Here's the wording you'll be voting on in same-sex marriage referendum

Simply wording… except for the Iona “Institute”, who are determined to confuse people by telling them (incorrectly) that they are voting on adoption; they are NOT. And the wording shows that.

Nobody in Ireland, gay or straight, has a “right” to adopt a child. Under CURRENT law it has LONG been legal in Ireland for a single person (gay or straight) to adopt a child. Just not a couple. Currently gay couples can be foster parents for the HSE. But the right to a loving and stable home is the child’s right; not the adult’s.

Adoption reform will NOT be addressed by the Referendum; today’s wording makes this clear. Contrary to Breda O’Brien’s mis-information on Claire Byrne Live on Monday, adoption reform will be legislated for by the Oireachtas – anybody who has a strong opinion about it should contact their TD. Expressing discontent through the ballot box in the Referendum will change NOTHING with regard to adoption (again, contrary to Iona/Breda O’Brien’s comments).

Put simply, there is an application process when adopting a child and it includes an evaluation of the fitness of parents that takes into account only the rights and best interests of the child(ren). Your vote in the Referedum (Yes or No) will have no impact on this whatsoever. It will only impact the capacity of two adults of the same gender to enter into CIVIL marriage.

Great information, I found the debate on Clare Byrne very frustrating with the No side confusing the normal person, would it be possible in future debates for the broadcaster to put a gag (no pun intended) on the No side to prevent them for putting this misleading information out there?

If they used the word “Gender” instead of “sex”, there might be a better chance of an overall “yes” vote.

This is by no means a foregone conclusion.

Simplistic article…….Article 41 will be affected, and future law making affected. Children are an issue.
Many people do no like surrogacy, and it is outlawed in some major European countries. It is clearly an associated issue, which has yet to be dealt with in irish law. Adoption is quite a different matter and already covered by law. I found the atheist gay man on the Clare Byrne show expressed some of my strong doubts. What is wrong with Civil Partnership and the rights it gives to gay people to formalise relationships? I have no religious beliefs, and the vilification of those with doubts is foolish.
So many heterosexual people opt now for unofficial partnerships, and do not ever marry. Yet because some couples want to be called “married” the pressure to change continues, but I believe the issue of children and law-making in the future should be considered. I do not accept surrogacy for heterosexuals either. It is nor an argument to say that “these things are happening already” …there is no comprehensive law in the area, but there should, and I hope, will be.

Thank you winding down! Had a conversation with a colleague of mine about this yesterday. It went like this:
Her: I’ll have to think about it. I don’t mind them marrying but I need to think more about the adoption aspect
Me: (silently seething at the “I don’t mind” bit) what adoption aspect?
Her: well I don’t know if I agree with allowing them to adopt
Me: you know they can adopt now, right, just not jointly?
Her: no they can’t, only married people can adopt
Me: (face palm) where do you get your informatth Single people can adopt. And there’s no sexuality question on the adoption application papers
Her: are you sure? Well I don’t know about that, I mean a child needs a mother and a father
Me: so all those families where the mam or dad ran off or died when the kids were young, those kids should be removed from those single parent families and put into two parent adoptive families?
Her: I didn’t say that, that’s different
Me: you say too much for someone who doesn’t know what they’re saying.
Her: I just think we need to be careful about who is allowed to adopt
Me: you work in financial services, not child protection services, how about we let the informed experts decide.

@Derrick: The Iona “Institute” witnessed the huge public and media backlash against they threatened to sue RTÉ and Panti Bliss last year, and have apparently realised that the only way to appeal to voters is to put forth the most heart-wrenching argument they can; the “WOULD SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!” argument.

Even they know by now that most of the Irish public are smart enough to see through the logic of any direct attack that they might make against Single Sex Marriage.

Every adult in society wants what is in the best interests of the Child, be they straight or gay. The right to a loving home is the child’s right, not the adult’s one. The Family Law Bill currently before the Oireachtas reforms Irish adoption law and put the child’s welfare and best interests at the heart of decisions on parentage, guardianship, custody and access. None of it will be put to Referendum.

Every adult in society should also be equal before the law; which is not currently the case for Civil Marriage. This Referendum asks us to render the State blind as the genders of a couple entering into a married relationship. That is all. The issues are very distinct. Voting Yes or No in the Referendum in May will not impact upon any adoption reforms going through the Oireachtas between now and Easter.

Amy
Incredible!
Please let her see the wording above and ask her now.
Tell her the referendum has NOTHING to do with adoption, ivf, surrogacy.
I await her response with baited breath

When I said that “Every adult in society should be equal before the law”, I wasn’t intending to express a personal opinion, I was referring to the following statement in the Proclamation of the Irish Republic made at the GPO in 1916:

“The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and all of its parts, cherishing all of the children of the nation equally…”

Equality is the essence of a Republic. To my mind, the proclamation above calls upon us to extend Civil Marriage to all couples come May.

@ David: They used sex instead of gender to replicate existing provisions in the Constitution around the right to vote or run for public office (which refers to sex). If they used a different word, it could be used to create confusion.

Wow what a crazy conversation to have. Some people havent a breeze what they are saying

To be honest, the argument got a lot more heated after that and I don’t fancy broaching the subject with her again because I’m still annoyed at some of the stuff she said. Funniest thing is, she said this in front of one her bosses who she clearly wasn’t aware is a lesbian lady. And I mean lady as she didn’t once rise to the bait.

@Ash: I could single out the membership of the Iona “Institute” as an example, but it would lower the tone of debate…

I was with you until you suggested letting the “experts” in child protection services decide. That hasn’t got a great track record, to be honest.

Well, the point I was making was a biased numpty who has no experience with children and can barely do the job she’s actually qualified for, who I’m surprised can tie her own shoelaces, shouldn’t be making those kind of decisions. I really hope she reads this!

Would it not be simpler to ask ” do you approve of same sex marriage ” ?

The proclamation is not the Constitution.

Too open,

it needs the caveat that it’s in accordance with the law and that the person voting is aware that this isn’t an “opinion” but a vote on a statement of intent.

The “do you approve” sounds more like an opinion poll than a constitutional referendum

@Rory: Yes. Correct. But the Proclamation the founding document of the State. Much like the American Proclamation of Independence can be distinguished from the American Constitution. Be that as it may:

Article 40.1 of the Constitution states:

All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

@Seán:

All Constitutional referenda in Ireland adopt the following ballot paper wording:

” Do you approve…? ”

This has been the case since the July 1937 plebiscite that adopted the current Constitution. Irish citizens are well-used to this by now.

@Seán: Sorry, I missed that you were replying to the @Rory’s earlier post.

I was unaware that that was such a well established convention.

Cheers WD. Interesting!

WD – thanks for the info. on adoption legislation. How could the ‘yes’ side have allowed themselves to be so blindsided by Iona on this matter on the Claire Byrne show and so unprepared to clarify how it’s unrelated to the same-sex marriage referendum? It’s very worrying if they are the public face of the ‘yes’ campaign.

poor labour all over this like a gerry adams finance statement and leo goes and steals their thunder,was raining soup labour would have a fork at the ready

@Lloyd: I asked myself that question so very many times while I watched the debate. As good a moderator as Claire Byrne is, she allowed the No campaign to go totally off the rails. The commentary about marrying your pet goat was obscene!

I agree Lloyd. The moment anyone from the NO campaign starts to talk about “Let’s Think Of The Children” the YES side need to immediately call them out on it and let them know that issue has ZERO to do with the Referendum.

The No campaign are very clever in that they are not talking about equality, they are using children as their argument. The sooner the government pass that law the better. Then it will be interesting to see what the NO side will base their opposition on.

Meanwhile the YES campaign needs to get some PR training and needs to NEVER let these red herrings be used and left unchallenged.

Q Ronan Mullen and the “ye’ll all burn in Hell if ye vote yes” brigade.

@ Amy, this seems completely made up to make your fictional character look like you intellectual and enlightened lesser. You put words into their mouth to make them look so, it was planned and malicious.
You come across as arrogant.
I do agree, however, with you fictional character’s comment; ‘I just think we need to be careful about who is allowed to adopt’, no be careful, I don’t want you to feel you must place this into any particular context, I am thinking about this in broad terms.
Your last comment to the fictional character; ‘you work in financial services, not child protection services, how about we let the informed experts decide.’ must have made you wet your pants when you put her in her place with that one.

Haha fictional character, yes. Because people with that attitude don’t exist, right John? people like yourself are fictional, yes? Maybe I am arrogant, I couldn’t care less. Malicious? Now denying someone a right that everyone else has is what I find malicious. And you seem to be another person who doesn’t grasp that this is not about abortion. Oh you and your fictional opinions!

Sorry, adoption, I blame autocorrect on that one

John, for you to decide that everything she said is a lie is absolutely arrogant.

I’ve had so many conversations like that. Just go through the comments in stories yesterday and you will see somebody claiming marriage equality will be a tool used by paedophiles teaming up to marry and adopt their victims. Just this afternoon a guy called Paddy Scully claimed this referendum is about children and that if we vote not, gay people won’t be able to adopt. He also spoke about the set up of ‘womb farms’ for gay surrogacy.

There are a lot of ignorant people that believe all sorts or try and convince others of all sorts, so I can well believe Amy’s story.

#WD + Gary Pheasy. This is not like me at all but I actually emailed John Lyons imploring him/them to be better prepared for future t.v debates.

@E

“The Trojan Horse in all this is the 10,000 of infants who’ll be snapped away from their birth mothers/fathers to facilitate same sex couples having kids, and the damage that ensues.
I’m afraid guys and gals normal reproduction entails intercourse with 2 beings of the opposite sex.”

It’s very clear that you’re trolling and have been since the beginning but your aim is pretty clear: to cause as much harm and confusion as possible.

Your assertions are absolutely ludicrous and hysterical. You are throwing out imbecilic comments because they are the last resort of someone who cannot justify why they don’t want people who are doing NO HARM to ANYONE to enjoy the same rights as them.

You are spinning lies and absolute RUBBISH.

@E

Actually the only proper response to your idiotic comments is this:

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!

I’m with you on that Florence. He jumps from one absurd excuse to another and when he has nothing more, he cries victim saying we are insulting his character. Says the guy calling gay people paedophile enables, baby stealers and much more.

You’re a joke. Couldn’t win an argument with a ten year old. Go stir $hit elsewhere E and less of the victim rubbish.

O E, you’re at it again, aren’t you!! O what fun you are. Move along now, I doubt anyone will be persuaded by your ill informed bile.

Sure, vote Yes on this point of view, but then, when you register you child to school, bring your child’s baptism certificate to discriminate on admission. Everyone goes along with the church there, and on this other matter, they completely ignore it. Please don’t brag anymore about Ireland being a Catholic country. This goes now out the window.

Civil marriage is irrelevant to and no business of religion.

@colin I don’t know anyone under 50 who would “brag” about it being a catholic country.

The word NO will do for me

@Leslie: Why so, Leslie?

Civil Marriage depicting Church Marriage in another way just like Church of England wanted when they did not like what Rome was saying.
We lie ourselves that we do something right by writing parallel rules. That’s all I said. Ireland is not a Catholic country anymore.
Truth is that a vast number here are/became atheists, like I am. (Which is not disbelief, but lack of belief)
While I don’t find some teachings of Christians right (too enslaving), I still do not support this idea to be accepted by public. They can do it at home. I don’t want my children to know this is something the institutions (state, church) find OK.

While we are at it, I believe there is no problem in adjusting the wording a little more:
“Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two ore more persons without distinction as to their sex.”

@Amy gaffney. If same sex couple want offsprings, then they should raise what it comes out of where they put it in!

Let’s really think out of the box here and totally rip out of the “2000 years of brainwashing” ! I want to improve even more on the wording:
“Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two or more vertebrates without distinction as to their sex.”

Article 40.1
‘Equal before the law’ means that their shall be no prejudice against any party owing to their religion, sex, wealth, social position, land owner or tenant etc. It is a statement of the protection of the principal of a fair trial, it is not a expansive and all-encompassing statement of equality of all persons.

To hold all people equal, would mean that when a burglar was to be tried, his right to take would be equal to the property owner’s right to possess.

Oh Jim,
Your understanding of the law is embarrassing. Equality does not mean a burglar can take what they want, it means that all people must be afforded the same opportunities. I can’t believe this has to be explained to you. I’m actually shocked at the level of education in this country. It’s not your fault Jim, I blame our education system….

It’s not fair to call everybody who votes against it bigots.

A lot of people are against it on religious grounds and it’s hard to argue with 2000 years of brainwashing.

That being said, there are still a lot of bigots around too. A lot of them here on the journal comment board.

But hopefully it will pass comfortably so there can be no arguing later.

Billy chenowith your very stance on who might be a bigot makes you, by definition, to be a bigot. And could people please get a dictionary and learn the meaning of the word as you tar yourselves with the same toilet brush.

I’ve tried poking around for non-religious arguments against SSM. I’ve only found two, and they basically contradict each other.

(1) The state promotes marriage because marriage is the best foundation for a stable family in which children can be brought up. The children of a same sex marriage, whether adopted, sperm-donated, surrogated etc. will by definition be deprived of either a father or a mother, which the state should not support.

[Comment - this is really only arguable if you are also prepared to argue for highly restrictive divorce laws and against most forms of support for single parents, but it is not absolutely ridiculous.]

(2) The state has no business trying to define relationships between people, let alone express a preference and grant favourable treatment to certain relationships. Relationships are personal and none of the business of the state. All forms of state-sanctioned marriage are therefore undesirable, and so the extension of the scope of state-sanctioned marriage is a step in the wrong direction.

Not exactly compelling stuff.

The Doctor,
One can be a bigot on religious grounds. You’re correct that religion is a major reason for opposition and is certainly the impetus behind the loudest voices in the No campaign (although they wisely pretend otherwise). We need to stop giving a free pass to bigotry simply because it is religious in nature.

I know a few who will be voting ‘no’ and i wouldnt call them bigots. Not all ‘no’ voters are anti-gay.

A bigot to me is someone who is intolerant of anothers beliefs. I live in a small village surrounded by small villages. There are no gay couples here and no gay bars. None. So these mainly older people have no experience of gay couples never mind any dislike for them.

Again,

Let’s please try and capture the essence of the religious debate here.

1. We didn’t adhere to the wishes of the religious lobby on the issue of decriminalisation. Why should this be different? We don’t stone people for mixing crops, mixing fabrics, have oysters, frying up bacon, toiling on the Sabbath, nor do we condone selling our daughters into marriage or slavery. This selective application of dogma is hypocritical and a smoke screen for bigotry.

2. The Church does not have a monopoly on marriage, they do have a monopoly the sacrament of holy matrimony, which is not the same thing. If the State wished to put the issue to the people of forcing Churches to provide a religious Sacrament to LGBT couples, I would object. They are not, so I do not.

There is not religious argument against marriage equality, but should there be a move for matrimonial equality, I personally would vote against it.

My goodness, Morgan Freeman no offense but lots of people who might vote No are not all bigots. It just might be that they have concerns about the social implications that Marriage for All might have; based on their own religious or cultural beliefs?
While I’m in agreement with the principle, I accept that others have the right to disagree with it and not be considered as Bigots. Here in France, where I now live, Marriage for All is part of the law and rightfully so in my opinion but the next step for some gay rights activists is not just for adoption rights but also to have Gender Theory taught to primary school children.
If you’re not familiar with this theory then by all means look it up. Basically, it suggests that our sexuality is something of a societal constraint and therefore a matter of individual choice. That’s were I draw the line and exert my right to disagree and not be considered a bigot for doing so. Tolerance for All, including those who choose to disagree.

Bigot: a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
So, by the definition, there can be bigots on both side of this argument!

Oh, the irony of that statement!

Is that America Morgan?

Lol. Which bigots would these be? My father like thousands of others left Ireland age 14 because of the malign hangover of British rule. I was brought up in London and listened and argued against a lot of anti Irish views during the British troubles. Yes some of the older Irish have views that don’t fit today but they are not bigots per se. And by post contributed 5 billion by sending money home when there was no Celtic tiger. Back to your PlayStation!

By your logic , will you get the boat if it fails so?

Good stuff Emily. It really is time for the State to end the farce of recognising religiously sanctified or sacramental marriage. The State marriage should be an open ended contract that confers certain advantages with respect to tax, children and so on. Then mother church or father mosque can do whatever the hell it likes.

No matter what how fancy the government word it, I’ll still be voting no.
It’s just another bit of FG/Lab grandstanding.
Homeless people first now gay people.
This government will soon abandon Gay people, as they have done everyone else.

Looks like a campaign with no real substance, that goings to be promoted by continuously pulling out the discrimination.

…card

And yet the no side have no argument that can withstand any form of scrutiny. Best of luck E

@Sinead

“I live in a small village surrounded by small villages. There are no gay couples here and no gay bars. None. So these mainly older people have no experience of gay couples never mind any dislike for them.”

Then why would they be inclined to vote no? If they have no feelings either way, surely the best thing to do is to abstain from the vote altogether or to err on the side of caution and vote yes. If they vote no without knowing why they’re voting no, then it makes them ignorant, if not bigoted.

@ Seán Gallagher

” they do have a monopoly the sacrament of holy matrimony…”

Actually, Seán, I don’t think they do. The sacrament of matrimony is not administered by the Church. It is administered by the spouses to be, one to the other. That is Church teaching, unless they have changed it fairly recently. In my recollection the ritual states something along the lines of: “of which you, yourselves, are the ministers…”. The priest’s role is that of witness.

So, if the above holds true, there is no need to get married in church. And the register that is signed marks the state’s interest in the event. It is the legal record of the union. The Church also uses it as a record. But essentially it is a civil document.

So if people oppose gay marriage, they are bigots?

“There are no gay couples here”. so there are then.

Some interesting and good comments. I choose the word ‘bigot’ very consciously.
A fairer society is a better society. If you oppose rights to a minority, especially when it doesn’t impact you in any way at all, then it is almost a hate crime in my eyes. Hate crimes are performed by bigots.

You don’t get to decide what’s a crime, Mr Freeman

Brendan, I’m aware of the definition of bigot thanks. If you feel it’s right to label me a bigot because I think people who are anti SSM are bigots, grand so I’ll accept that. Which is unusual for a bigot because most anti SSM bigots won’t accept that they are bigots in much the same way as racists for example won’t expect that they are bigots. The Iona institute don’t think that they are bigots, just that they are right. I retain the right to call them and anyone who opposes SSM a bigot. But it’s ok for people to be offended by it because it is rightly so a dirty word, just like racist, homophobe and misogynist. If homophobic bigots would stop lying to themselves and be honest about who they are, this whole debate would be more honest. At least then bigots would would be able to say exactly what they think and not claim to be offended when they are called on their bigotry.

Morgan Freeman if your arguments are those of the wider yes campaign it may drive many yes voters like myself into the No camp…I will not be bullied and may choose to make a stand against bullying.

@Silver

Just as you shouldn’t get to decide what rights another human being who is causing you absolutely no harm gets. Eh, Silver? ;)

Boganity, his views do not reflect that of the yes side, I can assure you. I suspect he is trolling to be honest

John, I couldn’t agree more with you on your comments. My father like so many Irish had to leave Ireland for England at a young age because of the dreadful poverty here. Yet, their work and support of their families at home seems less noble in some ways than those who emigrated to the US. My Dad returned to Ireland in the 1960′s where the attitude of ‘burn everything British, except their coal’ was still prevalent. Shame on us and it’s time to recognize the part that Irish emigrants to the UK played in supporting our economy.

@Ailbhe O’Nolan I’m not sure how you see what I’m saying as trolling. I have an opinion that if you vote NO in this referendum that you are unreasonably intolerant of a minority of people. Very little of this is blurred, to me. There is legal hole that same sex couples are falling into that needs to be filled. It has zero impact on straight people, who have had the same legal rights forever.

@Boganity bullied??? WTF are you on about.

A bigot is a person intolerant to different. I am simply intolerant to wrong/sick. The way they shove it in is actually shit’s way out. Nature is against it as well. It gave them AIDS.

I don’t really mind if two half brother or indeed two half sister get hitched. I can’t imagine it happens that often and what business of mine if it does.

I think Pontius Pilatus’s point of view is valid here, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man – or woman – to rid himself – or herself -… where was I?

Of course it shouldnt be for half brother and sisters,thats wrong,they are blood related. A gay couple that want the right to marry are not doing anything wrong. You are crazy to compare the too relationships as the same thing

I’m not in favour of legalising marriage between blood relations but some advice for you Ash.

You’re going to have to back up the assertion that marriage between blood relations is “wrong” Saying something shouldn’t be allowed because it is just “wrong” is a non argument. Why do you think it is wrong?

Patrick, scientifically it is wrong because you share a 25% identical genetic code, which significantly increases the chance of abnormalities in any offspring. Morally, if you continue to allow step-inbreeding knowing that it doubles the chances of abnormality in every generation this will lead to a large population of at-risk people susceptible to genetic faults and unnecessary suffering. Humans might get away with it for a generation or two, but anything after that is morally reprehensible.

PS: None of the above “distraction” examples are currently prohibited by the constitution. The proposed changes will not change this. The change is simple – sex – not relationship, gender, species, or any other hypothetical links.

The genetic argument is also a poor one

It doesn’t account for marriage between blood relations that has no chance of reproducing. e.g. two brothers, sisters whatever, or where fertility precautions are taken.

There’s a reason I oppose it but it’s not the genetic risks for offspring one.

I should point out that I support marriage equality for consenting, unrelated adults regardless of sexual orientation.

The wording of the proposal states “In accordance with law”. It is already unlawful for half brother or sisters to marry. So it’s a bit of a red herring to think that it is an issue.

No but most if not all of the arguments on both sides this marriage equality debate could be copied and pasted into a future debate on marriage equality for relations.

It’s worth considering but should not distract.

I dunno about that, Patrick. Didn’t you see Ash’s well-argued point on wrongness above??

Why would i argue with u. I was saying how i felt and your looking to pick fights with people. Just cause gay people will be allowed to marry should never open the flood gates to a brother and sister marrying. You are mad to think your relationship with your sister patrick will ever be acceptable ha! Freedom of speech. If your all for this patrick then why are you asking people to expand.just enjoy life and stop looking for negativity

Not looking for negativity….just intelligence. If you don’t feel like being logical that’s fine too.

As an aside, your nasty insinuation about me is about as intelligent as someone questioning the sexuality of a supporter of the yes vote in this referendum. Kudos.

The policing of this is going to be interesting if passed.
“Your honour I’m divorcing me husband/wife because I realised that I was attracted to members of the same sex”
“It started when I listened to Village People at the twins 1st birthday”
“The barman at the local gay bar gave me the diagnosis”
Wait for the floodgates to open.

@E

You realise this is 2015, right?

People can divorce their spouses without having to give a reason.

And if you think that people would wait for same sex marriage to come in before they start living the life the really want to live, then you’re even more idiotic in your thought patterns than I imagined.

You don’t live in the real world one iota.

‘Wait for the floodgates to open’ ding ding ding, logical fallacy!

It doesn’t just say ‘persons’, it also says ‘in accordance with law’. All other provisions for marriage eligibility will be upheld, except gender. Can 16 year olds marry now? No? Then that won’t change.

OK, I understand now!

I thought it was 21 to get married here. Or over 18 with parents consent?

See?

Personally,

I reckon that that’s because there is no coherent argument against marriage equality which is not homophobia shrouded in religion, “won’t somebody please think of the children”, dismissive “sure what would you want that for” or similar.

Silver, if you can find me an argument that isn’t totally debunked or homophobia that’s better that “just cus I think so, but not because of homophobia”, I’ll totally listen to it.

Well if my husband proposed to me because of inheritance, and property with the addendum that I must produce children then it would be safe to say I would not have married him.

Pontius, I’m not sure that it is a valid point. For one, while the majority of couples who marry go on to have children, there have always been marriages of couples who are unable to procreate together, be it because of age or illness. Inability to procreate with your spouse is not unique to gay couples.

Yet, some people only raise the issue of procreation in marriage when it arises in the context of allowing same sex couples (the vast majority of whom are gay or lesbian) to marry. These people say nothing of all the other married couples who can’t procreate together. I think it is fair to say that someone who has an issue that can apply to multiple groups of people, but only raises it in the context of one particular group of people, really has a problem with that group of people, not with the issue they are raising.

All that said, I don’t usually use the word homophobic, etc, because it just gives the anti-marriage groups reason to cover up their lack of a robust argument. And that’s how we’ll win the referendum, by challenging the assertions made and showing them to be based on false or irrational grounds.

That right Shaun every counter view is homophobic, dismiss and accuse, label and name call, seems the pro ssm folk are the real bigots….

in this fertility based marriage world – If I have a vasectomy, would that immediately grant me an automatic divorce?

Johnny,

Rather than trying to call me a bigot, why don’t you make your case?

Do you have one that isn’t based on selective application of religious dogma, debunked research or bigotry?

Shaun , if you continue to talk like that , people will vote “no”. Maybe you might consider your choice of words.

johnny is your backside not jealous of the crap that comes out of your mouth, or keys in this case. Such utter tosh all over these articles and not one substantive argument related to the topic at hand.

Thanks for the reply, Pontius. That was a damn good and unexpected answer. T’would seem not to be homophobic. On the other hand it does reduce the issue to human rights vs financial gain. I know which one I’d pick.

PS. Mind reading tech is actually in the pipelines.

I’ve just been called a bigot by someone saying that I’m name calling…

What I’ve always said, is that I welcome the opportunity to hear from someone who has a case with merit, the current arguments against marriage equality, have been debunked, discredited and dispelled.

Why would asking someone to explain their case change people’s minds about it?

@Pontius: I’m more responding to your points about homophobia, as opposed the merits of letting gay couples marry (but I’m totally stealing your final counter point :)).

If someone keeps raising issues about one group of people, while ignoring the same issues in other groups of people, then I think we can assume they’re coming from a point of prejudice or bias. In the case of marriage and procreation, most opponents don’t put anything near the effort you put in to justify letting the infertile or elderly marry. Not that I necessarily agree with them, but I can see a rational basis to them nonetheless.

Actually, it would take very little effort to restrict elderly couples from getting married. You need to provide a birth certificate, which shows clearly your age.

I am not for one minute suggesting that we do this!

Ha, Pontius, you are the self appointed devil’s advocate. You almost sound like Silent Majority, a fellow that used to comment on here……disappeared around the time you arrived……Bonjour, je suis Hercule Poirot!

Noooooo! One devil’s advocate is enough. I can’t take anymore ;)