at it seems to be a big concern of yours

http://www.thejournal.ie/child-and-family-relationship-bill-1690019-Sep2014/

Right so the brainchild of Alan Shatter has been shelved and now minister Fitzgerald expects it soon...So in summery,there is doubts about sections of this bill regarding homosexuals so this referendum is plan B.Just say that then.

Daith

fran17 wrote: »

Right so the brainchild of Alan Shatter has been shelved and now minister Fitzgerald expects it soon...So in summery,there is doubts about sections of this bill regarding homosexuals so this referendum is plan B.Just say that then.

How about you admit you're wrong and the referendum will not be about gay couples adopting children?

Doctor Jimbob

fran17 wrote: »

Right so the brainchild of Alan Shatter has been shelved and now minister Fitzgerald expects it soon...So in summery,there is doubts about sections of this bill regarding homosexuals so this referendum is plan B.Just say that then.

But saying that would be untrue and a complete distortion of the facts.

One eyed Jack

Daith wrote: »

What effects will it have?

We already have effects on children being raised by two same sex parents but the law only recognizes one parent. Do you want this to be put to popular vote?

There are plenty of children in "non-traditional" families that need the same rights as other children.

Thanks for making my points for me, I was just going to go with their parents are in a civil partnership for a start, which already defines their relationship to their parents as different from the relationship between other children and their married parents, and if the referendum is passed, that does away with one stigmatising label at least.

I'd rather it didn't have to be put to a popular vote, but I had just assumed previous Governments were just too chickenshìt to legislate for it, but as lazygal pointed out way, way back in the thread - if the Government had simply legislated for marriage equality, it would be challenged constantly by some those advocating for a 'no' vote in the upcoming referendum.

I advocate for the rights of children in non-traditional families too btw, not like there's a shortage of children who are currently ignored by the current wording of the Constitution and legislation, but what this thread is about is the rights of children in LGBT marriages, or what are currently civil partnerships, if that's the way it was to remain if this referendum fails.

Daith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

but what this thread is about is the rights of children in LGBT marriages, or what are currently civil partnerships, if that's the way it was to remain if this referendum fails.

No this thread is about whether you're going to vote in the referendum.

The rights of children is separate and needs to be looked at regardless of the referendum.

Annasopra

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I think most people are operating under the assumption that it's going to be a simple yes or no to marriage equality. Obviously if this changes closer to the time it could change things, but I think for now it's a reasonable assumption to make.

No - its a constitutional amendment.

Annasopra

tayto lover wrote: »

The wording could certainly cause problems.
Needs to be just a simple Yes or No to SSM marriage.

It cant be. Its an amendment to the constitution.

Annasopra

fran17 wrote: »

Right so the brainchild of Alan Shatter has been shelved and now minister Fitzgerald expects it soon...So in summery,there is doubts about sections of this bill regarding homosexuals so this referendum is plan B.Just say that then.

No

Civil Partners will be able to adopt jointly after that bill is made law. Therefore the idea that the referendum is bringing in adoption is not true because it will be law before and after.

B_Wayne

fran17 wrote: »

Right so the brainchild of Alan Shatter has been shelved and now minister Fitzgerald expects it soon...So in summery,there is doubts about sections of this bill regarding homosexuals so this referendum is plan B.Just say that then.

It hasn't been shelved... It's intended to be all wrapped up prior to any referendum. Any doubts were in relation to the surrogacy section rather than the gay part. Fact is,same sex parents already exist hence the need to reinforce the rights of the children and parents regardless of the outcome of same sex marriage referendum. Are you upset that you can't muddy the waters with 'won't somebody please think of the children!' style of arguments?

TwoShedsJackson

I'll be delighted when this passes. It's great to see how far a country like Ireland has come, even in my lifetime.

In the late 80s when I was first looking to get condoms you had to have a prescription from a doctor to get them. None of this waltzing into Boots for us oh no!! At least until the Virgin Megastore started selling them, and they were taken to court by one of the most odious right-wing group of twats ever, SPUC.

Every time something like this came along, we were told how it would be the end of civilised life as we knew it. Even now you only have to look at the likes of Alive! to see that there is an unpleasant hardcore element still hanging around, the only good thing to draw from it is that most of these reactionaries will be dead in twenty years.

floggg

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not as simplistic as that though, is it? And this is why I'm saying that it's equally important to ensure that the children of LGBT marriages are provided equal protection of the State, because right now they're not, because LGBT marriages outside the State aren't recognised is one thing, but also if one of the parties in the marriage has children from a previous relationship, there may be custodial issues that would need to be legislated for.

You cannot legislate however for one partner deciding that they don't want their child raised by another person, and that's something that will come up especially in relation to legislating for marriage equality - guardianship issues. So it's not so simple as saying "don't raise a child with another (wo)man", the previous partner may under legislation have no choice in the matter or the manner in which their children are raised, and then because of the way the children's referendum was passed, the State can simply step in and say "we're taking the child away now because you couldn't agree amongst yourselves" (well, not in so many words, but they now have that power!).


Or, y'know, we could just break out the violins, or talk about lovey dovey, rather than discuss complications and legal issues that may arise from whether the referendum passes or fails, since we seem to be gone from taking it seriously to descending to the facetious.

Well I don't know if that was meant to be an extreme example or not, but the issue would be dealt with on exactly the same way as would currently happen on the break up of a heterosexual couple.

A divorced husband doesn't have any say in who their ex-wife marries, even if the ex-wifw has primary custody of the kids.

If they have a particular concern about the new husbands influence on their kids, and they can seek custody but the court won't entertain petitions just based on "I dont like him."


So, if we have marriage equality (and judging by the way the issue was considered by the constitutional convention the referendum will be about allowing absolute equakity), the court will deal with any dispute of the kind you have outlined in the ordinary manner, awarding custody to the spouse who can provide the best home.

If that means a spouse in a same sex relationship, then the court will give them custody even if the other spouse objects.

floggg

fran17 wrote: »

Yes you see what is quite evident here that every now and then the mask slips and the true feelings and beliefs of people such as this one surfaces.



I would highly recommend that this person,not all people,work on his own life and issues before attempting to become a parent as he wishes to do.There probably are some gay couples out there who would make fine parents and that should be dealt with on a case by case basis.However in the case of the average,garden variety type I believe opening up this to all would be a social and civic calamity.
As our law currently stands a couple must be married to make an application to adopt a child and if this referendum is passed then Pandora's box is opened and the people of Ireland need to think long and hard about this.There is far more involved here than marriage.

You're making generalised assumptions about a whole group of people here, and yet feel yiu have the moral authority to judge other people and tell them they need to work on themselves?

Not supporting the comments made by David for the record. They were pretty immature, childish and petty.

Bit given the views you have expressed on gay people, and the posts you have thanked, I don't think you are any moral authority yourself.

Nodin

fran17 wrote: »

So in a roundabout way what I said is true.

No, because homosexual couples will be allowed adopt before the referendum.

One eyed Jack

floggg wrote: »

Well I don't know if that was meant to be an extreme example or not, but the issue would be dealt with on exactly the same way as would currently happen on the break up of a heterosexual couple.

A divorced husband doesn't have any say in who their ex-wife marries, even if the ex-wifw has primary custody of the kids.

If they have a particular concern about the new husbands influence on their kids, and they can seek custody but the court won't entertain petitions just based on "I dont like him."


So, if we have marriage equality (and judging by the way the issue was considered by the constitutional convention the referendum will be about allowing absolute equakity), the court will deal with any dispute of the kind you have outlined in the ordinary manner, awarding custody to the spouse who can provide the best home.

If that means a spouse in a same sex relationship, then the court will give them custody even if the other spouse objects.

See that's a much better and much more honest answer than -

"This referendum isn't about children".

If people smell BS and wishy-washy avoidance answers, is it any wonder they're going to get their backs up?

That's all I wanted, is that we acknowledge that these kinds of questions ARE going to be asked, not to trip people up or undermine people, but out of genuine concern for questions that need answers, and if we don't know the answers, I'd rather people admit "I don't know", than give what feels like some rehearsed party line answer.

You can't ask people to think about what if one of their children were LGBT, or what if someone related to them were LGBT and they didn't know it, etc, and then turn round and say "this referendum isn't about children, oh and and it doesn't affect anyone else but LGBT people".

That, to me at least, reads like you're trying to hide something from me that you don't want to give me an honest answer. Either give people an honest answer, or say "I don't know", but don't say something condescending and patronising like -

"This referendum has nothing to do with children, this referendum won't affect heterosexual people", etc, and then expect them to make any attempt to understand where you're coming from when you're unwilling to relate to their concerns.

I know there's going to be plenty of wind-up merchants appear between now and May, but if you waste more time on them than addressing legitimate concerns, people are going to start thinking you're ignoring them, and come the time of the referendum when you're looking for their support, they'll have forgotten all about you.

Doctor Jimbob

One eyed Jack wrote: »

See that's a much better and much more honest answer than -

"This referendum isn't about children".

If people smell BS and wishy-washy avoidance answers, is it any wonder they're going to get their backs up?

That's all I wanted, is that we acknowledge that these kinds of questions ARE going to be asked, not to trip people up or undermine people, but out of genuine concern for questions that need answers, and if we don't know the answers, I'd rather people admit "I don't know", than give what feels like some rehearsed party line answer.

You can't ask people to think about what if one of their children were LGBT, or what if someone related to them were LGBT and they didn't know it, etc, and then turn round and say "this referendum isn't about children, oh and and it doesn't affect anyone else but LGBT people".

That, to me at least, reads like you're trying to hide something from me that you don't want to give me an honest answer. Either give people an honest answer, or say "I don't know", but don't say something condescending and patronising like -

"This referendum has nothing to do with children, this referendum won't affect heterosexual people", etc, and then expect them to make any attempt to understand where you're coming from when you're unwilling to relate to their concerns.

I know there's going to be plenty of wind-up merchants appear between now and May, but if you waste more time on them than addressing legitimate concerns, people are going to start thinking you're ignoring them, and come the time of the referendum when you're looking for their support, they'll have forgotten all about you.

You do make valid points, but I don't think the comment about it not being about children was intended to be condescending or patronising because, well, it's not about children.

I can see how people who don't know this could get the wrong impression though.

Deenie123

Of course I will be voting, and I will be voting in favour.

I have the right to consent to marry someone I love, if I so choose to. Why shouldn't all people who are capable of consenting to marry also have this right?

Two men or two women getting married (civilly) doesn't change anything about any existing marriage.

I personally cannot see any reason why not to extend such a basic civil liberty to, what, 10% of the population who are currently denied it?

The LGB community aren't some strange sect, they're our brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces, nephews, sons, daughters, friends, neighbours. They're people we grew up with and played together with in school. They aren't the perverted, twisted bogey man sitting in the shadows just waiting to undermine marriage because they're so opposed to it, they just want the same rights as everyone else.

ThinkAboutIt

i will be voting no. whatever way you dress it up, being gay is wrong. we were put on this earth to create life and gays cannot do that. they don't deserve the right to marry if they cannot create life.

AboutaWeekAgo

ThinkAboutIt wrote: »

i will be voting no. whatever way you dress it up, being gay is wrong. we were put on this earth to create life and gays cannot do that. they don't deserve the right to marry if they cannot create life.

Think about it.

Billy86

ThinkAboutIt wrote: »

i will be voting no. whatever way you dress it up, being gay is wrong. we were put on this earth to create life and gays cannot do that. they don't deserve the right to marry if they cannot create life.

So I take it you are of the opinion that sterile people, the elderly, and people who do not wish to have children should also be denied marriage?

shruikan2553

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You do make valid points, but I don't think the comment about it not being about children was intended to be condescending or patronising because, well, it's not about children.

I can see how people who don't know this could get the wrong impression though.

I think when people say its not about children what they mean is that a SSC will be able to adopt or have children from another method regardless of the result from the referendum.

When the likes of the iona institute talk about children they make claims that by having 2 mothers/fathers they are somehow at a disadvantage despite people who research this kind of stuff saying that they are fine and children may be better off with a married SSC vs unmarried SSC as marriage tends to bring stability to a relationship.

Children will be affected but it will be incredibly minor to the point that it is barely worth mentioning, although with the misinformation around children needing a mother and a father means that people assume that by "think of the children" they mean that they'll spontaneously combust if they come into contact with a gay couple.

Doctor Jimbob

ThinkAboutIt wrote: »

i will be voting no. whatever way you dress it up, being gay is wrong. we were put on this earth to create life and gays cannot do that. they don't deserve the right to marry if they cannot create life.

We were?

You're using a religious definition of marriage to argue against civil marriage equality. It's a fundamentally flawed argument. No one will be forcing any religion to marry same sex couples (nor should they be forced to do so, IMO, but that's another argument).

CiDeRmAn

ThinkAboutIt wrote: »

i will be voting no. whatever way you dress it up, being gay is wrong. we were put on this earth to create life and gays cannot do that. they don't deserve the right to marry if they cannot create life.

:eek:

Wow.
I thought all the dinosaurs were extinct.
Though, you probably reckon they died out a couple of thousand years ago.
As punishment from god.
For being gay.


Bob the gay velociraptor...
Well, they were all female on Jurassic Park you know...
True story.....

Billy86

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

:eek:

Wow.
I thought all the dinosaurs were extinct.
Though, you probably reckon they died out a couple of thousand years ago.
As punishment from god.
For being gay.


Bob the gay velociraptor...
Well, they were all female on Jurassic Park you know...
True story.....

Stop bullying people on the no side, they're just trying to explain their side of the argument!

CiDeRmAn

Billy86 wrote: »

Stop bullying people on the no side, they're just trying to explain their side of the argument!

I wasn't aware that he was engaging in debate.
And I wasn't bullying I was pointing out the absurdity of his position.

mickstupp

Billy86 wrote: »

Stop bullying people on the no side, they're just trying to explain their side of the argument!

Can you point out exactly what part of ThinkAboutIt's comment was an argument?