The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[easytiger95]

all others on the thread - Armaghniac has a goldfish like level of attention span

Sorry to go back to an earlier part of the thread, but research shows that my attention span is in fact above the average human
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/our-attention-span-is-now-less-than-that-of-a-goldfish-microsoft-study-finds-10247553.html

A married couple is a family, regardless of whether they have children. This will allow a same sex couple to be regarded as a family, regardless of whether they have children.

As has been said countless times, this is NOT about children

You've quoted the legal definition, but the fact that most marriages have children and most children are brought up by married people means that any attempt to say, in BLOCK CAPS or not, that this is not about children is either an attempt to deliberately mislead or to restrict debate. Either way, it is a disgrace that this nonsense is repeated by otherwise intelligent people.

I certainly feel that asking a goldfish to answer the simple questions i have put on numerous occasions would be more productive - but here we go again.

How will voting yes weaken the institution of marriage? How will it contribute to more broken marriages? How will this referendum in any way affect children?

The fact that otherwise intelligent people have all asserted the above to be true, without giving any evidence whatsoever to back it up, is a disgrace. And I consider that to be an attempt (unsuccessful as it is) to avoid debate and obscure the facts in the service of a socially conservative agenda. And I find that to be disgraceful.

But please feel free to prove me wrong by answering those questions.

[The Iceman]

I certainly feel that asking a goldfish to answer the simple questions i have put on numerous occasions would be more productive - but here we go again.

How will voting yes weaken the institution of marriage? How will it contribute to more broken marriages? How will this referendum in any way affect children?

The fact that otherwise intelligent people have all asserted the above to be true, without giving any evidence whatsoever to back it up, is a disgrace. And I consider that to be an attempt (unsuccessful as it is) to avoid debate and obscure the facts in the service of a socially conservative agenda. And i find that to be disgraceful.

But please feel free to prove me wrong by answering those questions.

Go back and read through the thread - you can't join 50 pages in then complain nobody answers the questions you pose that have already been answered. There have been multiple statements published and posted from children of same sex parents who are stressing we should vote NO. Go back and read them and get your answers....

[Maguire01]

Gay couples raise children now. Gay couples will raise children regardless of whether the referendum is passed or not. That's what makes the children arguments irrelevant to this referendum.

Article 29 also says " Ireland affirms its adherence to the principle of the pacific settlement of international disputes by international arbitration or judicial determination." Perhaps they should take that out as not all outer countries agree with the pacific settlement of international disputes. Then again you have " The dwelling of every citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered save in accordance with law", but since some are then there is no need for that.

It is bit like saying in GAA terms that there is no use in arguing over the definition of black card as Tyrone will dive anyway.

I don't understand where you're going with any of that. Are you saying the constitution is meaningless? If so, why are you getting worked up over a change to it?

Either way, your response did nothing to address my post - that as children will be raised by gay couples whether the referendum is passed or not, debating the merits of gay parents is irrelevant to the referendum debate.

[Maguire01]

I certainly feel that asking a goldfish to answer the simple questions i have put on numerous occasions would be more productive - but here we go again.

How will voting yes weaken the institution of marriage? How will it contribute to more broken marriages? How will this referendum in any way affect children?

The fact that otherwise intelligent people have all asserted the above to be true, without giving any evidence whatsoever to back it up, is a disgrace. And I consider that to be an attempt (unsuccessful as it is) to avoid debate and obscure the facts in the service of a socially conservative agenda. And i find that to be disgraceful.

But please feel free to prove me wrong by answering those questions.

Go back and read through the thread - you can't join 50 pages in then complain nobody answers the questions you pose that have already been answered. There have been multiple statements published and posted from children of same sex parents who are stressing we should vote NO. Go back and read them and get your answers....

Yeah, but they're an argument against gay couples raising children, not gay couples getting married. And the very fact that you can cite those examples just goes to prove that gay couples will raise children (and have been doing so) whether or not they can get married.

[armaghniac]

I certainly feel that asking a goldfish to answer the simple questions i have put on numerous occasions would be more productive - but here we go again.

How will voting yes weaken the institution of marriage? How will it contribute to more broken marriages? How will this referendum in any way affect children?

The fact that otherwise intelligent people have all asserted the above to be true, without giving any evidence whatsoever to back it up, is a disgrace. And I consider that to be an attempt (unsuccessful as it is) to avoid debate and obscure the facts in the service of a socially conservative agenda. And i find that to be disgraceful.

But please feel free to prove me wrong by answering those questions.

Go back and read through the thread - you can't join 50 pages in then complain nobody answers the questions you pose that have already been answered. There have been multiple statements published and posted from children of same sex parents who are stressing we should vote NO. Go back and read them and get your answers....

Yeah, but they're an argument against gay couples raising children, not gay couples getting married. And the very fact that you can cite those examples just goes to prove that gay couples will raise children (and have been doing so) whether or not they can get married.

As I have said multiple times, I am not concerned with gay couples raising children I am concerned with promoting marriage.
In the same way the government should promote work although some people will always be employed, retired, sick etc.

[easytiger95]

How does same sex marriage prevent the Government from promoting marriage Armaghniac?

[easytiger95]

I certainly feel that asking a goldfish to answer the simple questions i have put on numerous occasions would be more productive - but here we go again.

How will voting yes weaken the institution of marriage? How will it contribute to more broken marriages? How will this referendum in any way affect children?

The fact that otherwise intelligent people have all asserted the above to be true, without giving any evidence whatsoever to back it up, is a disgrace. And I consider that to be an attempt (unsuccessful as it is) to avoid debate and obscure the facts in the service of a socially conservative agenda. And i find that to be disgraceful.

But please feel free to prove me wrong by answering those questions.

Go back and read through the thread - you can't join 50 pages in then complain nobody answers the questions you pose that have already been answered. There have been multiple statements published and posted from children of same sex parents who are stressing we should vote NO. Go back and read them and get your answers....

My first post on this thread is on page 1. Could I suggest that you read the entire thread.....?

And, no, the answers to those questions have not been provided by any of the No posters so far, or through any of the anecdotal evidence given. They are very simple questions, and if you have the case, should be easy to answer. Have at it.

[Maguire01]

I certainly feel that asking a goldfish to answer the simple questions i have put on numerous occasions would be more productive - but here we go again.

How will voting yes weaken the institution of marriage? How will it contribute to more broken marriages? How will this referendum in any way affect children?

The fact that otherwise intelligent people have all asserted the above to be true, without giving any evidence whatsoever to back it up, is a disgrace. And I consider that to be an attempt (unsuccessful as it is) to avoid debate and obscure the facts in the service of a socially conservative agenda. And i find that to be disgraceful.

But please feel free to prove me wrong by answering those questions.

Go back and read through the thread - you can't join 50 pages in then complain nobody answers the questions you pose that have already been answered. There have been multiple statements published and posted from children of same sex parents who are stressing we should vote NO. Go back and read them and get your answers....

Yeah, but they're an argument against gay couples raising children, not gay couples getting married. And the very fact that you can cite those examples just goes to prove that gay couples will raise children (and have been doing so) whether or not they can get married.

As I have said multiple times, I am not concerned with gay couples raising children I am concerned with promoting marriage.
In the same way the government should promote work although some people will always be employed, retired, sick etc.

If you're not concerned with gay couples raising children, then i'm not sure why you responded to that post.

I don't understand the rest of your post at all. Do you want to government to promote marriage or not to promote marriage? What's the meaning of the parallel with employment? If gay people are allowed to get married, it will still be the case that some people are married, some are divorced, some are co-habiting and some are single, but I still don't follow that line of discussion.

[eddie d]

It may be no harm to remind people what we are voting on next week :

ARTICLE 41
3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015
"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex".


The purpose of this amendment is to redefine the accepted meaning of "the institution of marriage" as referenced in Article 41.

The purpose of this amendment is to destroy Article 41. What is left to protect after a YES vote? Marriage and Family are intrinsically linked in the Article, a point which the YES campaign fail to acknowledge. Families are broken and lives are destroyed everyday but that doesn't mean we vote to create more broken families. That is what should be defended. Article 41 is not fulfilliing it's purpose. The family and marriage are under attack....the state is rolling over

A married couple is a family, regardless of whether they have children. This will allow a same sex couple to be regarded as a family, regardless of whether they have children.

As has been said countless times, this is NOT about children, but that makes it very inconvenient for the No camp. This does not create any broken families. You might consider that adoption or surrogacy would, but that's separate from the issue of marriage.

Just because you said it countless times, doesn't make it fact. I don't have a vote so it doesn't affect me, but you are either ignoring a big reason as to why some people will vote no or it's going over your head.

[Maguire01]

It may be no harm to remind people what we are voting on next week :

ARTICLE 41
3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015
"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex".


The purpose of this amendment is to redefine the accepted meaning of "the institution of marriage" as referenced in Article 41.

The purpose of this amendment is to destroy Article 41. What is left to protect after a YES vote? Marriage and Family are intrinsically linked in the Article, a point which the YES campaign fail to acknowledge. Families are broken and lives are destroyed everyday but that doesn't mean we vote to create more broken families. That is what should be defended. Article 41 is not fulfilliing it's purpose. The family and marriage are under attack....the state is rolling over

A married couple is a family, regardless of whether they have children. This will allow a same sex couple to be regarded as a family, regardless of whether they have children.

As has been said countless times, this is NOT about children, but that makes it very inconvenient for the No camp. This does not create any broken families. You might consider that adoption or surrogacy would, but that's separate from the issue of marriage.

Just because you said it countless times, doesn't make it fact. I don't have a vote so it doesn't affect me, but you are either ignoring a big reason as to why some people will vote no or it's going over your head.

You're right, Eddie, me saying it doesn't make it fact. Other things do. For example:

The Referendum Commission has said that surrogacy and adoption rights will not be affected by the same-sex marriage referendum, regardless of the result.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/analysis-surrogacy-and-adoption-rights-will-not-be-affected-by-referendum-result-1.2210114

THE ADOPTION PROCESS won't change in Ireland, regardless of the outcome of the referendum on same-sex marriage. That's according to the Special Rapporteur for Children, Geoffrey Shannon, who gave an insightful interview on Claire Byrne Live this evening on RTÉ.
http://www.thejournal.ie/same-sex-marriage-referendum-geoffrey-shannon-2097220-May2015/

The Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 provides that civil partners and cohabiting couples who have lived together for three years will be eligible to adopt jointly.  This Act was signed into law on 6 April 2015.
http://refcom2015.ie/marriage/


And i'm not "ignoring a big reason as to why some people will vote no", i'm simply saying that anyone who is voting no for this reason doesn't understand what the referendum is about, and the existing laws.

[eddie d]

I never mentioned adoption laws. I have nothing against a same-sex couples adopting.

I'm merely stating that a big part of getting married in a Catholic Church is pro-creation together.

Before getting married a man and a woman are asked if they intend to have children? Both being the biological parents.

I can see why some might vote no as a same-sex couple obviously cannot have children without adopting, or through a sperm donor etc.

[Sidney]

Anyone hear Jim Walsh and Mattie McGrath on Saturday Live with Claire Byrne at 1:00 today on RTE Radio 1?

The longer this campaign goes on and the more every argument from the No camp is exposed, and I do say this in the most respectful way possible  , but the more it's hard to shake the belief that they aren't all completely bonkers.

[Maguire01]

I never mentioned adoption laws. I have nothing against a same-sex couples adopting.

I'm merely stating that a big part of getting married in a Catholic Church is pro-creation together.

Before getting married a man and a woman are asked if they intend to have children? Both being the biological parents.

I can see why some might vote no as a same-sex couple obviously cannot have children without adopting, or through a sperm donor etc.

But that has nothing to do with them getting married. That's about them raising children.

And as has already been said, this is about civil marriage, not a religious marriage.

[easytiger95]

I never mentioned adoption laws. I have nothing against a same-sex couples adopting.

I'm merely stating that a big part of getting married in a Catholic Church is pro-creation together.

Before getting married a man and a woman are asked if they intend to have children? Both being the biological parents.

I can see why some might vote no as a same-sex couple obviously cannot have children without adopting, or through a sperm donor etc.

Eddie this is a vote on civil marriage, not Catholic marriage. As Catholic churches will not be performing any same sex marriages they can ask any questions they like.

I have to echo what Maguire has already said - if someone is voting no for the reasons above, they do not understand the question.

[eddie d]

I never mentioned adoption laws. I have nothing against a same-sex couples adopting.

I'm merely stating that a big part of getting married in a Catholic Church is pro-creation together.

Before getting married a man and a woman are asked if they intend to have children? Both being the biological parents.

I can see why some might vote no as a same-sex couple obviously cannot have children without adopting, or through a sperm donor etc.

But that has nothing to do with them getting married. That's about them raising children.

And as has already been said, this is about civil marriage, not a religious marriage.

So if it passes can two catholic men or women get married in a church?