Gay marriage referendum: what are we actually voting on?

Madd Finn

I mean this to be a simple and straightforward question and hope that it does not generate a load of self-righteous and mutually abusive commentary. (Is there an emoticon for naivete?)

But seriously: what exactly is the issue on which we are voting? What is actually meant by gay marriage, as opposed to civil partnership which we have now?

Is the difference solely about the issue of adoption?

If there's more to it than that what are the differentiating features?

I only ask because i am disappointed with the general level of debate, or lack of it, in the national media. I am disgusted by the knee-jerk rush on the part of one side to sanction broadcasters for not being "balanced" enough and also, to be fair, by the hastiness of others to denounce any reluctance to "Just say Yes" as homophobia.

So please. Just to humour me: what is the exact issue, or issues, on which we have to vote?

oscarBravo

http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/marriage/faqs.html

Madd Finn

Thanks Oscar but you've only confused me further.

This website implies that there may be no need to alter the Constitution.

"We’ve identified over 160 statutory differences between civil partnership and civil marriage. Through our work with elected representatives and our allies in the Dáil and Seanad, we have been able to close many of these gaps – including many around finance and taxation.

[But]..some very important inequalities remain. For example, Civil Partnership:

does not permit children to have a legally recognised relationship with their parents - only the biological one.

defines the home of civil partners as a "shared home", rather than a "family home" , as is the case for married couples. This has implications for the protection of dependent children living in this home and also means a lack of protection for civil partners who are deserted."


Yet this Irish Times report carries the news that the government hopes to hold a referendum in May.

Further befuddling me (being only a simple lad) is the fact that much of what this site says is the difference between Civil Partnership and GLBT marriage does indeed involve the rights and status of adopted children (see above). Yet the Times story also says

"The Government intends that the Child and Family Relationships Bill, which provides for the adoption of children by same-sex couples, will be passed into law by the time the referendum takes place."

So if the Government can legislate for same-sex adoption BEFORE the referendum, why do we have to have a referendum at all?

oscarBravo

The Constitution doesn't explicitly state that marriage is between a man and a woman, true: but (afaik) Supreme Court precedent has held that that's what it means. Given that the SC has the sole authority to interpret the Constitution, if we want to unequivocally allow marriage equality in this state, we need to change the Constitution to explicitly reflect that.

Annasopra

Theres one major difference that noone has really discussed. Marriage is offered constitutional protection but civil partnership isnt.

Nomis21

Let's get to the point of what this is all about. Marriage Equality.

The emphasis here is on Equality, not marriage. It is about allowing LGBT folks to have equal rights. It's about not discriminating against LGBT in any legal way.

How many gay people really want marriage or adoption anyway? Considering marriage was originally a religious law and the fact that most clergy are against equal rights for gay people and in any case sex before marriage is not an issue for anyone except the deeply religious, I can't say this is too much about marriage at all.

Equality is the issue and gay marriage is the vehicle to get there.

Godge

We don't know yet what we are voting on.

The wording hasn't been released yet.

Madd Finn

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Theres one major difference that noone has really discussed. Marriage is offered constitutional protection but civil partnership isnt.

What the hell does that mean? There used to be a constitutional prohibition on dissolving a marriage but we got rid of that nearly 20 years ago.

Frankly I think there is no need for this referendum at all. And I'm not saying that from an anti gay or anti equality viewpoint. The outstanding issues can be, and indeed are being, resolved through normal legislation passing through the Oireachtas. In other words, we don't need a referendum to introduce greater equality.

And frankly, after reading about the obscene sums tax payers are now going to have to stump up to pay lawyers for those old shysters that were dragged before Tribunals, I think we have had enough lucrative job-creation schemes for lawyers.

No need for this referendum at all. Bin it now and pass the equality legislation without bothering the voting public as a whole.

oscarBravo

Madd Finn wrote: »

What the hell does that mean? There used to be a constitutional prohibition on dissolving a marriage but we got rid of that nearly 20 years ago.

Yes. By amending the constitution.

Frankly I think there is no need for this referendum at all. And I'm not saying that from an anti gay or anti equality viewpoint. The outstanding issues can be, and indeed are being, resolved through normal legislation passing through the Oireachtas. In other words, we don't need a referendum to introduce greater equality.

Did you just wilfully ignore my earlier post about the implied constitutional definition of the family?

And frankly, after reading about the obscene sums tax payers are now going to have to stump up to pay lawyers for those old shysters that were dragged before Tribunals, I think we have had enough lucrative job-creation schemes for lawyers.

How in the name of jebus is a referendum a lucrative job-creation scheme for lawyers?

No need for this referendum at all. Bin it now and pass the equality legislation without bothering the voting public as a whole.

...and have that legislation promptly declared unconstitutional?

Madd Finn

oscarBravo wrote: »

Did you just wilfully ignore my earlier post about the implied constitutional definition of the family?

On the contrary. I trawled a bit more through the website you initially recommended in an attempt to expand my knowledge. Among the items I discovered was this:


Marriage Equality shares the opinion of some of Ireland's finest constitutional lawyers, who see no constitutional impediment to providing marriage equality. There is no substance to the argument that providing full equality for same-sex couples is unconstitutional. In fact, the Irish Constitution upholds equality for ALL its citizens.

I'm with them on that one.

oscarBravo wrote: »

How in the name of jebus is a referendum a lucrative job-creation scheme for lawyers?

Who do you think drafts the legislation?

Madd Finn wrote:

There used to be a constitutional prohibition on dissolving a marriage but we got rid of that nearly 20 years ago.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes. By amending the constitution.

I have no problem with amending the constitution when it needs to be amended. As it did in that case because it contained a bald statement at the time that "No law shall be enacted dissolving a marriage". So if we wanted to give people the right to remarry, we had to remove that article via a referendum.

But I am an instinctive believer in the adage that if it ain't broke, we shouldn't try to fix it. If we CAN legislate for greater equality within the framework of the constitution as it stands, we should.

I think, and the comments on Marriage Equality's website since the announcement of the forthcoming referendum seem to corroborate this, that this is really just about "sending a message", or in other words striking a pose. There is no practical benefit to having this referendum at all.

And please be clear. I am not saying there should be no more legislation aimed at improving equal treatment for same sex couples before the law. Far from it. I just don't think, and Marriage Equality doesn't seem to think, that we need an Amendment to do this.

oscarBravo

Madd Finn wrote: »

On the contrary. I trawled a bit more through the website you initially recommended in an attempt to expand my knowledge. Among the items I discovered was this:


Marriage Equality shares the opinion of some of Ireland's finest constitutional lawyers, who see no constitutional impediment to providing marriage equality. There is no substance to the argument that providing full equality for same-sex couples is unconstitutional. In fact, the Irish Constitution upholds equality for ALL its citizens.

I'm with them on that one.

I'll go digging at some point, but I think there's Supreme Court precedent that effectively defines the family as one man, one woman.

Who do you think drafts the legislation?

The same people who would draft the equality legislation that you're asking that they introduce. You think they go out and hire lawyers to draft constitutional amendments, but not to draft laws?

And that's leaving aside the fact that if the Oireachtas enacts marriage equality legislation and it's challenged in the Supreme Court (and if you think it won't be, you're having a laugh), you're guaranteeing that the state will have to pay the costs of defending such an action - and I'd be pretty confident that it would be faced with the cost of holding a referendum anyway once the legislation was struck down.

I have no problem with amending the constitution when it needs to be amended. As it did in that case because it contained a bald statement at the time that "No law shall be enacted dissolving a marriage". So if we wanted to give people the right to remarry, we had to remove that article via a referendum.

But I am an instinctive believer in the adage that if it ain't broke, we shouldn't try to fix it. If we CAN legislate for greater equality within the framework of the constitution as it stands, we should.

I think, and the comments on Marriage Equality's website since the announcement of the forthcoming referendum seem to corroborate this, that this is really just about "sending a message", or in other words striking a pose. There is no practical benefit to having this referendum at all.

That would be true, if you were absolutely certain that the Supreme Court would interpret the Constitution as allowing for a definition of marriage that includes same-sex couples. I don't share your certainty on that.

And please be clear. I am not saying there should be no more legislation aimed at improving equal treatment for same sex couples before the law. Far from it. I just don't think, and Marriage Equality doesn't seem to think, that we need an Amendment to do this.

Would you vote against a proposal to clarify the position in the Constitution?

Madd Finn

oscarBravo wrote: »

That would be true, if you were absolutely certain that the Supreme Court would interpret the Constitution as allowing for a definition of marriage that includes same-sex couples. I don't share your certainty on that.

You can NEVER be certain what the Supreme Court will rule on any issue, whatever the constraints of the Constitution are. But it's my understanding, call it prejudice if you like, that you are more at liberty to change things by successful legislation if you operate within existing well understood Constitutional constraints than by introducing new articles whose boundaries remain to be tested by the courts.

The law of unintended consequences often applies most to well intended legislation. Has there ever been a piece of legislation aimed at improving the liberty and/or equality of GLBT people that has been dismissed as contravening the Constitution? I don't think so.

Is the forthcoming legislation on same-sex adoption likely to contravene the Constitution? I don't know, but the Marriage Equality people seem to be confident that it won't. And I can't really imagine President Michael D referring such legislation to the Supreme Court before giving it his assent, unless the drafters really cock it up. But let's not disappear down that rabbit hole until it's dug...

oscarBravo wrote: »

Would you vote against a proposal to clarify the position in the Constitution?

If it was clear what had to be clarified, of course I wouldn't. But right now I don't know, and nobody can tell me, what constitutional issues, as opposed to legal issues, need to be clarified.

I am prepared to be convinced otherwise but as of now it seems to me that rejecting a change to the constitution would in no way threaten any existing or impending equality-enhancing legislation.

So why have a referendum in the first place?

oscarBravo

Madd Finn wrote: »

You can NEVER be certain what the Supreme Court will rule on any issue, whatever the constraints of the Constitution are. But it's my understanding, call it prejudice if you like, that you are more at liberty to change things by successful legislation if you operate within existing well understood Constitutional constraints than by introducing new articles whose boundaries remain to be tested by the courts.

Great. Point me to the articles of the Constitution that set the well understood constraints on whether or not two people of the same gender can marry.

The law of unintended consequences often applies most to well intended legislation. Has there ever been a piece of legislation aimed at improving the liberty and/or equality of GLBT people that has been dismissed as contravening the Constitution? I don't think so.

That's because the legislation we've had to date has asymptotically approached the limits of what the Constitution allows, as already interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Is the forthcoming legislation on same-sex adoption likely to contravene the Constitution? I don't know, but the Marriage Equality people seem to be confident that it won't. And I can't really imagine President Michael D referring such legislation to the Supreme Court before giving it his assent, unless the drafters really cock it up. But let's not disappear down that rabbit hole until it's dug...

It doesn't have to be the President that tests the constitutionality of a bill; any citizen has the right to do so.

Are you prepared to state confidently that there are no citizens of Ireland who would challenge the constitutionality of legislation that would allow same-sex couples to marry?

If it was clear what had to be clarified, of course I wouldn't. But right now I don't know, and nobody can tell me, what constitutional issues, as opposed to legal issues, need to be clarified.

I am prepared to be convinced otherwise but as of now it seems to me that rejecting a change to the constitution would in no way threaten any existing or impending equality-enhancing legislation.

So why have a referendum in the first place?

So you'd reject a change to the Constitution unless such a change was proposed in response to the Supreme Court explicitly rejecting marriage equality?

It's nice that you're that confident that (a) nobody would challenge the legislation, (b) the Supreme Court would overturn its own past rulings, and (c) the government would introduce such legislation in the first place given the probability of a constitutional challenge. I'm guessing this isn't an issue that affects you personally.

NuMarvel

Madd Finn wrote: »

I am prepared to be convinced otherwise but as of now it seems to me that rejecting a change to the constitution would in no way threaten any existing or impending equality-enhancing legislation.

A No win wouldn't threaten existing legislation, but it would leave future legislation on shaky grounds. Particularly if that legislation were to give effect to a change that was rejected in a referendum. The No side would go to town on any Government that proceeded on such legislation in the face of public opinion. People are already cynical enough about the political system when referendums are rerun because the Government didn't like the answer in the first one. Ignoring the results of a referendum and legislating anyway would make things worse again.

The official reason we're having a referendum is that the advice of the Attorney General is that legislative change would be contrary to the current Constitution. There is legal opinion that this wouldn't be the case and that it doesn't need a referendum (a position that I agree with), but the Government's own legal experts say otherwise. And this has been the advice given to successive Governments, it's not just this one.

Another consideration is that a Constitutional change to allow gay couples to marry would be harder to reverse than a legislative change. Look at France where Sarkozy is threatening to reverse the marriage laws if elected President. That would be more difficult if it were expressly set out in a constitution that requires the majority of citizens to ratify any changes.

At the end of the day, the decision has been that this will be done by referendum. It's not how I'd like to see it done, but at this point, legislative change alone looks highly unlikely. Our focus now needs to be on making sure people vote and that they vote Yes.

Godge

NuMarvel wrote: »

A No win wouldn't threaten existing legislation, but it would leave future legislation on shaky grounds. Particularly if that legislation were to give effect to a change that was rejected in a referendum. The No side would go to town on any Government that proceeded on such legislation in the face of public opinion. People are already cynical enough about the political system when referendums are rerun because the Government didn't like the answer in the first one. Ignoring the results of a referendum and legislating anyway would make things worse again.

The official reason we're having a referendum is that the advice of the Attorney General is that legislative change would be contrary to the current Constitution. There is legal opinion that this wouldn't be the case and that it doesn't need a referendum (a position that I agree with), but the Government's own legal experts say otherwise. And this has been the advice given to successive Governments, it's not just this one.

Another consideration is that a Constitutional change to allow gay couples to marry would be harder to reverse than a legislative change. Look at France where Sarkozy is threatening to reverse the marriage laws if elected President. That would be more difficult if it were expressly set out in a constitution that requires the majority of citizens to ratify any changes.

At the end of the day, the decision has been that this will be done by referendum. It's not how I'd like to see it done, but at this point, legislative change alone looks highly unlikely. Our focus now needs to be on making sure people vote and that they vote Yes.

I think that the vast majority of people will vote Yes.

However, there is one thing that potentially worries me. People have seen the havoc caused by the bad wording of the Eighth Amendment.

If the wording for this one is unclear or ambiguous or has the potential for unintended consequences, you could see people in favour of same-sex marriage voting against. The wording must be fool-proof (or rather judge-proof)

Madd Finn

Godge wrote: »

I think that the vast majority of people will vote Yes.

However, there is one thing that potentially worries me. People have seen the havoc caused by the bad wording of the Eighth Amendment.

If the wording for this one is unclear or ambiguous or has the potential for unintended consequences, you could see people in favour of same-sex marriage voting against. The wording must be fool-proof (or rather judge-proof)

That is absolutely my main concern. There may be no need for a referendum so we would be better advised to stay well clear of one.

The vast majority of people in the early 80s supported the Eighth Amendment, with few I am sure, realising the gruesome chain of events that would unfold. There was no need for that amendment; abortion was already illegal but the zealous wanted to "enshrine the rights of the unborn in the constitution." I know for a fact that many who supported that amendment are horrified by what transpired with the X, Halapannavar and more recently the dead-woman-being-kept-alive-so-that-her-barely-gestated-foetus-might-be-brought-to-full-term cases.

Do we even know whether we are going to be asked to insert a new clause into the constitution or amend or remove an existing one?

skooterblue2

Godge wrote: »

I think that the vast majority of people will vote Yes.

In the Urban areas yes.

In the Rural areas ... less so. Rual people are very Homophobic.

There is another factor as well. Many people have a seething rage towards this Administration, (myself included). As a mark of protest they may decided to reject the amendent as a protest rather than a homophobic gesture. This is a VERY REAL threat to the referendum.

oscarBravo

skooterblue2 wrote: »

In the Urban areas yes.

In the Rural areas ... less so. Rual people are very Homophobic.

We are, are we?

There is another factor as well. Many people have a seething rage towards this Administration, (myself included). As a mark of protest they may decided to reject the amendent as a protest rather than a homophobic gesture. This is a VERY REAL threat to the referendum.

If I kick a gay person in the head - not as a homophobic gesture, but as a protest against the government - does that make it hurt less?

I've said it on another thread: anyone who'll vote either way on this referendum on anything other than the merits of the proposal it contains is a blithering idiot who doesn't deserve the right to vote.

skooterblue2

oscarBravo wrote: »

We are, are we? If I kick a gay person in the head - not as a homophobic gesture, but as a protest against the government - does that make it hurt less?

I've said it on another thread: anyone who'll vote either way on this referendum on anything other than the merits of the proposal it contains is a blithering idiot who doesn't deserve the right to vote.

oh god yes ... there is a whole generation who leave the country/rural Ireland because of homophobia. In the city no, one cares and you blend in. One of my friends was tortured for years in Carlow town because she was transgender. Kept telling to move to the city for a quiet life.

I didnt say I would vote against the referundum, but you will have to agree with me when the results come in Dublin 4 are most likely to accept it and rural areas like Donegal and the border counties are more likely to reject it?

You could see how people who have no vested interest on the issue would like to stick it to the Government ... particularily the Labour party.

oscarBravo

skooterblue2 wrote: »

oh god yes ... there is a whole generation who leave the country/rural Ireland because of homophobia. In the city no, one cares and you blend in. One of my friends was tortured for years in Carlow town because she was transgender. Kept telling to move to the city for a quiet life.

I didnt say I would vote against the referundum, but you will have to agree with me when the results come in Dublin 4 are most likely to accept it and rural areas like Donegal and the border counties are more likely to reject it?

Oh yes - there's no doubt that there is a higher concentration of backward conservative people in rural areas. The bit I took exception to is your statement that rural people are homophobic. It's a bit like saying that because there are higher crime rates in cities, that urban people are criminals.

You could see how people who have no vested interest on the issue would like to stick it to the Government ... particularily the Labour party.

Yes. They're still assholes if they do it. "No vested interest" means that it's someone else's civil rights at stake, not theirs - not an admirable justification for voting for the wrong reasons.

skooterblue2

thank you those were my points. Another Rural/Urban divide is group think, If you dont follow a certain mob mentality in the country ... you are "a bit odd".

I dont have great faith in People being motivated in voting. I was speaking to a group of students aged 18-22 and only 1 in 6 were registered to Vote. The thing that disressed me most was how few were concerned about getting registered. "Whats the point?" "I dont want to vote", "What can a politician do for me?".

The people who are most likely decide on the outcome of the Vote are NOT homosexual people (as a group) but young People aged 18-30 who have further training (bigger group , more likely to vote yes).

oscarBravo

skooterblue2 wrote: »

thank you those were my points. Another Rural/Urban divide is group think, If you dont follow a certain mob mentality in the country ... you are "a bit odd".

...and proud of it.

I dont have great faith in People being motivated in voting. I was speaking to a group of students aged 18-22 and only 1 in 6 were registered to Vote. The thing that disressed me most was how few were concerned about getting registered. "Whats the point?" "I dont want to vote", "What can a politician do for me?".

The people who are most likely decide on the outcome of the Vote are NOT homosexual people (as a group) but young People aged 18-30 who have further training (bigger group , more likely to vote yes).

I don't disagree that it's likely to be a problem. I will vehemently disagree that it's understandable or forgivable.

skooterblue2

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't disagree that it's likely to be a problem. I will vehemently disagree that it's understandable or forgivable.

God be with the day you were marched down to the Garda Station to be registered for voting on your 18th birthday. "Congratulations son, you are voting for Fianna Fail". Kids are more concerned getting smashed then civic duty.
Could be their own friends who come out years later. If it fails... could be 10 years before the government retry the issue.

Annasopra

I keep seeing this idea that people will vote no because they hate the labour party. I cant take it seriously though because it keeps coming from people who are constantly looking for pitchforks against the Labour party and would look for a pitchfork if labour supported this referendum and a pitchfork if they didnt.

fran17

Madd Finn wrote: »

I mean this to be a simple and straightforward question and hope that it does not generate a load of self-righteous and mutually abusive commentary. (Is there an emoticon for naivete?)

But seriously: what exactly is the issue on which we are voting? What is actually meant by gay marriage, as opposed to civil partnership which we have now?

Is the difference solely about the issue of adoption?

If there's more to it than that what are the differentiating features?

I only ask because i am disappointed with the general level of debate, or lack of it, in the national media. I am disgusted by the knee-jerk rush on the part of one side to sanction broadcasters for not being "balanced" enough and also, to be fair, by the hastiness of others to denounce any reluctance to "Just say Yes" as homophobia.

So please. Just to humour me: what is the exact issue, or issues, on which we have to vote?

Truth is that nobody knows yet what we,the Irish people,are being asked to vote on.The difference between civil partnership and this proposition will be very little regarding marriage,but again we don't know yet what exactly will be asked of us in this referendum.
Yes the whole generalisation of the no voters as homophobes is rather disappointing but this is an avenue that the yes campaign seem so feel will score points.So expect plenty of mud slinging in the months to come.
On the adoption front,currently only a married couple may apply for adoption of a child thus excluding gay couples from the process.The passing of this referendum will open the door for gay couples,who now would be legally married,to apply.
This referendum will have a domino effect far beyond this issue but again we don't know the wording yet.

Madd Finn

fran17 wrote: »

On the adoption front,currently only a married couple may apply for adoption of a child thus excluding gay couples from the process.The passing of this referendum will open the door for gay couples,who now would be legally married,to apply.

Yes Fran, but as has already been said here, the Government plans to legislate for same-sex adoption BEFORE the referendum takes place. The implication clearly being that we don't need a referendum to introduce this facility.

fran17

Madd Finn wrote: »

Yes Fran, but as has already been said here, the Government plans to legislate for same-sex adoption BEFORE the referendum takes place. The implication clearly being that we don't need a referendum to introduce this facility.

Yes in theory that may have been the governments plan however the child and family bill was by and large the brain child of Alan Shatter.The new bill,which we know neither the wording or the date to be enacted,can only be speculated on.
What we can say with certainty is that if the referendum is passed then two gay men,women or even transsexual couples will legally be in a position to apply for adoption.

Annasopra

fran17 wrote: »

Yes in theory that may have been the governments plan however the child and family bill was by and large the brain child of Alan Shatter.The new bill,which we know neither the wording or the date to be enacted,can only be speculated on.
What we can say with certainty is that if the referendum is passed then two gay men,women or even transsexual couples will legally be in a position to apply for adoption.

And? What is wrong with that?

fran17

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

And? What is wrong with that?

Some very worrying statistics would say a lot.The latest 2014 UK survey into drug abuse compares both heterosexual and homosexual people independently and some shocking figures materialise.
33% of homosexual men use drugs compared to 11% of heterosexual men.The illegal drugs include poppers,which homosexual men are 25 times more likely to use,ecstasy,5 times more likely and ketamine which is 7.5 times more likely to be used.Even drugs like heroin and crack cocaine,which have not been perceived to be associated with homosexuals in the past,have higher levels of use.
Homosexual women have been found to be 4 times higher risk of drug abuse than heterosexual women.
Transsexuals people suffering from gender identity disorder equate to many of the above statistics regarding drug abuse,and higher,but also suffer from serious psychological disorders such as depression and suicide.I have great sympathy for anyone suffering from these conditions but these issues must be considered.
A lot of people try to dismiss the "will someone please think of the children" argument as outdated and backwards but I don't.Ireland has a long history of failing its children and I believe that giving an open door of legality to anyone who wants to be perceived as married would be moral and social calamity.
People will always try to muddy the waters with the child and family bill but this bill is unknown to everyone.If this referendum is passed then marriage legality is granted to all who avail of it,including the above,and we all need to think long and hard about that.

fran17

fran17 wrote: »

Some very worrying statistics would say a lot.The latest 2014 UK survey into drug abuse compares both heterosexual and homosexual people independently and some shocking figures materialise.
33% of homosexual men use drugs compared to 11% of heterosexual men.The illegal drugs include poppers,which homosexual men are 25 times more likely to use,ecstasy,5 times more likely and ketamine which is 7.5 times more likely to be used.Even drugs like heroin and crack cocaine,which have not been perceived to be associated with homosexuals in the past,have higher levels of use.
Homosexual women have been found to be 4 times higher risk of drug abuse than heterosexual women.
Transsexuals people suffering from gender identity disorder equate to many of the above statistics regarding drug abuse,and higher,but also suffer from serious psychological disorders such as depression and suicide.I have great sympathy for anyone suffering from these conditions but these issues must be considered.
A lot of people try to dismiss the "will someone please think of the children" argument as outdated and backwards but I don't.Ireland has a long history of failing its children and I believe that giving an open door of legality to anyone who wants to be perceived as married would be moral and social calamity.
People will always try to muddy the waters with the child and family bill but this bill is unknown to everyone.If this referendum is passed then marriage legality is granted to all who avail of it,including the above,and we all need to think long and hard about that.

Wow.



/picks self up from floor


Link?

skooterblue2

fran17 wrote: »

Some very worrying statistics would say a lot.The latest 2014 UK survey into drug abuse compares both heterosexual and homosexual people independently and some shocking figures materialise.
33% of homosexual men use drugs compared to 11% of heterosexual men.The illegal drugs include poppers,which homosexual men are 25 times more likely to use,ecstasy,5 times more likely and ketamine which is 7.5 times more likely to be used.Even drugs like heroin and crack cocaine,which have not been perceived to be associated with homosexuals in the past,have higher levels of use.
Homosexual women have been found to be 4 times higher risk of drug abuse than heterosexual women.
Transsexuals people suffering from gender identity disorder equate to many of the above statistics regarding drug abuse,and higher,but also suffer from serious psychological disorders such as depression and suicide.I have great sympathy for anyone suffering from these conditions but these issues must be considered.
A lot of people try to dismiss the "will someone please think of the children" argument as outdated and backwards but I don't.Ireland has a long history of failing its children and I believe that giving an open door of legality to anyone who wants to be perceived as married would be moral and social calamity.
People will always try to muddy the waters with the child and family bill but this bill is unknown to everyone.If this referendum is passed then marriage legality is granted to all who avail of it,including the above,and we all need to think long and hard about that.

We have to remember how hard it is to get an adpotion in the firstplace and arrest with the possession of a drug for either supply or personal use would exclude. You cant be claiming the moral high ground for adoption and have an arrest record. It is so hard to walk between the straight lines these days with tax evasion, drugs now being socially acceptable, non-payment of the water charges, demonstrations, etc etc.

BTW I still think using drugs is wrong and my own industry is fairly strong on its regulation.