The same-sex marriage referendum debate

Started by Hardy, February 06, 2015, 09:38:02 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

How will you vote in the referendum

I have a vote and will vote "Yes"
58 (25.2%)
I have a vote and will vote "No"
23 (10%)
I have a vote but haven't decided how to vote
7 (3%)
I don't have a vote but would vote "Yes" if I did
107 (46.5%)
I don't have a vote but would vote "No" if I did
26 (11.3%)
I don't have a vote and haven't decided how I would vote if I did
9 (3.9%)

Total Members Voted: 230

deiseach

Quote from: screenexile on January 29, 2016, 11:22:04 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on January 29, 2016, 11:07:24 AM
Interesting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35436845

It really is interesting!! I thought they have basically the same rights through "Common Law Marriage".

On the face of it the case above appears fundamentally flawed. I presume Civil Partnership was brought in because Same Sex couples couldn't get married and allowed the couple certain rights under the law that weren't covered. Now that they are allowed to marry then either Civil Partnership should be abolished or they should grant Civil Partnership for heterosexual couples. This one will rumble on to the High Court I should think!

It'll rumble on because they are a pair of self-righteous morons. The government's position is eminently reasonable: "In 2013 parliament decided in extending marriage to same-sex couples not, for the time being, to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. A decision has also been taken by the government to wait a period of time to see how extending marriage to same-sex couples impacts upon civil partnerships before reaching a final decision on the future of civil partnerships, and has decided that it is not necessary to undertake the costly and complex exercise of extending civil partnerships in the interim where they may be abolished or phased out in a few years." Complete waste of time.

omaghjoe

Quote from: deiseach on January 29, 2016, 11:28:06 AM
Quote from: screenexile on January 29, 2016, 11:22:04 AM
Quote from: nrico2006 on January 29, 2016, 11:07:24 AM
Interesting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35436845

It really is interesting!! I thought they have basically the same rights through "Common Law Marriage".

On the face of it the case above appears fundamentally flawed. I presume Civil Partnership was brought in because Same Sex couples couldn't get married and allowed the couple certain rights under the law that weren't covered. Now that they are allowed to marry then either Civil Partnership should be abolished or they should grant Civil Partnership for heterosexual couples. This one will rumble on to the High Court I should think!

It'll rumble on because they are a pair of self-righteous morons. The government's position is eminently reasonable: "In 2013 parliament decided in extending marriage to same-sex couples not, for the time being, to extend civil partnerships to opposite-sex couples. A decision has also been taken by the government to wait a period of time to see how extending marriage to same-sex couples impacts upon civil partnerships before reaching a final decision on the future of civil partnerships, and has decided that it is not necessary to undertake the costly and complex exercise of extending civil partnerships in the interim where they may be abolished or phased out in a few years." Complete waste of time.

I think this is hilarious partly because it was inevitable that some planks would do it but what really set me off was this

QuoteMs Steinfeld, 34, and Mr Keidan, 39, said they wanted to commit to each other in a civil partnership as it "focuses on equality" and did not carry the patriarchal history and associations of marriage.

Gabriel_Hurl

Australia vote Yes

Quote7,817,247 people - or 61.6 per cent - voted 'yes'.

4,873,987 people - or 38.4 per cent - voted 'no'.

J70

Good for the Ozzies. Pretty emphatic endorsement too. Wonder what the breakdown by age is?

Gabriel_Hurl

Don't think those breakdowns are out yet.

Still has to be approved by the government but looks like it will be done for Christmas.

BennyCake

Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on November 15, 2017, 05:46:36 PM
Don't think those breakdowns are out yet.

Still has to be approved by the government but looks like it will be done for Christmas.

Camp as by Christmas?

Hardy

Broken down by age and sex - supply your own punchline.

stephenite

Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on November 14, 2017, 11:11:24 PM
Australia vote Yes

Quote7,817,247 people - or 61.6 per cent - voted 'yes'.

4,873,987 people - or 38.4 per cent - voted 'no'.

Kind of, it wasn't a vote, or a referendum per se. It was a postal survey of the electorate.

It still needs legislation to pass, and a Prime Minister hanging by his fingertips because of another issue (that you really couldn't make up).

Great scenes of joy throughout the country, hopefully nothing gets in the way of this passing through.

Syferus

For all our flaws our referendum system is a good way of dealing with societal changes like marriage and abortion. Australia like the US and other places could have passed the laws without consulting the electorate. In that sense it infuriated both sides for differing reasons, whereas we never have that issue.

Rossfan

A lot of people very hot under collars about that amendment we passed back round 1973 or so.
Davy's given us a dream to cling to
We're going to bring home the SAM

T Fearon

The so called marriage of two men in Dublin,simply to avoid inheritance tax, is the most stark example yet of the abomination that is gay marriage and demeaning of a sacred institution.😡

imtommygunn

Yeah because you'd never get an opposite sex couple doing something like that ::)

Plenty of heterosexual people demean marriage too.

seafoid

Quote from: T Fearon on December 24, 2017, 12:27:31 PM
The so called marriage of two men in Dublin,simply to avoid inheritance tax, is the most stark example yet of the abomination that is gay marriage and demeaning of a sacred institution.😡
Tax is not sacred
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

longballin

Quote from: T Fearon on December 24, 2017, 12:27:31 PM
The so called marriage of two men in Dublin,simply to avoid inheritance tax, is the most stark example yet of the abomination that is gay marriage and demeaning of a sacred institution.😡

Is that one of your jokes or your actual opinion? Hard to know with you Tony

Rossfan

Quote from: T Fearon on December 24, 2017, 12:27:31 PM
The so called marriage of two men in Dublin,simply to avoid inheritance tax, is the most stark example yet of the abomination that is gay marriage and demeaning of a sacred institution.😡

Civil marriage isn't Sacred ;)
Davy's given us a dream to cling to
We're going to bring home the SAM