Marriage Equality Referendum

SILVAMAN

Sweet!

lottpaul

Final RTE "debate" on the referendum will be on the 6 o'clock tv news -- separate interviews with Enda Kenny and Archbishop Diarmuid Martin

gravehold

Enda is doing terribly, can't even answer any of the questions

Mr.Nice Guy

Did anyone catch the debate on BBC Radio Ulster today on the referendum? It featured Fidelma Healy Eames of the No side and Marcella Corcoran-Kennedy TD of the Yes side. It's up on the BBC website (starts at 8 minutes in):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05vc6x2

Anyway all hell breaks loose when Paddy Manning calls in (at the 56:30 minute mark) and starts demanding an apology from the TD. :pac:

I thought Fidelma Healy Eames did very poorly here; I was impressed with the TD. There's some interesting contributions (besides Paddy) including a Catholic priest who is voting Yes. Worth a listen.

gravehold

Now the rte debate is over, it's clear no came out way better, enda messed that one up royally

Pai Mei

Quick question, had a friend who registered for the postal vote but now can't vote that way (don't ask), so I was wondering can you still go to the polling station and vote normally even if you registered for the postal vote but didn't do it?

J_E

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Did anyone catch the debate on BBC Radio Ulster today on the referendum? It featured Fidelma Healy Eames of the No side and Marcella Corcoran-Kennedy TD of the Yes side. It's up on the BBC website (starts at 8 minutes in):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05vc6x2

Anyway all hell breaks loose when Paddy Manning calls in (at the 56:30 minute mark) and starts demanding an apology from the TD. :pac:
.

****ing hell, enough with that loser already. I have HAD it.




I mean, are you serious? This is beyond a parody. A character you'd hear in a sketch show about gay marriage or somehing.

EnergyPro

Fleawuss wrote:

I feel deep anger towards the bigots crawling from the woodwork on the referendum issue. Having lived a good part of my life in the shadow of criminality for being who I am it is very personal to hear religious loons calling for a no vote to return us to the status their irrational nonsense demands. There is going to be ongoing and deep personalized division in this country after Friday. A lot of lgbt people who grew up in the legal era are suddenly realizing that they are still and secretly hated for who they are by bigots who hide behind their preposterous doctrines and presumptuous theocratic bullshyte.

Not all of those on the no side are homophobes or biggots or in anyway hate the lgbt section of society. Far from it in fact. The overriding reason for most on the no side is the issue regarding children and their right to having a mother and father being potentially removed by a yes vote. This may not be the case, but it may be the case and until the yes side can actually assure and convince me that this is in fact the case I will not vote for a change in the constitution. If more time was spent trying to understand our concerns and remedy them, as opposed to throwing accusations of homophobia and bigotry at us then the debate may be a little more successful in getting this referendum passed.

EnergyPro

ThinkProgress wrote:

The NO voters are making me doubt myself on voting yes.

ThinkProgress wrote:

I'm a straight male. This vote didn't really seem to matter too much for me directly or my life.... BUT I was intending to vote yes for these reasons:

ThinkProgress wrote:

A) - I think all religions are fairytale, superstitious nonsense and I always cringe at the fact the catholic church has such a backward view on gay relationships. (Yes vote is a big fat two fingers for religion and the knuckle dragging RC church.)

ThinkProgress wrote:

- What's the big deal? If SSM can make the LGBT community feel less ostracized from society and more like everyone else... that's a great thing and another victory for progress! (Think progress

ThinkProgress wrote:

C) - A human being loving another human being can NEVER be wrong. Marriage is a symbol of uniting two people in love. It's highly symbolic obviously - why else would people spend ridiculous money for one day? So why do some people think gay people should settle for less than what anyone else wants for that special moment in their life...?

ThinkProgress wrote:

However, the NO vote is starting to make me question if this vote is really just about marriage equality... or is our government trying to trick us into changing a part of the constitution that is not really broken?

ThinkProgress wrote:

I think gay couples are capable of being great parents - and there are examples of it working out perfectly well.

ThinkProgress wrote:

But I do agree with the fact that (in an ideal situation), a child should have it's biological mother and father where possible... Obviously we don't live in an ideal world, but I do think it's the ideal environment for a child to grow up in for many different reasons.

ThinkProgress wrote:

Does voting yes create a situation where children don't automatically get that right afforded to them?

ThinkProgress wrote:

Or is this just scaremongering from the NO side...? LGBT is a minority section of society (albeit a rather large minority) - Is there really any threat to the traditional male/female family? Will it be de-valued? If so, is that almost like reverse discrimination?

ThinkProgress wrote:

I guess if you argue that every child matters... which they do.... then could this amendment inadvertently damage some children's opportunity of have their biological mother/father where possible?

ThinkProgress wrote:

I don't really don't know..... my brain hurts! :-/

This is my exact feeling on this issue. And until I am convinced entirely it will be a NO from me. Not because I am against SSM in terms of a couple simply getting married, it is due to my concern for children. I feel it is better to reject the amendment as it is and let us revisit it when it has been properly and adequately researched, relevant legislation in place and all concerns can be adequately dealt with.

youngblood

How much money is being spent on the no ads on YouTube? They're everywhere, ie you have to wait to skip them to see the vid your looking for?

Anyone else notice this?

Vojera

EnergyPro wrote: »

This is my exact feeling on this issue. And until I am convinced entirely it will be a NO from me. Not because I am against SSM in terms of a couple simply getting married, it is due to my concern for children. I feel it is better to reject the amendment as it is and let us revisit it when it has been properly and adequately researched, relevant legislation in place and all concerns can be adequately dealt with.

Have you read our replies to the previous poster's concerns? We have outlined comprehensively how a yes vote will actually enhance the rights of children.

elekid

EnergyPro wrote: »

Not all of those on the no side are homophobes or biggots or in anyway hate the lgbt section of society. Far from it in fact. The overriding reason for most on the no side is the issue regarding children and their right to having a mother and father being potentially removed by a yes vote. This may not be the case, but it may be the case and until the yes side can actually assure and convince me that this is in fact the case I will not vote for a change in the constitution. If more time was spent trying to understand our concerns and remedy them, as opposed to throwing accusations of homophobia and bigotry at us then the debate may be a little more successful in getting this referendum passed.

I've tried to compile some information for you here.

Childrens Rights have been dealt with seperately in the Children and Family Relationship Act.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0330/690964-child-and-family-bill/

Many childrens rights groups are supporting a Yes vote.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/children-s-rights-groups-urge-yes-vote-in-same-sex-marriage-referendum-1.2190832

Here are some interviews with the Chair of the Adoption Authority of Ireland and the Chairman of the Referendum Commision both of which touch on the subject of children and how this referendum affects them
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/referendum/whether-people-vote-yes-or-no-the-adoption-process-is-not-going-to-change-chair-of-adoption-agency-ahead-of-marriage-referendum-31214145.html

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/marriage-referendum-q-a-what-you-need-to-know-1.2212840

I hope this helps

Leonard Hofstadter

Vojera wrote: »

Have you read our replies to the previous poster's concerns? We have outlined comprehensively how a yes vote will actually enhance the rights of children.

QFT.

I repeat, there is NO evidence, none whatsoever in any reputable scientific journal which backs up the assertion that all other things being equal, gay parents are not as good as straight parents. The only 'evidence' is a study by the Catholic University of America which is not peer reviewed and has a serious methodological flaw and another study which didn't even sample children of gay parents but nonetheless concluded that gay people weren't capable of raising children!

Ozymandius2011

Also some gay couples are godparents. In that situation its the will of the natural parents for them to step in if the parents die. But Iona think they know best.

gravehold

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Also some gay couples are godparents. In that situation its the will of the natural parents for them to step in if the parents die. But Iona think they know best.

I don't think a gay couple can be god parents, only one of then chould be the god father/mother.

So yes there can be a gay godparent but not the gay couple

yankeeDreamer

I think anyone who believes that legislation changes the nature of marriage either way is mistaken,

Eventually homosexuality will be revealed as the mimetic heterosexual behavior that it is. (The opening scene of "The Kids Are Alright" is all the evidence one needs).

As soon as people deny the fatalism of porn and masterbation, the plain-faced realities and sensations of being a human being will set back in.

Do any of you have deepseated fetishes that seemed to develop intrinsicly based on initial experiences, only to later be overcome in order to view the world with a truer freedom?

If human beings can find sexual necessity in belts, shoes, ties, and stockings; What then is so extraordinary about the idea that they might develop a deviation that encompasses the most important parts of sexuality (a whole being, dna, and the full image of heterosexuality within). And this, intended to be taken in the sceptical sense regarding homosexuality, while entirely empathetic.

There's also the issue that civil rights laws have been eroding civil liberties in the U.S., in sad irony, for decades. In punishment for the population on whole they have done much good for crimes against African-Americans and women; But punishment is not a mode of being, and certainly not a mode of liberty.

What Ireland appears to be missing in regards to what nations like the U.S. "seem" (historically) to be more advanced in is liberty, not totalitarian laws of thought and conduct. (liberty being an extremely christian ideal--"turn the other cheek, etc.")

gravehold

yankeeDreamer wrote: »

Eventually homosexuality will be revealed as the mimetic heterosexual behavior that it is. (The opening scene of "The Kids Are Alright" is all the evidence one needs).

You think that movie is a good example of good gay parents? That is a whole example of why the no side don't want gay adoption/surrogacy and ivf.

Annasopra

I have no idea at all what belts and fetishes have to do with tgis discussion

komitskio

Since tomorrow Ireland will be the only country in the world, where there is gay marriage but abortions are forbidden. Homosectuals have every right to have rights, not the same about women.

gravehold

komitskio wrote: »

Since tomorrow Ireland will be the only country in the world, where there is gay marriage but abortions are forbidden. Homosectuals have every right to have rights, not the same about women.

Your very optimistic

yankeeDreamer

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I have no idea at all what belts and fetishes have to do with tgis discussion

Then you don't have anything substantive to say about the relationship that exists (even in terms of theoretical commentary) do you?

Part of what I'm implying is that all people function by way of a cultural language; As part of that cultural language you have been taught that homosexuality is an identity and not a shared human tendency in any regard (that wanting to act as woman during sex has nothing to do with wanting to dress as woman sex, and in turn has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to dress for someone in a certain way fro sex, as well as wanting them to dress a certain way for sex--the final element in the chain being the single biggest attraction of the modern television program for all human beings!). This denial has been encouraged by both sides of the debate at various stages of history. And in both instances is was an attempt to simplify complex realities in order to deny them.

In short the nature of homosexuality is central to laws regarding homosexuality; and fetishes and belts have as much to do with actual marriage as they do 'gay marriage'; the common obvious denominator being=Desire, whose fundamental motivator is imitation (see expert and renowned member of the French Academy Rene Girard on 'mimesis' for details)

[Appendix: The opening sequence of "The Kids Are Alright" has a lesbian couple watching Gay Men porn. Thier explaination being they want to express "whats inside," on the outside. I can tell you exactly "what's inside" in regards to MY direct sexuality: One hellofa gorgeous woman whom I pursue abstractly and otherwise--no differences here.]

gravehold

yankeeDreamer wrote: »

Then you don't have anything substantive to say about the relationship that exists (even in terms of theoretical commentary) do you?

Part of what I'm implying is that all people function by way of a cultural language; As part of that cultural language you have been taught that homosexuality is an identity and not a shared human tendency in any regard (that wanting to act as woman during sex has nothing to do with wanting to dress as woman sex, and in turn has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to dress for someone in a certain way fro sex, as well as wanting them to dress a certain way for sex--the final element in the chain being the single biggest attraction of the modern television program for all human beings!). This denial has been encouraged by both sides of the debate at various stages of history. And in both instances is was an attempt to simplify complex realities in order to deny them.

In short the nature of homosexuality is central to laws regarding homosexuality; and fetishes and belts have as much to do with actual marriage as they do 'gay marriage'; the common obvious denominator being=Desire, whose fundamental motivator is imitation (see expert and renowned member of the French Academy Rene Girard on 'mimesis' for details)

[Appendix: The opening sequence of "The Kids Are Alright" has a lesbian couple watching Gay Men porn. Thier explaination being they want to express "whats inside," on the outside. I can tell you exactly "what's inside" in regards to MY direct sexuality: One hellofa gorgeous woman whom I pursue abstractly and otherwise--no differences here.]

You thing gay men want to be women during sex that's why they sleep with men? I think you way off on what gay means.


Also that movie is a terrible example of a gay family, the no side would be happy if rte showed it tonight.

●You have terrible parenting
●The kids needing a mother and father and feel they are missing something cause they don't have a father
●The lesbians just need a good dicking with one of them going as far as hassing an affair with the bio dad for it
●In the end the father gets the shaft and can't see the kids.

If that how lesbian families really would be no one would want them tp have kids

yankeeDreamer

gravehold wrote: »

You thing gay men want to be women during sex that's why they sleep with men? I think you way off on what gay means.

LMAO. Listen to yourself.

gravehold

yankeeDreamer wrote: »

LMAO. Listen to yourself.

Your the one that said they want to act as women in sex, None of my gay friends ever admitted something like that except the cross dressers.

SILVAMAN

gravehold wrote: »

I don't think a gay couple can be god parents, only one of then chould be the god father/mother.

So yes there can be a gay godparent but not the gay couple

You need to get out more.

gravehold

SILVAMAN wrote: »

You need to get out more.

What chruch allows two god fathers? I have even only seen then do a single god father and god mother at the baptism.

L1011

yankeeDreamer wrote: »

Eventually homosexuality will be revealed as the mimetic heterosexual behavior that it is

Pseudoscientific nonsense...

yankeeDreamer wrote: »

(that wanting to act as woman during sex

...from someone who doesn't understand how people have sex, for starters


Trying to drag the debate to "eww, icky bum stuff" like one of the Burke clan did on radio or one of the various Catholic-group-linked people did in the Washington Post is pathetic; trying to wrap it up in layers of nonsense torn from the pages of a Tranisition Year psychology course is just surreal.

Aard

Love it when newbies come in with megaposts full of big words and little content

Entertaining, if a bit gauche.

SILVAMAN

gravehold wrote: »

What chruch allows two god fathers? I have even only seen then do a single god father and god mother at the baptism.

who gives a flying fcuk about church marriage? or baptism? or any of that big man in the sky nonsense.
I strongly suggest you start living your life.

gravehold

SILVAMAN wrote: »

who gives a flying fcuk about church marriage? or baptism? or any of that big man in the sky nonsense.
I strongly suggest you start living your life.

God parents are a religious thing