The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[armaghniac]

in order:

there will only be Marriage, narrow minded people will like to make a distinction to feel superior.

People with an interest in the country where they live will make a distinction.

Children who are part of a Civil partnership who will now have the same protections as those of a Marriage.

True. That will be because of the adoption act.

where did i say there is no connection between marriage and children. but society has functioned since single mother and children outside marriage came along.

Which is better?

how is it diluted?? if single parents are ok why not homosexual couples?

I didn't day these weren't OK, I said two marred persons in general were better.

No it provides the adoptive parent legal rights but not the other parent.

Have you actually read the Children and Family Relationships Act 2015, or are you just winging it? '

Unbelievable and typical of the no vote ... if you dont get what you want you dont support charities that help children exactly, you are one sad b**tard. the mind boggles....

Abuse, about what you can expect. Why do you imply that my parents were not married?

how can marriage be only about procreation when you can procreate without it and you can get married without procreation through choice or by not being medically able to have children or being at a stage in your life where having a child is not possible. what evidence to the contrary?

Not every married person has children, but it provides a desirable basis for a children to live with both its parents and any responsible society would not dilute it.

[PadraicHenryPearse]

Quote
Unbelievable and typical of the no vote ... if you dont get what you want you dont support charities that help children exactly, you are one sad b**tard. the mind boggles....

Abuse, about what you can expect. Why do you imply that my parents were not married?

Quote
how can marriage be only about procreation when you can procreate without it and you can get married without procreation through choice or by not being medically able to have children or being at a stage in your life where having a child is not possible. what evidence to the contrary?

Not every married person has children, but it provides a desirable basis for a children to live with both its parents and any responsible society would not dilute it.

let focus on these two for a moment  - Abuse - you suggest that children's charities would suffer financially by doing their jobs and giving advise on what they feel is best for children. that is basically saying it is better for children to suffer then vote yes. If that is your opinion you are a sad bastard. i am not sure where i implied your parents are not married?

agreed it does provide a desirable basis for children, where there is loving caring parents and this is the key, a homosexual couple can provide that love and care, as can a single parents.

[Maguire01]

The discussion of polygamy is not perfectly reasonable

According to you.

It's just as valid as the referendum that's been called and should have been included since we're promoting equality for all.

or does equality not mean equality for those calling for it? just when it suits eh?

We had the polygamy discussion a lot earlier in this thread. Firstly, no one is calling for it. There's no demand for it. If there ever is, it can be debated on its own merits. Secondly, this referendum is about equality - as no one can currently marry two people, there is equality in that regard already.

[eddie d]

Quote
Unbelievable and typical of the no vote ... if you dont get what you want you dont support charities that help children exactly, you are one sad b**tard. the mind boggles....

Abuse, about what you can expect. Why do you imply that my parents were not married?

Quote
how can marriage be only about procreation when you can procreate without it and you can get married without procreation through choice or by not being medically able to have children or being at a stage in your life where having a child is not possible. what evidence to the contrary?

Not every married person has children, but it provides a desirable basis for a children to live with both its parents and any responsible society would not dilute it.

let focus on these two for a moment  - Abuse - you suggest that children's charities would suffer financially by doing their jobs and giving advise on what they feel is best for children. that is basically saying it is better for children to suffer then vote yes. If that is your opinion you are a sad b**tard. i am not sure where i implied your parents are not married?

agreed it does provide a desirable basis for children, where there is loving caring parents and this is the key, a homosexual couple can provide that love and care, as can a single parents.

You implied it by calling him a b**tard

[Maguire01]

The referendum will make no difference to the ability of a same-sex couple to have a child or adopt together.  It will impact the legal status of their family.  We should take away the uncertainty faced by those families and give their children the right to have a family that is recognised as their next of kin.  This is one of the reasons why leading children's charities are supporting a Yes vote

As said above, charities should not have got involved, will you be donating extra to make up for the donations lost by their support for the dilution of marriage? Probably not.

Are you suggesting that all of these No voters who care so much about the children are going to stop donating to children's charities? 

[PadraicHenryPearse]

Ah the literal meeting of the word, not my intention. A poor choice of word.

[Maguire01]

We had the polygamy discussion a lot earlier in this thread. Firstly, no one is calling for it. There's no demand for it. If there ever is, it can be debated on its own merits. Secondly, this referendum is about equality - as no one can currently marry two people, there is equality in that regard already.

Surely those who want to marry two or more people should be equal with those who are content with marrying one and those who marry none? It is all about love, surely? Are you prejudiced against these people, is that because of the church?

You miss the distinction between 'equality' and being able to do whatever you want.

Either way, i'm prejudiced against no one. And you can't accuse people of denying something if it hasn't been asked for.
As i've said, if there's a demand for it, let's hear the argument on its own merits.

[armaghniac]

You miss the distinction between 'equality' and being able to do whatever you want.

No, I think I am clear on that distinction.

And you can't accuse people of denying something if it hasn't been asked for.
As i've said, if there's a demand for it, let's hear the argument on its own merits.

Who said it hasn't been asked for? Or perhaps people will wait in the hope that marriage will already be diluted on Friday. If three people want it then are you going to ignore them because they are a minority? And as for the argument, why it is love, do you oppose love? The idea of family has greatly changed over the years.  Who are we to say what is, or isn't a valid family?  Families come in all shapes and sizes, let's recognise them all as equal, three men, four woman and whatever you are having yourself. Why are you not enthusiastically embracing progress? Do you want to to halt our evolution as a society?

[Maguire01]

You miss the distinction between 'equality' and being able to do whatever you want.

No, I think I am clear on that distinction.

On the basis of your quote below, i'm not convinced.

And you can't accuse people of denying something if it hasn't been asked for.
As i've said, if there's a demand for it, let's hear the argument on its own merits.

Who said it hasn't been asked for? Or perhaps people will wait in the hope that marriage will already be diluted on Friday. If three people want it then are you going to ignore them because they are a minority? And as for the argument, why it is love, do you oppose love? The idea of family has greatly changed over the years.  Who are we to say what is, or isn't a valid family?  Families come in all shapes and sizes, let's recognise them all as equal, three men, four woman and whatever you are having yourself. Why are you not enthusiastically embracing progress? Do you want to to halt our evolution as a society?

Has it? I haven't heard the call. Anyway, let's debate polygamy on another thread, if you wish. Getting into it here (again) is nothing but an attempt to distract from the issue at hand.

[Rossfan]

Will this make 200 pages though?

[foxcommander]

Same sex marriage - not in the constitution - the country goes to vote on it
Privatising water - not in constitution - the country doesn't get to vote on it

a little selective. The illusion of choice.

[Maguire01]

Same sex marriage - not in the constitution - the country goes to vote on it
Privatising water - not in constitution - the country doesn't get to vote on it

a little selective. The illusion of choice.

On same sex marriage, the courts ruled that the marriage as per the constitution (yes, marriage is in the constitution!) meant marriage between a man and a woman, therefore there is a need to clarify the constitutional definition before legislating (otherwise the legislation would most likely be ruled unconstitutional).

There's nothing about water in the constitution.

It's really that simple.

[Maguire01]

Just to be absolutely clear on this, the new Marriage Bill will ensure there are no issues with other existing lesgislation:

In all, the new legislation would result in changes to at least 11 other laws - such as army pensions, family law and other matters - by changing references to "husbands and wives" to "spouses".
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/religious-solemnisers-will-not-be-obliged-to-perform-same-sex-marriage-1.2133530

So anyone worried about armaghniac's predictions of "legal chaos" can rest easy. 

[screenexile]

They must be all lying and just out of jail. . .

http://www.joe.ie/life-style/video-adult-children-from-same-sex-marriages-explain-why-they-want-a-yes-vote/496478?utm_content=buffer7ecb2&utm_medium=Social+organic&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=Buffer

[muppet]

It was sarcasm armaghniac at the fact that Tony and certain others think children brought up by same sex parents grow up to be criminals or somehow can't function in the normal world!

Just came across this on Twitter. . . any wonder the Yes campaign go a bit overboard sometimes when things like this appear!!

http://linkis.com/www.lifesitenews.com/ugfJ2

Imagine, they ignored the obvious 'Mayor is a Nutter' headline and went for the spectacular discriminatory one.