The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[J70]

BTW, apparently a Nebraska woman is suing gay people.  That's right, all of them.  Better get tubes and tubes of KY Jelly to squeeze them all into that courtroom.

Either a crackpot or a publicity stunt, or both!

On what grounds is she suing? Did she suffer damages?

I'd be shocked,  even in somewhere like Nebraska,  if a judge agreed to hear this, or even a lawyer took the case.

[stew]

BTW, apparently a Nebraska woman is suing gay people.  That's right, all of them.  Better get tubes and tubes of KY Jelly to squeeze them all into that courtroom.

Either a crackpot or a publicity stunt, or both!

On what grounds is she suing? Did she suffer damages?

I'd be shocked,  even in somewhere like Nebraska,  if a judge agreed to hear this, or even a lawyer took the case.

I wish that were so, sad thing is this right wing nut will probably get her day in court in Nebraska!

She should get a soft kick in the hole but maybe she would enjoy it too much!

[Oraisteach]

No, I believe she's flying solo, no case law in her handwritten brief, only Biblical quotes and dictionary definitions.  Sin is her theme, I understand, so what a wonderful opportunity for a Portadown-Poyntzpass prosecutor to perform pro bono work.

[screenexile]

Read this on joe.ie

http://www.joe.ie/news/marriage-equality-referendum-5-key-questions-for-both-sides-of-the-debate/494917?utm_content=buffer94486&utm_medium=Social+organic&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer

The advocate for the 'No' side clearly has no rational explanation for voting no so he reframes the question and makes it about Gay and Lesbian couples raising families...

THAT IS NOT WHAT THE REFERENDUM IS ABOUT YOU IDIOT!!

[PadraicHenryPearse]

Off topic but as it's part of the no campaign and mentioned by the yes side also what is the definition of a family? Is a mother and father of a child that are not married a family? have they the same rights as a family who are married. Do you need to be married to be considered a family? Are single mothers or fathers who were married afforded more rights then single mothers and fathers who were never married? Thanks

[Sidney]

Read this on joe.ie

http://www.joe.ie/news/marriage-equality-referendum-5-key-questions-for-both-sides-of-the-debate/494917?utm_content=buffer94486&utm_medium=Social+organic&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer

The advocate for the 'No' side clearly has no rational explanation for voting no so he reframes the question and makes it about Gay and Lesbian couples raising families...

THAT IS NOT WHAT THE REFERENDUM IS ABOUT YOU IDIOT!!

That Keith Mills chap tied himself in knots on the Late Late Show when he responded to a question from an audience member by (correctly) acknowledging that it's the Children and Family Relationships bill which deals with the issue of same sex parenting, not the Marriage Equality referendum. The problem was he'd argued the direct opposite just a couple of minutes earlier.

[J70]

No, I believe she's flying solo, no case law in her handwritten brief, only Biblical quotes and dictionary definitions.  Sin is her theme, I understand, so what a wonderful opportunity for a Portadown-Poyntzpass prosecutor to perform pro bono work.

Judge will dismiss it and hopefully fine her for wasting his time!

[easytiger95]

Off topic but as it's part of the no campaign and mentioned by the yes side also what is the definition of a family? Is a mother and father of a child that are not married a family? have they the same rights as a family who are married. Do you need to be married to be considered a family? Are single mothers or fathers who were married afforded more rights then single mothers and fathers who were never married? Thanks

AFAIK under the constitution at present, a family is defined as a couple that is married. So the status that the constitution confers  on families is not extended to civil partnerships. One of the central planks of the Yes campaign (though the questions of parents rights etc were cleared up to an extent by the recent legislation).

[armaghniac]

Read this on joe.ie

http://www.joe.ie/news/marriage-equality-referendum-5-key-questions-for-both-sides-of-the-debate/494917?utm_content=buffer94486&utm_medium=Social+organic&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer

The advocate for the 'No' side clearly has no rational explanation for voting no so he reframes the question and makes it about Gay and Lesbian couples raising families...

THAT IS NOT WHAT THE REFERENDUM IS ABOUT YOU IDIOT!!

I see the No side has continued their usual respectful tone for democratic debate. Misquote the other side and then imply that they don't have the right to make their point. Par for the course.

Mills' point is that there should be positive encouragement for a child to be brought up by its father and mother
"that marriage is an institution orientated towards a man and woman raising and being responsible for the children they have created"

[muppet]

Read this on joe.ie

http://www.joe.ie/news/marriage-equality-referendum-5-key-questions-for-both-sides-of-the-debate/494917?utm_content=buffer94486&utm_medium=Social+organic&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer

The advocate for the 'No' side clearly has no rational explanation for voting no so he reframes the question and makes it about Gay and Lesbian couples raising families...

THAT IS NOT WHAT THE REFERENDUM IS ABOUT YOU IDIOT!!

I see the No side has continued their usual respectful tone for democratic debate. Misquote the other side and then imply that they don't have the right to make their point. Par for the course.

Mills' point is that there should be positive encouragement for a child to be brought up by its father and mother
"that marriage is an institution orientated towards a man and woman raising and being responsible for the children they have created"

And yet again that has nothing to do with the referendum.

[LCohen]

Because you're reading human behaviour into animals. Science doesn't do that. Homosexual behaviour may exist but not homosexuality. That term should only be reserved for humans.
I argue that it isn't normal from a scientific perspective when you draw the comparison to animals. Existence of behaviour in nature does not equate to normal or natural.

For pediophilia in nature talk to any dog breeder, horse breeder. In-line breeding happens all the time - it is encouraged infact to retain desirable traits in animals. Grandfathers to grand-daughters.... happens all the time. Doesn't make it normal or justify it in humans.

Like Muppet pointed out from the start - its a red herring shouldnt be part of the conversation at all.

What is the basis for not being able to draw comparison with/evidence from the wider animal kingdom?
I still haven't seen any evidence for this contentioan that homosexuality should be reserved as a term for homo sapiens sapiens.

I have no difficutly with your paedophilia argument. After all I accept that it is natural in humans also.

[LCohen]

Am I correct in saying that the No campaign centres on 3 points
1) Homosexuality offends god. It says so in the bible and the bible is to be taken literally and not to be interpreted by man. Separately other bits of the bible are not to be taken literally. The contradiction is to be ignored and it is faith bashing by the Yes campaign if they point this out.
2) Queers are bad for children. A good way to stop children being exposed to homosexuals would be to stop them being adopted by homosexual couples. It is unnecessary for the No campaign to provide any evidence in support of their claim. It is unnecessary for the No campaign to counter any evidence that the Yes campaign might offer in support of their claim. It is unfair of the Yes campaign to politely ask the No Campaign to address the 2 preceding points. The fact that the referendum is not about adoption should not prevent the No campaign for using this line of argument.
3) Homosexuality is unnatural. Evidence of its existence in other species is to be ignored. It is best to pretend that evidence that offends your own argument simply doesnt exist. Alternative explanations of where homosexuality comes from are unnecessary.

If I am correct in this then its difficult to see how a rational adult could vote No. If there are other arguments from the No camapign then they need to set them out. Otherwise it is difficult not to conclude that the only reason to vote no is that the voter doesn't like gays i.e. they suffer from homophobia. Sorry to have to point that out but as I say feel free to point out those other reasons for voting no.

[Oraisteach]

Sorry to backtrack here, but can anyone tell me specially what the Asher (?) Bakery was asked to write on the cake they were asked to provide for the same- sex couple.  Was it text, and if so what did the words say, or was it an offensive image?  Thanks for any help.

[Gabriel_Hurl]

Mr Lee had placed an order for a cake with the slogan 'support gay marriage' and an image of Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street.

[imtommygunn]

Am I correct in saying that the No campaign centres on 3 points
1) Homosexuality offends god. It says so in the bible and the bible is to be taken literally and not to be interpreted by man. Separately other bits of the bible are not to be taken literally. The contradiction is to be ignored and it is faith bashing by the Yes campaign if they point this out.
2) Queers are bad for children. A good way to stop children being exposed to homosexuals would be to stop them being adopted by homosexual couples. It is unnecessary for the No campaign to provide any evidence in support of their claim. It is unnecessary for the No campaign to counter any evidence that the Yes campaign might offer in support of their claim. It is unfair of the Yes campaign to politely ask the No Campaign to address the 2 preceding points. The fact that the referendum is not about adoption should not prevent the No campaign for using this line of argument.
3) Homosexuality is unnatural. Evidence of its existence in other species is to be ignored. It is best to pretend that evidence that offends your own argument simply doesnt exist. Alternative explanations of where homosexuality comes from are unnecessary.

If I am correct in this then its difficult to see how a rational adult could vote No. If there are other arguments from the No camapign then they need to set them out. Otherwise it is difficult not to conclude that the only reason to vote no is that the voter doesn't like gays i.e. they suffer from homophobia. Sorry to have to point that out but as I say feel free to point out those other reasons for voting no.

I'm not in the no camp before anyone chastises me.

I think some arguments centre around the basic definition and boundaries of marriage and they feel it's outside the boundaries of it due to inability to have family, outside adoption, etc.

Not everyone who opposes it is homophobic. There are quite a few good examples of homophobia on this thread but i think there is one in the no camp here who isn't that and is being grouped with everyone else...