Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

SSM why are you voting no?

1235753

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 912 gravehold
    ✭✭✭


    fiachr_a wrote: »
    Two lesbians get married, a man volunteers to get one pregnant, and the baby's born. The lesbian couple raise the kid as their own. After a few years they get divorced. The father of the child voted yes in the referendum but now has to pay child maintenance.

    I thought once the mother marries another person the first person no longer has to pay maintance, in this situation would the ex wife not have to pay rather then the donor.

    But I also think you would have to be a fool to do it in the first place, let them buy their sperm from a sperm bank


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,160 Huntergonzo
    ✭✭✭


    fiachr_a wrote: »
    Two lesbians get married, a man volunteers to get one pregnant, and the baby's born. The lesbian couple raise the kid as their own. After a few years they get divorced. The father of the child voted yes in the referendum but now has to pay child maintenance.

    Does he? I mean I would have thought in a case like this the biological father would have to sign certain rights to the child away by volunteering sperm and the divorced parent who didn't receive guardianship would infact have to play child maintenance not the father.

    That's only my view on it, I don't know the legal end of things, perhaps someone could clear this up.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 LordNorbury
    ✭✭✭


    I know it's not the norm (and I'm not saying I agree with it) but what evidence do you have that the one gay woman is the norm for gay parents? That's what I was pointing out - there will always be parents of all sexualities, genders, races, nationalities whose style of parenting you won't agree with. That woman's views have nothing to do with her sexuality and, more importantly, nothing to do with this referendum.

    Gay people can already adopt or even have biological children of their own if they have a heterosexual partner at some point in their life. The referendum won't change that, regardless of the outcome. Adoption procedures won't change if gay people can get married and there certainly won't be a sudden need for 300,000 babies to be adopted as you seemed to suggest in earlier posts. Children won't suddenly be taken away from their biological parents and given to gay couples as soon as the referendum is passed.

    I know you have your mind made up, you have your opinion and nothing will change that, but the argument you've put forward here is nonsensical. Please just judge the referendum for what it is: should loving couples (who may have been together for years) be allowed to get married and be considered a married couple in the eyes of the law? Nothing more, nothing less.

    It's only nosensical in your view, which I find to be defective. If you can't see that there is more to this than a couple who love each other, then you are entitled to that view but it is a seriously disturbed view in my opinion.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,550 johnnyskeleton
    Mod ✭✭✭✭


    fergus1001 wrote: »
    The militias in the yes camp are pissing me off I'm not voting

    Tearing down posters and lambasting people who try to debate the point is not winning the yes side alot of support

    That's not democracy.

    As someone who will vote yes, I'm also disturbed by the tearing down of posters. It is anti democractic and it is also criminal damage. They should be prosecuted.

    On the unruly debate, there are some civilised debates and some unruly ones.

    So, i guess, the worst of both sides is not a good reflection of the rest of the debate.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 oscarBravo
    Mod ✭✭✭✭


    I'm done debating this with you, I came on here to explain why I'm voting no, as the tread title asked, and no amount of me discussing this with you will convert me into a yes voter.
    In fairness, it never crossed my mind that I would change your views. I don't argue with you because I think you're open to change; I argue with you because there may be people who have yet to fully make up their mind which way to vote, and I wanted to make it clear that your arguments have no basis in logic, reason, or anything other than a desire to discriminate against same-sex couples.
    In my view, the groupthink you are clearly now deeply tapped into, is the stuff of Frankenstien, it's a world I refuse to endorse, where we are throwing biological relationships straight out the window so that the selfish needs of adults who can't conceive children but are now demanding the right to "have" children, it's a world where those needs are placed above the needs of children to have the right to the company & love of their biological parents.
    I've repeatedly pointed out that this is a total straw man. You don't magically get to have your arguments become true by repeating them and ignoring the rebuttals.

    Nobody is demanding the right to have children. Children have nothing to do with the referendum. The question of whether or not same-sex couples can be parents has been dealt with separately by the Oireachtas. You know this, because it has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
    The world you are advocating is a world where childbirth is commodified so that two people, a so called "family" who can never conceive a child by biological design, are now comparable and equal in every single respect, to a family that can procreate.
    I've also rebutted the procreation argument. There is no requirement that a family consist of a couple who can procreate. None. You can arm-wave that away to your heart's content as a "minority", but I'll repeat again: there is no requirement for a married couple to be able to procreate. None.
    You have completely ignored every single point I have made today as to why these things are fundamentally different...
    I haven't ignored them, I've rebutted them. You, in turn, have ignored most of the questions you've been asked, or refused to accept that your reasoning is flawed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,201 languagenerd
    ✭✭✭


    it's a world I refuse to endorse, where we are throwing biological relationships straight out the window so that the selfish needs of adults who can't conceive children but are now demanding the right to "have" children, it's a world where those needs are placed above the needs of children to have the right to the company & love of their biological parents.

    I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand what this referendum is asking. No-one is advocating children be taken from their biological parents. If the referendum is passed, children won't be taken from their parents and given to gay couples. Gay couples won't be given any more rights to adoption than they already have.

    The referendum only asks if gay couples should be allowed marry. That's all. No "rights to children", nothing on those lines.

    You're perfectly entitled to vote no to that, of course, but at least vote on what you're being asked to vote on.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 938 Steve012
    ✭✭✭


    neemish wrote: »
    I'm voting No because I don't agree with the wording. Simple as. I think that the constitution should be as wide as possible and then legislate for marriage within the Oireachtas.

    Same ear, That's one of the reasons I'd vote no.
    Does the referendum mean that same sex marriages can adopt children?.
    If it does until people settle with it, like in some parts of the states, The kid's involved would get a hard time in school, until the country got used to it.

    2 cents.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 jobbridge4life
    ✭✭✭


    Steve012 wrote: »
    Same ear, That's one of the reasons I'd vote no.
    Does the referendum mean that same sex marriages can adopt children?.
    If it does until people settle with it, like in some parts of the states, The kid's involved would get a hard time in school, until the country got used to it.

    2 cents.

    No. The referendum has no impact on the capacity of gay people to adopt. Gay people have for years been entitled to adopt as single individuals. The Children and Family Relationships Act 2015, all ready passed by the Oireachtas and signed by the President provides that gay people may now adopt as couples.

    This is entirely serperate from the referendum but please don't just take my word for it...

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/adoption-process-to-remain-same-regardless-of-vote-authority-chief-1.2208714


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,753 Timberrrrrrrr
    ✭✭✭✭


    Steve012 wrote: »
    Same ear, That's one of the reasons I'd vote no.
    Does the referendum mean that same sex marriages can adopt children?.
    If it does until people settle with it, like in some parts of the states, The kid's involved would get a hard time in school, until the country got used to it.

    2 cents.

    Same sex couples can already adopt children so nothing changes there no matter the outcome of the referendum.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,625 fergus1001
    ✭✭✭


    I'm confident my lad will always know that he's male..... See the "penis" thing above.


    You never know ! Just made the point that I'm not going to threat any of my children as "gender" neutral

    I'll raise my kids as best I can, and when their old enough they can make up their own mind doesn't bother me


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 912 gravehold
    ✭✭✭


    No. The referendum has no impact on the capacity of gay people to adopt. Gay people have for years been entitled to adopt as single individuals. The Children and Family Relationships Act 2015, all ready passed by the Oireachtas and signed by the President provides that gay people may now adopt as couples.

    This is entirely serperate from the referendum but please don't just take my word for it...

    irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/adoption-process-to-remain-same-regardless-of-vote-authority-chief-1.2208714[/url]

    Can't that act be abolished by a future government if they wish, while if the yes vote win they get constitutional protection which means they won't be able to stop gay people adopting as a married family


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 jobbridge4life
    ✭✭✭


    gravehold wrote: »
    Can't that act be abolished by a future government if they wish, while if the yes vote win they get constitutional protection which means they won't be able to stop gay people adopting as a married family

    No because adoption is not a constitutionally protected it right. It is governed by legislation... hence the legislation....

    I mean for god's sake the authority themselves have clearly stated there will be NO CHANGE as a result of the result of the referedum either way. It is beyond baffling peoples willingness to just ignore all the evidence presented before them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 K-9
    ✭✭✭✭


    I couldn't give a fiddlers where she is from, it is irrelevant to me where she comes from. She is saying that to call a child born with male genitalia, a boy, or a girl born with female genitalia, a girl, she has stated that to do that, is to gender stereotype that child. She is one step away from saying that in fact we actually should remove the child's genitalia immediately after birth until it has had a chance to decide what gender is chooses to be!

    This is what we are going to be opening up marriage to if we vote yes, this kind of crazy and insane politically correct bullshít that has no place in a civilised society.

    I know a hetrosexual married couple with those views. What are you going to do about it?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 912 gravehold
    ✭✭✭


    No because adoption is not a constitutionally protected it right. It is governed by legislation... hence the legislation....

    I mean for god's sake the authority themselves have clearly stated there will be NO CHANGE as a result of the result of the referedum either way. It is beyond baffling peoples willingness to just ignore all the evidence presented before them.

    Yes but once married both gay and straight couple will have to be treated the same under discrimination laws, but if no wins they they are still just cp so if the government remove the new act they won't be able to adopt again.

    But if yes wins they are married and cannot be discriminated in the selection when adopting.

    Granted it all hinges on a no and a conservative goverment abloshing the new act. But if he votes no there is still a chance to stop gay couples adopting in the future which won't be possible if yes passes


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 K-9
    ✭✭✭✭


    fiachr_a wrote: »
    Two lesbians get married, a man volunteers to get one pregnant, and the baby's born. The lesbian couple raise the kid as their own. After a few years they get divorced. The father of the child voted yes in the referendum but now has to pay child maintenance.

    Welcome to Irish family law!

    I'm not sure if a judge would order child maintenance in that case.

    2 married women or men would be subject to some pretty archaic and crazy divorce laws too, but we aren't voting on divorce or family law reform.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 jobbridge4life
    ✭✭✭


    gravehold wrote: »
    Yes but once married both gay and straight couple will have to be treated the same under discrimination laws, but if no wins they they are still just cp so if the government remove the new act they won't be able to adopt again.

    But if yes wins they are married and cannot be discriminated in the selection when adopting.

    Granted it all hinges on a no and a conservative goverment abloshing the new act. But if he votes no there is still a chance to stop gay couples adopting in the future which won't be possible if yes passes

    That is utter fiction and given that I have already pointed you towards the Adoption Authority's own Chief clearly stating that NO CHANGE will follow from the results of this referendum, whether that is a yes or a no, I can only assume you are deliberately lying.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 Bannasidhe
    ✭✭✭✭


    K-9 wrote: »
    Welcome to Irish family law!

    I'm not sure if a judge would order child maintenance in that case.

    2 married women or men would be subject to some pretty archaic and crazy divorce laws too, but we aren't voting on divorce or family law reform.

    According the the Referendum Commission
    Donor assisted births
    The Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 deals with parentage in the cases of donor assisted births but not with surrogacy. While the Act has been passed, it is not intended to bring these particular provisions into effect for at least a year.

    The Act provides that a mother’s spouse, civil partner or cohabiting partner will be able to become the second parent of a child provided certain conditions are met. One of these is that the birth mother and the intending second parent consent in advance that they will be the parents of any child born through donor-assisted human reproduction. The donor will also have to consent in advance that he or she is a donor and does not intend to be a parent of the child.
    http://refcom2015.ie/marriage/

    My understanding it that the highlighted bit means the donor signs away all parental rights - same as one does when putting a child up for adoption which is in effect what they are kinda doing - so cannot be sued for maintenance as they will not legally be a parent.

    To go after the donor for maintenance in those circumstances would be like going after a biological mother who gave the child up for adoption for maintenance.

    Maintenance would be decided between the two legally recognised parents in the same way as maintenance is decided between two parents now.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 912 gravehold
    ✭✭✭


    That is utter fiction and given that I have already pointed you towards the Adoption Authority's own Chief clearly stating that NO CHANGE will follow from the results of this referendum, whether that is a yes or a no, I can only assume you are deliberately lying.

    Yes with this goverment but the new act is not constutuionally protected and if a conservative goverment want to remove it in the future they cannot.

    It's one of the main reasons is so important cause without consititunal protect the ability for CP and adoption can just be removed in a blink of the eye.

    If the no voter is unhappy with gay couples adopting he is best to vote no and hedge his bets thats the next goverment will side with his world view and might abolish the new childrens act


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,143 LordNorbury
    ✭✭✭


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    In fairness, it never crossed my mind that I would change your views. I don't argue with you because I think you're open to change; I argue with you because there may be people who have yet to fully make up their mind which way to vote, and I wanted to make it clear that your arguments have no basis in logic, reason, or anything other than a desire to discriminate against same-sex couples. I've repeatedly pointed out that this is a total straw man. You don't magically get to have your arguments become true by repeating them and ignoring the rebuttals.

    Nobody is demanding the right to have children. Children have nothing to do with the referendum. The question of whether or not same-sex couples can be parents has been dealt with separately by the Oireachtas. You know this, because it has been pointed out to you repeatedly. I've also rebutted the procreation argument. There is no requirement that a family consist of a couple who can procreate. None. You can arm-wave that away to your heart's content as a "minority", but I'll repeat again: there is no requirement for a married couple to be able to procreate. None. I haven't ignored them, I've rebutted them. You, in turn, have ignored most of the questions you've been asked, or refused to accept that your reasoning is flawed.

    You've "rebutted" nothing, you've just kept banging out the same big huge lie at the very centre of the yes campaign, which is a total denial that we are going to be admitting 300,000 gay couples into a legal institution that we have up until now, treated favourably purely on the basis that they form the manner in which we have procreated and provided a future basis for the continuity of our society. You refuse to admit this big lie, you just keep banging out the total and utter irellevancy that two 90 year old straight people are allowed to marry and they can't conceive so therefore it follows that 300,000 gay people who can never conceive children that they are both biologically related to by a simple fact of biology & nature, can then be shoehorned on that basis into the institution of marriage. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!!!

    Just look at what you are defending, a campaign with a person at the very front of the campaign who is a man one day and is then designating him/herself as a woman the very next day, who changes their gender designation with the Irish weather, according to what you are arguing, this doesn't matter, this doesn't create any concerns in your mind with regard to how a child might be led into the same muddled field of total gender confusion as the person I'm referring to above, because in your mind, that persons right to be a family and to bring children into that family, and to have the state vindicate all the rights of that family via a constitutional commitment that will extend to that family, is all that matters. Nothing else matters in your view, all that matters is that we can all pat ourselves on the back and say that we are all now equal, even though most people with a brain can see that we are not all equal in the biological sense of the meaning of the phrase "equal"!

    For example I cannot bear a child because I'm a male, I don't have a womb or ovaries so it is a biological impossibility that I am EQUAL to a woman in terms of my ability to carry & bear a child. You don't hear me demanding and obsessing that I am afforded absolute & total equality with a woman, because I have the cop on to understand that such equality is a biological impossibility!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 MrWalsh
    ✭✭✭


    gravehold wrote: »
    Can't that act be abolished by a future government if they wish, while if the yes vote win they get constitutional protection which means they won't be able to stop gay people adopting as a married family

    This is the same nonsense you are peddling all over boards.ie, it's been answered and refuted half a dozen times by now.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,248 BoJack Horseman
    ✭✭✭✭


    You don't hear me demanding and obsessing that I am afforded absolute & total equality with a woman

    What curious anti-logic.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 MrWalsh
    ✭✭✭


    gravehold wrote: »
    Yes with this goverment but the new act is not constutuionally protected and if a conservative goverment want to remove it in the future they cannot.

    It's one of the main reasons is so important cause without consititunal protect the ability for CP and adoption can just be removed in a blink of the eye.

    If the no voter is unhappy with gay couples adopting he is best to vote no and hedge his bets thats the next goverment will side with his world view and might abolish the new childrens act

    Ifs buts and mights. You've been solidly refuted on this many times by now and told to knock it off by moderators. Seriously?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 912 gravehold
    ✭✭✭


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    This is the same nonsense you are peddling all over boards.ie, it's been answered and refuted half a dozen times by now.

    If there is a no vote why can't a conservative goverment revoke the new act and set it back to how it was before? Cause they can in the blink of an eye they can stop gay couples adopting again.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 MrWalsh
    ✭✭✭


    gravehold wrote: »
    If there is a no vote why can't a conservative goverment revoke the new act and set it back to how it was before? Cause they can in the blink of an eye they can stop gay couples adopting again.

    Why would they?

    Can we deal in realities and not maybes please.

    If my Aunty had balls she'd be my uncle. It's not relevant to this referendum.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 912 gravehold
    ✭✭✭


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    Ifs buts and mights. You've been solidly refuted on this many times by now and told to knock it off by moderators. Seriously?

    If they are against gay couples adopting it's their best chance to get the outcome they want in the future. Voting yes would just mean it gets constitutonal protection why would they want to do thay when they are against gay couples adopting


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 912 gravehold
    ✭✭✭


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    Why would they?

    Can we deal in realities and not maybes please.

    If my Aunty had balls she'd be my uncle. It's not relevant to this referendum.

    Wow very transphobic women can have balls too.

    The point is a no means they might get the outcome they want in the future but yes means it becomes constitutionally protected.

    A vote for no and a maybe is better then nothing for them


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 MrWalsh
    ✭✭✭


    gravehold wrote: »
    Wow very transphobic women can have balls too.

    The point is a no means they might get the outcome they want in the future but yes means it becomes constitutionally protected.

    A vote for no and a maybe is better then nothing for them

    Adoption is not constitutionally protected and this referendum will not constitutionally protect it.

    Can you please stop this muddying the water of what the referendum is about?

    The referendum is about marriage. Adoption is not mentioned in the constitution. No matter what the outcome of this referendum, adoption will not change.

    This is not debate. This is you repeating the same refuted point over and over. You have trolled this site with this nonsense for nearly 50 posts now!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 912 gravehold
    ✭✭✭


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    Adoption is not not constitutionally protected and this referendum will not constitutionally protect it.

    Can you please stop this muddying the water of what the referendum is about?

    The referendum is about marriage. Adoption is not mentioned in the constitution. No matter what the outcome of this referendum, adoption will not change.

    This is not debate. This is you repeating the same refuted point over and over. You have trolled this site with this nonsense for nearly 50 posts now!

    Yes but yex makes them a married couple with discrimination laws stopping them from being seen as different then straight couples when adopting which will be constitutionally protected.

    This i ca ramification of a yes vote that the childrens act cannot be revoked and gay couples stopped being allowed to adopt.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 MrWalsh
    ✭✭✭


    gravehold wrote: »
    Yes but yex makes them a married couple with discrimination laws stopping them from being seen as different then straight couples when adopting which will be constitutionally protected.

    This i ca ramification of a yes vote that the childrens act cannot be revoked and gay couples stopped being allowed to adopt.

    Adoption is not constitutionally protected and this referendum will not constitutionally protect it.

    Can you please stop this muddying the water of what the referendum is about?

    The referendum is about marriage. Adoption is not mentioned in the constitution. No matter what the outcome of this referendum, adoption will not change.

    This is not debate. This is you repeating the same refuted point over and over. You have trolled this site with this nonsense for nearly 50 posts now!

    Seriously, can a moderator not stop this blatant nonsense?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 912 gravehold
    ✭✭✭


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    Adoption is not not constitutionally protected and this referendum will not constitutionally protect it.

    Can you please stop this muddying the water of what the referendum is about?

    The referendum is about marriage. Adoption is not mentioned in the constitution. No matter what the outcome of this referendum, adoption will not change.

    This is not debate. This is you repeating the same refuted point over and over. You have trolled this site with this nonsense for nearly 50 posts now!

    Seriously, can a moderator not stop this blatant nonsense?


    If no wins a goverment can stop gay couples adopting fact if they revoked the current act as they are not married


    If yes wins and the act is revoked they can still adopt cause they are married.


    Being married with the constitutional protection makes it so it's a secondary ramification of a yes vote. People need to think what being married also brings, it's not just a big party on a day.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 MrWalsh
    ✭✭✭


    gravehold wrote: »
    If no wins a goverment can stop gay couples adopting fact if they revoked the current act as they are not married


    If yes wins and the act is revoked they can still adopt cause they are married.


    Being married with the constitutional protection makes it so it's a secondary ramification of a yes vote. People need to think what being married also brings, it's not just a big party on a day.

    Again:

    Adoption is not constitutionally protected and this referendum will not constitutionally protect it.

    Can you please stop this muddying the water of what the referendum is about?

    The referendum is about marriage. Adoption is not mentioned in the constitution. No matter what the outcome of this referendum, adoption will not change.

    This is not debate. This is you repeating the same refuted point over and over. You have trolled this site with this nonsense for nearly 50 posts now!

    I genuinely cannot believe you are still spouting this. It is INCORRECT.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 oscarBravo
    Mod ✭✭✭✭


    You've "rebutted" nothing, you've just kept banging out the same big huge lie at the very centre of the yes campaign, which is a total denial that we are going to be admitting 300,000 gay couples into a legal institution that we have up until now, treated favourably purely on the basis that they form the manner in which we have procreated and provided a future basis for the continuity of our society.
    But it's not purely on that basis. Procreation happens without marriage; marriage happens without procreation.

    The courts have confirmed that a married couple without children constitutes a family for the purposes of constitutional protection. It doesn't matter how much you want a family to be defined by the ability to procreate - you can stamp your little feet and hold your breath and scream and scream and scream until you're sick - but none of that will change the fact that the ability or otherwise to have children are an irrelevant tangent to this debate.
    You refuse to admit this big lie, you just keep banging out the total and utter irellevancy that two 90 year old straight people are allowed to marry and they can't conceive so therefore it follows that 300,000 gay people who can never conceive children that they are both biologically related to by a simple fact of biology & nature, can then be shoehorned on that basis into the institution of marriage. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!!!
    OK, so explain it to me. Assume I'm very slow, and explain it to me in small words: why is it OK to discriminate against a same-sex couple who can't conceive, while not being OK to discriminate against an opposite-sex couple who can't conceive?
    Just look at what you are defending, a campaign with a person at the very front of the campaign who is a man one day and is then designating him/herself as a woman the very next day, who changes their gender designation with the Irish weather, according to what you are arguing, this doesn't matter, this doesn't create any concerns in your mind with regard to how a child might be led into the same muddled field of total gender confusion as the person I'm referring to above, because in your mind, that persons right to be a family and to bring children into that family, and to have the state vindicate all the rights of that family via a constitutional commitment that will extend to that family, is all that matters.
    What are you talking about?
    Nothing else matters in your view, all that matters is that we can all pat ourselves on the back and say that we are all now equal, even though most people with a brain can see that we are not all equal in the biological sense of the meaning of the phrase "equal"!
    It's my turn to explain something to you (again) as simply as I know how:

    People can have equal rights without being identical in every way.

    You can be a woman and have equal rights to a man.

    You can be a black person and have equal rights to a white person.

    You can be disabled and have equal rights to an able-bodied person.

    You can be a young, fertile married couple and have equal rights to an older, infertile married couple.

    Being different doesn't make you lesser. All we're voting on is to allow same-sex couples the same rights as opposite-sex couples. If you insist that same-sex couples can't possibly have the same rights as opposite-sex couples just because they're not the same, can you explain why this difference, alone among the others I've outlined, uniquely justifies discrimination?
    For example I cannot bear a child because I'm a male, I don't have a womb or ovaries so it is a biological impossibility that I am EQUAL to a woman in terms of my ability to carry & bear a child. You don't hear me demanding and obsessing that I am afforded absolute & total equality with a woman, because I have the cop on to understand that such equality is a biological impossibility!
    So you wouldn't have a problem with women having civil rights that are denied to you?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 912 gravehold
    ✭✭✭


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    Again:

    Adoption is not constitutionally protected and this referendum will not constitutionally protect it.

    Can you please stop this muddying the water of what the referendum is about?

    The referendum is about marriage. Adoption is not mentioned in the constitution. No matter what the outcome of this referendum, adoption will not change.

    This is not debate. This is you repeating the same refuted point over and over. You have trolled this site with this nonsense for nearly 50 posts now!

    I genuinely cannot believe you are still spouting this. It is INCORRECT.

    It's the marriage that gives the protection, being married has ramifications outside of just a wedding day, it gives you that 160 changes that the yes side posts, saying it effects noting other then a wedding day is being dishonest.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,548 Hotblack Desiato
    ✭✭✭✭


    I have highlighted for your benefit, the flaws in your reasoning.

    You've highlighted some words, but failed utterly to make any point at all.
    What was the point you were trying to make?

    Nobody is saying that gay people or their relationships are inferior

    On the contrary this is the basis of the No argument. If gay relationships are not inferior then there is no justification for not allowing equal constitutional recognition.
    Nobody is disputing that gay relationships are not different. But different is not the same thing as inferior.
    To an extent, all couples' relationships are different. What matters is that they are treated equally under the law.

    we are going to be admitting 300,000 gay couples into a legal institution

    You've repeated this nonsense umpteen times.
    First off, there are not 6 million people in Ireland.
    Second, the 10% of the population are gay argument is almost certainly a large overestimate
    Third, not every gay person in Ireland is in a relationship - or necessarily wants to be.
    Fourth, by no means every gay couple will want to marry if we do vote Yes.

    The numbers are irrelevant anyway, but you are resorting to made-up numbers to try to scare people.

    In Cavan there was a great fire / Judge McCarthy was sent to inquire / It would be a shame / If the nuns were to blame / So it had to be caused by a wire.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 MrWalsh
    ✭✭✭


    gravehold wrote: »
    It's the marriage that gives the protection, being married has ramifications outside of just a wedding day, it gives you that 160 changes that the yes side posts, saying it effects noting other then a wedding day is being dishonest.

    Again:

    Adoption is not constitutionally protected and this referendum will not constitutionally protect it.

    Can you please stop this muddying the water of what the referendum is about?

    The referendum is about marriage. Adoption is not mentioned in the constitution. No matter what the outcome of this referendum, adoption will not change.

    This is not debate. This is you repeating the same refuted point over and over. You have trolled this site with this nonsense for nearly 50 posts now!

    I genuinely cannot believe you are still spouting this. It is INCORRECT. Marriage gives no constitutional protection to adoption.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 36,548 Hotblack Desiato
    ✭✭✭✭


    gravehold wrote: »
    If no wins a goverment can stop gay couples adopting fact if they revoked the current act as they are not married

    They can, and do, stop couples adopting all the time, right now.

    Couples are turned down all the time, for various reasons, in order to ensure that the adoptive parents chosen are those in the best interests of the child.

    Nobody has a right to adopt. Nobody is going to be given the right to adopt, whether we vote Yes or No. The referendum is irrelevant to adoption. Adoption is not mentioned in the constitution at all.

    In Cavan there was a great fire / Judge McCarthy was sent to inquire / It would be a shame / If the nuns were to blame / So it had to be caused by a wire.



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 912 gravehold
    ✭✭✭


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    Again:

    Adoption is not constitutionally protected and this referendum will not constitutionally protect it.
    .


    But being married is and that is where if married they cannot be discriminatied against if a future government tried to revoked the children and family act.

    It's being married that give the protection


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 540 OttoPilot
    ✭✭✭


    Why didn't we get a referendum on gay couples adopting? That's a much more important topic in my opinion. I think it's scary the government can legislate for something as important as that without consulting the public!

    At the end of the day marriage and civil partnership are the exact same thing bar the actual word so anyone who gets too worked up over either side is oversensitive. I'll vote yes but it won't make any difference to gay peoples lives if it passes and may even antagonize the small portion of the public who still openly discriminate against them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 912 gravehold
    ✭✭✭


    They can, and do, stop couples adopting all the time, right now.

    Nobody has a right to adopt. Nobody is going to be given the right to adopt.

    Couples are turned down all the time, for various reasons.

    If they where turned down and the only reason was they where a gay couple when married it would be in the courts as a discrimination case asap


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 MrWalsh
    ✭✭✭


    gravehold wrote: »
    But being married is and that is where if married they cannot be discriminatied against if a future government tried to revoked the children and family act.

    It's being married that give the protection

    You're really not getting this are you?

    Again:

    Adoption is not constitutionally protected and this referendum will not constitutionally protect it.

    Can you please stop this muddying the water of what the referendum is about?

    The referendum is about marriage. Adoption is not mentioned in the constitution. No matter what the outcome of this referendum, adoption will not change.

    This is not debate. This is you repeating the same refuted point over and over. You have trolled this site with this nonsense for nearly 50 posts now!

    I genuinely cannot believe you are still spouting this. It is INCORRECT. Marriage gives no constitutional protection to adoption.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 912 gravehold
    ✭✭✭


    OttoPilot wrote: »
    Why didn't we get a referendum on gay couples adopting? That's a much more important topic in my opinion. I think it's scary the government can legislate for something as important as that without consulting the public!

    At the end of the day marriage and civil partnership are the exact same thing bar the actual word so anyone who gets too worked up over either side is oversensitive. I'll vote yes but it won't make any difference to gay peoples lives if it passes and may even antagonize the small portion of the public who still openly discriminate against them.

    Childrens and family act can be overturned in a heartbeat, make it an issues for you td next election if the no vote wins


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 MrWalsh
    ✭✭✭


    gravehold wrote: »
    Childrens and family act can be overturned in a heartbeat, make it an issues for you td next election if the no vote wins

    Again:

    Adoption is not constitutionally protected and this referendum will not constitutionally protect it.

    Can you please stop this muddying the water of what the referendum is about?

    The referendum is about marriage. Adoption is not mentioned in the constitution. No matter what the outcome of this referendum, adoption will not change.

    This is not debate. This is you repeating the same refuted point over and over. You have trolled this site with this nonsense for nearly 50 posts now!

    I genuinely cannot believe you are still spouting this. It is INCORRECT. Marriage gives no constitutional protection to adoption.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 912 gravehold
    ✭✭✭


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    You're really not getting this are you?

    Again:

    Adoption is not constitutionally protected and this referendum will not constitutionally protect it.

    Married straight couple and married gay couple you cannot discriminate.

    Married staright couple cp gay couple with the childrens and families act revoked, married couple are the only ones who can adopt like it was last month cp couple cannot adopt.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 MrWalsh
    ✭✭✭


    gravehold wrote: »
    Married straight couple and married gay couple you cannot discriminate.

    Married staright couple cp gay couple with the childrens and families act revoked, married couple are the only ones who can adopt like it was last month cp couple cannot adopt.

    Restating it a hundred times doesn't make it right? What will it take for you to accept the truth? The referendum commission have come out and said adoption is not affected by this referendum!!

    Again:

    Adoption is not constitutionally protected and this referendum will not constitutionally protect it.

    Can you please stop this muddying the water of what the referendum is about?

    The referendum is about marriage. Adoption is not mentioned in the constitution. No matter what the outcome of this referendum, adoption will not change.

    This is not debate. This is you repeating the same refuted point over and over. You have trolled this site with this nonsense for nearly 50 posts now!

    I genuinely cannot believe you are still spouting this. It is INCORRECT. Marriage gives no constitutional protection to adoption.


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 oscarBravo
    Mod ✭✭✭✭


    gravehold wrote: »
    But being married is and that is where if married they cannot be discriminatied against if a future government tried to revoked the children and family act.

    Just clear this up for me: your argument seems to be that we should vote "no" because a "yes" vote would remove the government's right to discriminate against same-sex couples?

    You're arguing that you want the right to discriminate against homosexuals?

    Seriously?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 912 gravehold
    ✭✭✭


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    Restating it a hundred times doesn't make it right? What will it take for you to accept the truth? The referendum commission have come out and said adoption is not affected by this referendum!!

    .

    And it won't but it can be but the next goverment as long as gay people can't marry then married staight couples can be given priority again


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 912 gravehold
    ✭✭✭


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Just clear this up for me: your argument seems to be that we should vote "no" because a "yes" vote would remove the government's right to discriminate against same-sex couples?

    You're arguing that you want the right to discriminate against homosexuals?

    Seriously?

    Yes basically, if you want the next government to be able to discriminate against gay couple adopting you have to vote no now.

    Now you get it being married has wider ramifications then just the wedding day


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,394 Sheldons Brain
    ✭✭✭


    Here's a straight couple that actually did the same when it came to raising their child: http://m.thestar.com/#/article/life/parent/2013/11/15/remember_storm_we_check_in_on_the_baby_being_raised_genderneutral.html?referrer=

    Because of this, are we going to ban all straight marriages in case those couples become parents and raise their children like this?

    Come on, that's a weak argument and has absolutely nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

    There is no merit in any argument that takes the actions of a small minority of current marriages and extends that to the proposed admission of a group all of whom have that characteristic.

    This is a bit like the learner driver forum where you routinely get posts along the lines of "I know a bad driver who did the test, hence because of this one example nobody should have to do the test". This is a fallacy.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 14 Mr Peebs


    I am voting No because I feel this tinkering with the constitution is pandering to the politically correct liberal brigade. Remember the pro life wording inserted in 1983 and all the unforeseen consequences ? It's very likely there will be similar outcomes with this if it passes.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 540 OttoPilot
    ✭✭✭


    gravehold wrote: »
    Childrens and family act can be overturned in a heartbeat, make it an issues for you td next election if the no vote wins

    But it won't be because no td will run against gay rights and most tds either follow party policy or run on local issues.

    The biggest issue with potential no voters is that gay couples might be able to adopt. So why wasn't this controversial issue put to the people in the first place? This would ensure a guaranteed yes because it would put the matter to rest!


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement