And it begins... (bigot brigade anti-SSM leaflets) - ### Mod Warning in 1st Post ###

Akrasia

This referendum will be a landslde victory for marriage equality (ie, more than 60% in favour of allowing SSM)

The nutter fringes are just that, the fringe. The fact is that Ireland is a much more liberal society than we were in the past and there are zero rational arguments against allowing marriage equality.

Allowing gay people to marry each other does not devalue heterosexual marriage. Only a bigot would think that it does. Only a fool would judge the value of their own marriage based on how easy it is for someone else to get married.

There is a division between the secular institution of marriage and the religious one. This is the single message the pro-side needs to repeat.

Allowing civil marriages for homosexual couples does absolutely nothing what so ever to affect the 'sacrement of marriage' in the catholic church. The referendum will not force the church to marry gay people just like the Equality authority has not forced the church to allow women priests.

rozeboosje

Akrasia wrote: »

There is a division between the secular institution of marriage and the religious one. This is the single message the pro-side needs to repeat.

Exactly. Every time anybody brings a religious argument into the discussion, calmly and respectfully point out that we're talking about the CIVIL institution, and that the practices of whatever religious organisation they belong to will not be affected in any way whatsoever.

Billy86

rozeboosje wrote: »

Exactly. Every time anybody brings a religious argument into the discussion, calmly and respectfully point out that we're talking about the CIVIL institution, and that the practices of whatever religious organisation they belong to will not be affected in any way whatsoever.

...and promptly watch them ignore that post as if it wasn't there, disappear off for a while, and come back with as close to a copy-and-paste repeat of their initial post about religion, "tradition" or whatever else they initially mentioned.

rozeboosje

Billy86 wrote: »

...and promptly watch them ignore that post as if it wasn't there, disappear off for a while, and come back with as close to a copy-and-paste repeat of their initial post about religion, "tradition" or whatever else they initially mentioned.

Surely we can win a "war of attrition". Every time they do that, just keep pointing out the obvious. Calmly and without malice.

"The practices of your religious organisation are not affected"
"You are free to continue to adhere to your traditions"

Billy86

rozeboosje wrote: »

Surely we can win a "war of attrition". Every time they do that, just keep pointing out the obvious. Calmly and without malice.

...and promptly watch them ignore that post as if it wasn't there, disappear off for a while, and come back with as close to a copy-and-paste repeat of their initial post about religion, "tradition" or whatever else they initially mentioned.

rozeboosje

"The practices of your religious organisation are not affected"
"You are free to continue to adhere to your traditions"

(I won't do that again, as I don't want to incur the wrath of the mods, but I did it once, just now, to illustrate my point)

Billy86

rozeboosje wrote: »

"The practices of your religious organisation are not affected"
"You are free to continue to adhere to your traditions"

(I won't do that again, as I don't want to incur the wrath of the mods, but I did it once, just now, to illustrate my point)

...and promptly watch them ignore that post as if it wasn't there, disappear off for a while, and come back with...

In truth though if we want to talk about "tradition" then same sex marriage is very much a part of it - it existed in many societies through the ages, and the oldest evidence of it is only 50 years younger than the oldest evidence of male/female marriage (with both dating back around 4,400 years).

floggg

Muahahaha wrote: »

I've heard of these studies but havent yet have time to read them or how they draw conclusions on children of homosexual couples doing just as well as those as hetreosexual couples. Like its one thing to survey adopted kids when they're older and check how they did education wise, career wise, etc and come to the conclusion that everyone does the same. But I'm wondering do these these surveys ever look at minute details like two gay men raising a young girl and how well equipped they are at understanding her perspective as she goes through puberty, chnages in her body, hormone levels, attention from boys and (inevitably) dissappointment from boys, all those things that mothers have been dealing with for years. Thats the part I'm unsure of, I'm not saying that a two male gays can never manage such a child but it does appear to me that they are at a distinct disadvantage over a maternal influence who herself has gone through all the things a teenage girl will and therefore has a unique perspective that two gay males do not. I think psychologists would call it tacit knowledge, i.e. its the things a woman knows from her experience of being a woman.

Thats the part I'm not sure of. As stated before I'm not against the idea of gay couples adopting, I'm more so interested in being sure that adoption takes place from a child-centric point of view and it is always the childs best interests that are at the heart of it, not the couples, irrespective of their sexuality.

You're really over stating the importance of that sort of thing.

I had two parents, mother and father, and both very good parents as far as I'm concerned.

I still had to figure out all the puberty stuff myself, learned about sex from my teacher, taught myself how to shave (it's not that hard) etc.

the presence of a male parent didn't help me much in that regard, nor did the lack of instruction hinder me that much.

In any event, there are many single fathers raising daughters who are coping just fine with handling puberty related issues. There are infinite number of resources where they can learn the necessary info to pass along, and can also rely on female friends and relatives if needed (probably not needed though).

Finally, there are many things a parent will have to guide their children through which they may not necessarily experienced or remember themselves. From teething, to sickness, to their first crush, to sporting and academic endeavours.

The absence of prior experience isn't a detriment to good parents - a loving, caring, committed and resourceful parent will generally pick out a reasonably good course of action when dealing with the myriad of novel situations which arise when raising a child.

LorMal

Peist2007 wrote: »

The Catholic Church will present pretty much the same view in a more palatable way. There'll be no typos anyway

How about not making assumptions? The Catholic Church does not present the same point of view.

Bah, I have lived through decades of bigoted Catholic crap in this country. Now I am living the era of bigoted anti-Catholic crap.
I assume there is no possibility of reasoned debate, sticking with the facts and being respectful of each others sincerely held views?

The_Captain

Akrasia wrote: »

This referendum will be a landslde victory for marriage equality (ie, more than 60% in favour of allowing SSM)

The nutter fringes are just that, the fringe. The fact is that Ireland is a much more liberal society than we were in the past and there are zero rational arguments against allowing marriage equality.

Allowing gay people to marry each other does not devalue heterosexual marriage. Only a bigot would think that it does. Only a fool would judge the value of their own marriage based on how easy it is for someone else to get married.

There is a division between the secular institution of marriage and the religious one. This is the single message the pro-side needs to repeat.

Allowing civil marriages for homosexual couples does absolutely nothing what so ever to affect the 'sacrement of marriage' in the catholic church. The referendum will not force the church to marry gay people just like the Equality authority has not forced the church to allow women priests.

It won't. I predict a narrow victory for Yes. There's going to be a lot going against it when it comes down to the business end of the campaigns.

The Church is still massively influential, and already there's stories of priests calling out against it in mass.
Enda Kenny will put his name behind a Yes vote, leading to protest votes for No against his government.
People with doubts and anyone unsure of their position will traditionally vote to maintain the status quo.
Then there are the otherwise rational, tolerant people who believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and that a civil partnership is enough

rozeboosje

Out of interest ... what guidelines are currently followed when agencies decide whether anybody is eligible to adopt a child?

Peist2007

LorMal wrote: »

How about not making assumptions? The Catholic Church does not present the same point of view.

Bah, I have lived through decades of bigoted Catholic crap in this country. Now I am living the era of bigoted anti-Catholic crap.
I assume there is no possibility of reasoned debate, sticking with the facts and being respectful of each others sincerely held views?

Do you think it is an unreasonable assumption to assume that the Catholic Church will be against the same sex marriage bill?

eviltwin

rozeboosje wrote: »

Out of interest ... what guidelines are currently followed when agencies decide whether anybody is eligible to adopt a child?

Its virtually impossible to adopt a child in this country. Only something like 15 kids were adopted into non biological families in 2013 I think, most of those from overseas. The majority of adoptions are family adoptions or they are the mother of a child adopting her own child ( crazy legal loophole to do with step parent adoption ).

This idea that gay couples will be handed out babies is just crap. Gay people can already adopt and yet the majority of kids I see are kids from heterosexual families. I doubt very little will change with SSM just the legal protection will be better for couples who have gone down this route.

floggg

bodice ripper wrote: »

It was literally the only parenting task you could think of that absolutely required a vagina.

Sure couldn't your dad just have used one of the many anatomically correct vagina-styles sex toys to demonstrate.

Weirdly, I actually think your dad shoving a tampon into a fleshlight is slightly less creepy than your mother making you watch her shove a tampon inside of her own lady parts.*



* both are still ridiculously creepy in my eyes.

Zombienosh

Sounds of sodomy is way better than songs of praise.

rozeboosje

eviltwin wrote: »

Its virtually impossible to adopt a child in this country. Only something like 15 kids were adopted into non biological families in 2013 I think, most of those from overseas.

Yes, but do play along for a moment ;-)

Do any of the current criteria for adoption involve references to a person's sex or sexual orientation?

LorMal

rozeboosje wrote: »

I've said it before, elsewhere, and I'll be happy to repeat it here:

Ireland missed the boat on the debate on Same Sex Marriage. The actual debate was held almost 2 decades ago in the Netherlands. The end result was that the civil institution of Marriage was extended to same sex couples in the Netherlands and many countries have followed its lead.

Maybe, just MAYBE, back in 1995, out of ignorance and with nothing to compare it to, somebody might have thought that they could validly hold an opposing view. But in 2015, all one needs to do is point out how society hasn't disintegrated in all the countries where Same Sex Marriage is now on the statute books, and their mental health services are NOT overrun by poor unfortunate kids dealing with the trauma of having to live in a household run by homosexuals.

So any objection based on any assertion that Same Sex Marriage undermines society or is "bad for children" can be dismissed out of hand. No further discussion is needed.

I am buying that at all. The fact that a debate happened in the Netherlands 20 years ago has nothing to do with Ireland in 2015.
Many countries have different laws and mores to us. We cannot replicate them all. The Netherlands has drug laws that I hope we never adopt here for example.

rozeboosje

Sure, LorMal, Irish people are different!

*groan*

eviltwin

rozeboosje wrote: »

Yes, but do play along for a moment ;-)

Do any of the current criteria for adoption involve references to a person's sex or sexual orientation?

No. The law allows anyone to adopt a child once the fit the criteria re age, income etc. Sexual orientation is not an issue.

Akrasia

Billy86 wrote: »

...and promptly watch them ignore that post as if it wasn't there, disappear off for a while, and come back with...

In truth though if we want to talk about "tradition" then same sex marriage is very much a part of it - it existed in many societies through the ages, and the oldest evidence of it is only 50 years younger than the oldest evidence of male/female marriage (with both dating back around 4,400 years).

Also, if we want to revere traditional marriage, up until recently, arranged marriages were a common part of our 'tradition' and the payment of a dowry was required.

Traditions change all the time, even heterosexual marriages of today look nothing like the 'traditional' marriages of the 19th century and before

LorMal

Peist2007 wrote: »

Do you think it is an unreasonable assumption to assume that the Catholic Church will be against the same sex marriage bill?

No

Sonics2k

I was raised by gay parents and I'm yet to see any evidence that my life was harder, or I was treated badly or any variation of it.
I've spoken about it a few times on boards, but for the naysayers or those concerned for the children, just pm me or ask me here and I'll answer as best I can.

LorMal

rozeboosje wrote: »

Sure, LorMal, Irish people are different!

*groan*

This is what annoys me about this debate.

rozeboosje

eviltwin wrote: »

No. The law allows anyone to adopt a child once the fit the criteria re age, income etc. Sexual orientation is not an issue.

So gay people can already adopt children, whether Same Sex Marriage is introduced or not.

Anybody still interested in presenting the "WOULD ANYBODY PLEASE *sob* THINK OF THE CHILDREN" argument?

Peist2007

LorMal wrote: »

No

Then why complain about me making an assumption if that is the assumption that i made?

rozeboosje

LorMal wrote: »

This is what annoys me about this debate.

What, pointing out that people are people and if a change in the law didn't cause Dutch, Belgian, Spanish ... etc. societies to collapse into chaos it won't cause a problem in Ireland either ... that's annoying?

Ah diddums.

Peist2007

LorMal wrote: »

I am buying that at all. The fact that a debate happened in the Netherlands 20 years ago has nothing to do with Ireland in 2015.
Many countries have different laws and mores to us. We cannot replicate them all. The Netherlands has drug laws that I hope we never adopt here for example.

He didnt say a debate happened in Holland. He said the law was changed and there have been none of the effects that the no side are espousing. It's called destroying your position.

eviltwin

LorMal wrote: »

This is what annoys me about this debate.

Why does that annoy you?

There are lots of claims out there about the damage that SSM will do to society. We can look to those countries that have introduced SSM and see for ourselves what damage has been caused. I'd be interested to see any stats that show things went downhill for those countries but I doubt they exist.

Akrasia

LorMal wrote: »

I am buying that at all. The fact that a debate happened in the Netherlands 20 years ago has nothing to do with Ireland in 2015.
Many countries have different laws and mores to us. We cannot replicate them all. The Netherlands has drug laws that I hope we never adopt here for example.

You're missing the point. Civil marriage is seperate from religious marriage. If people don't want the traditional church marriage to change, then they have absolutely nothing to worry about. Civil marriages have never been considered 'traditional', and these are the only marriages that are affected by this constitutional change

Changing the constitution to allow same sex marriage has absolutely zero effect on the 'instutution' of marriage from a religious perspective. Practising and believing christians will not be forced to involve themselves in SSM in any way, just like they are not forced to involve themselves in Divorce following the passing of the Divorce referendum

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Lots of talk about children and adoption etc here. If anyone was listening to Mat Cooper last night they had a guy from the Iona institute on making some of the same points as have been made here. But as was pointed out then the referendum isn't about adoption or children or parenthood etc, its about civil marriage. Trying to turn it into a debate that "dem gays can't raise kids" is not addressing the issue and is also a pretty disgusting tactic.