Marriage Equality Referendum

J_E

This week's Ireland account on Twitter is being curated by an Iona member. How twisted is that, coming so close to the referendum? It was so absurd when I first read it that I could not help but think money was passed, it was just that outrageous. I get it, they wanted a no voter after the yes voter, but the best they could find was a member of that malicious lot?

gravehold

J_E wrote: »

This week's Ireland account on Twitter is being curated by an Iona member. How twisted is that, coming so close to the referendum? It was so absurd when I first read it that I could not help but think money was passed, it was just that outrageous. I get it, they wanted a no voter after the yes voter, but the best they could find was a member of that malicious lot?

Wasn't there a total left wing nut running it last week on about not raising her boys as boys and was a yes voter, it's only fair they have the opposite of that the next week.

J_E

gravehold wrote: »

Wasn't there a total left wing nut running it last week on about not raising her boys as boys and was a yes voter, it's only fair they have the opposite of that the next week.

It should never been politicised in the way it has, but last week's speaker, Dil, is a hell of a lot more moderate than a representative of the Iona Institute, whose main goal for the week is to peddle a No vote, and of course failing to mention in the bio who he's affiliated with.

gravehold

J_E wrote: »

It should never been politicised in the way it has, but last week's speaker, Dil, is a hell of a lot more moderate than a representative of the Iona Institute, whose main goal for the week is to peddle a No vote, and of course failing to mention in the bio who he's affiliated with.

You think she was moderate she is a prime example of why moderates will vote no, she did a lot of damage to the yes campaign with her idiotic views on child raising.

Just hope the iona person does a good a job at cocking it up

J_E

gravehold wrote: »

You think she was moderate she is a prime example of why moderates will vote no, she did a lot of damage to the yes campaign with her idiotic views on child raising.

You clearly don't know Dil then - I think that's pretty rude to be honest.

Aard

Aard wrote: »

It boils down to – yuck, men kissing each other. Or yuck, two men as parents.

Agreed. And this is clearly borne out by the No campaign's posters ... "A Mother's Love Is Irreplaceable", "She Needs Her Mother For Life, Not Just For 9 Months" and (this one's really drives their point home) "Two Men Can't Replace A Mother's Love".

gravehold

Deleted User wrote: »

Agreed. And this is clearly borne out by the No campaign's posters ... "A Mother's Love Is Irreplaceable", "She Needs Her Mother For Life, Not Just For 9 Months" and (this one's really drives their point home) "Two Men Can't Replace A Mother's Love".

At least we are finally learning mothers don't matter and can ban breastfeeding in public cause it's not needed for the child also the courts can fimally stop favouring moms in divorce cases.

Leonard Hofstadter

Deleted User wrote: »

Agreed. And this is clearly borne out by the No campaign's posters ... "A Mother's Love Is Irreplaceable", "She Needs Her Mother For Life, Not Just For 9 Months" and (this one's really drives their point home) "Two Men Can't Replace A Mother's Love".

By that logic the best families are the ones with two mothers :rolleyes::rolleyes:. It's also very discriminatory against men, first time in a very long time where men are being told we're not good enough.

I am VERY disappointed by this article in the Indo, the plan was for Leo Varadkar to bat for the Yes side on Prime Time on Tuesday until Labour got their knickers in a twist over it. Just when I thought we were doing a great job, Labour decides to play politics. I've defended Labour in the past and I admire them for pushing the referendum in the first place, but I've lost a lot of respect for them over this. You'd think they'd know better having two gay TDs.

It's not about politics, it's about real people and clearly given Varadkar's life experiences he would have been a much better asset for the Yes side on Tuesday. Not only that, but Leo is liked by middle Ireland, who admire the fact that he's straight up about his opinions and doesn't just peddle whatever nonsense the Government wanted peddled. Leo would have done a much better job at winning over those who are still undecided - plenty of middle Ireland still has to be won over yet not withstanding the very good Irish Times poll. Even if it was John Lyons or Dominic Hannigan that wouldn't have been so bad, obviously they're both out and proud, and the key to the Yes side's success is the personal stories and appealing to peoples' inner decency, like overwhelming support Ursula Halligan has received for coming out yesterday. The undecided / anti-LGBT rights people need to see more 'celebrities' like this advocating a Yes vote and sharing their stories and the discrimination they've felt, and making people realise that LGBT people are no different to the rest of us, and have the same hopes and aspirations as straight people.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/referendum/varadkar-is-frozen-out-of-referendum-debate-despite-protests-from-rt-chiefs-31227217.html

L.Jenkins

The fúck! Organised by none other than the Catholic Alliance for the Defence of the Family and Marriage group of course.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/dutch-psychologist-links-homosexuality-to-conspiracy-theories-1.2213033

ixoy

Itzy wrote: »

The fúck! Organised by none other than the Catholic Alliance for the Defence of the Family and Marriage group of course.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/dutch-psychologist-links-homosexuality-to-conspiracy-theories-1.2213033

I linked to that in another thread but it deserves repeating. It shows who a major No organisation side align with, in between accusations of being bullied.

Leonard Hofstadter

Today's polls are very encouraging. I feel very optimistic that the Yes side will win, although I do not for a second believe it will be 70-30 as the polls suggest.

HOWEVER, it does make me worry somewhat, the yes side will only win if all those who said they vote yes actually turning out and going to the polling station. The Yes side's main voters are the younger generation, who traditionally don't vote. The only age group in the Irish Times poll where there is a majority for No are the over 65s - and by God they know how to go out and vote!

If you don't vote you might as well have voted no. You can be sure the No voters will vote, and there's probably a good 5% of people who say they're voting Yes that will vote No in the comfort of the polling booth. No room for complacency! I know that I for one want to be able to wake up this day week knowing that my country created history by being the first country in the world to legalise marriage equality by popular vote.

Fleawuss

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.

Annasopra

captainspeed wrote: »

Today's polls are very encouraging. I feel very optimistic that the Yes side will win, although I do not for a second believe it will be 70-30 as the polls suggest.

HOWEVER, it does make me worry somewhat, the yes side will only win if all those who said they vote yes actually turning out and going to the polling station. The Yes side's main voters are the younger generation, who traditionally don't vote. The only age group in the Irish Times poll where there is a majority for No are the over 65s - and by God they know how to go out and vote!

If you don't vote you might as well have voted no. You can be sure the No voters will vote, and there's probably a good 5% of people who say they're voting Yes that will vote No in the comfort of the polling booth. No room for complacency! I know that I for one want to be able to wake up this day week knowing that my country created history by being the first country in the world to legalise marriage equality by popular vote.

The Irish Times was really misleading

Front page said 70% yes but actually that was nonsense when you drilled into it it was 70% after excluding undecideds.

Ozymandius2011

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.

Well then they need to turn out.

SILVAMAN

captainspeed wrote: »

By that logic the best families are the ones with two mothers :rolleyes::rolleyes:. It's also very discriminatory against men, first time in a very long time where men are being told we're not good enough.

I am VERY disappointed by this article in the Indo, the plan was for Leo Varadkar to bat for the Yes side on Prime Time on Tuesday until Labour got their knickers in a twist over it. Just when I thought we were doing a great job, Labour decides to play politics. I've defended Labour in the past and I admire them for pushing the referendum in the first place, but I've lost a lot of respect for them over this. You'd think they'd know better having two gay TDs.

It's not about politics, it's about real people and clearly given Varadkar's life experiences he would have been a much better asset for the Yes side on Tuesday. Not only that, but Leo is liked by middle Ireland, who admire the fact that he's straight up about his opinions and doesn't just peddle whatever nonsense the Government wanted peddled. Leo would have done a much better job at winning over those who are still undecided - plenty of middle Ireland still has to be won over yet not withstanding the very good Irish Times poll. Even if it was John Lyons or Dominic Hannigan that wouldn't have been so bad, obviously they're both out and proud, and the key to the Yes side's success is the personal stories and appealing to peoples' inner decency, like overwhelming support Ursula Halligan has received for coming out yesterday. The undecided / anti-LGBT rights people need to see more 'celebrities' like this advocating a Yes vote and sharing their stories and the discrimination they've felt, and making people realise that LGBT people are no different to the rest of us, and have the same hopes and aspirations as straight people.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/referendum/varadkar-is-frozen-out-of-referendum-debate-despite-protests-from-rt-chiefs-31227217.html

Typical Labour carryon, and why among other things, they're not taken seriously.

ThinkProgress

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

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:

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.)

- 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

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...?



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?

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

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.

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

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?

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?


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

L1011

ThinkProgress wrote: »

However, the NO vote is starting to make me question if this vote is really just about marriage equality...

It is.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

or is our government trying to trick us into changing a part of the constitution that is not really broken?

They're not

All the arguments about children, adoption, surrogacy etc are red herrings - nothing is being changed at all. This has been confirmed by the actual independent bodies responsible (Adoption Authority), the Referendum Commission, constitutional lawyers, etc, etc.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

then could this amendment inadvertently damage some children's opportunity of have their biological mother/father where possible?

It won't. Even if it did have the impacts claimed by the No side, it wouldn't.

ThinkProgress

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

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:

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.)

- 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

C) - A human who is attracted to and loves another human can NEVER be wrong. (so long as both are consenting adults of course) Marriage is a symbol of uniting those 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...?



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?

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

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.

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

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?

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?


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

ThinkProgress

Tried to edit my post... but it just posted a second time for some reason??

DunnoKiddo

When I get home, I'm a solid yes vote.

DunnoKiddo

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Tried to edit my post... but it just posted a second time for some reason??

it will do that until you get 50 posts and/or 10 days in, on boards.

J_E

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?

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

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.

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

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?

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?


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

You're getting caught in the lies. What about the many couples who don't want kids at all and just want protections should their loved one become sick or legal interference from family members who want to break them up? Every agency and association related to children and adoption have all agreed that certain representatives of the No side are deliberately spreading false notions and lies in order to make people nervous and scare them. See this;

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

You see, the real point here is that the marriage referendum has no impact on child laws which have already been addressed in a separate bill. The low number of gay families here who have children will still remain with these children and continue to adopt in future. A No vote sends a clear message that these families are not valued or wanted by the general public. A Yes vote gives everyone better security, rights and dignity. Please don't fall for this deception, and make the choice that gives people the rights they deserve and need rather than deny them.

danjo-xx

ThinkProgress wrote: »

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

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:

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.)

- 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

C) - A human who is attracted to and loves another human can NEVER be wrong. (so long as both are consenting adults of course) Marriage is a symbol of uniting those 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...?



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?

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

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.

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

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?

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?


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

All your fears are unfounded but that is for you to decide, the constitution says 'to cherrish all children equally' and all this referendum does is to give gay children (when they become adults) the equal right to CIVIL Marriage should they so wish.

Adoption & Surrogacy are totally different issues and not what we are voting on in this referendum but the fears about these issues have been well dealth with by the legal experts if you were watching or listening to the debates.

Leonard Hofstadter

There is absolutely NO evidence to back up the assertion that same sex parents are not capable of raising children as well as opposite sex parents (quite a remarkable achievement when you consider how much more likely the children of same sex parents are much more likely to be bullied for having an 'unnatural' or 'weird' family unit), none whatsoever.

One of the studies that claimed that same-sex parents couldn't raise children as well, didn't even use children of gay parents, the children were themselves gay and no surprise LGBT people have more issues because of the disgraceful way some people treat them because of homophobia.

The study that Tom Finnegan and David Quinn are fond of quoting (the one by Sullins) was done by none other than the Catholic University of America, so I wonder why they claimed same-sex parents weren't as good :rolleyes:. The study was never peer reviewed and is not in any reputable scientific journal, so there's obviously a serious flaw in it somewhere. The reason it is flawed is and I quote "what Sullins's paper does not show is that these children were actually raised by the same-sex couple" - basically they took all types of family unit where one of the parents was gay and then compared it to an opposite sex 'ideal' family (no divorce, seperation etc).

Here's a link to why this study is so flawed: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/using-pseudoscience-to-undermine-same-sex-parents/385604/

So, it is absolute, complete and utter rubbish for anyone to claim that same sex parents are not as good as opposite sex parents all other things being equal. If that's your reason to vote No (being worried about kids having same sex parents despite the fact that it already exists and will continue to exist regardless of what the outcome of the referendum is), well you're entitled to do so, but you are doing so on the basis of something that's not true.

Anyway, to move back to the referendum itself, Leo Varadkar rather conveniently debunked all the myths on Claire Byrne live tonight, and has moved to say that commercial surrogacy will be banned anyway (so another 'excuse' for voting No gone), but I managed to find the time to listen to the debate on The Last Word this evening, and Colm O'Gorman was outstanding, he did such a good job he ended up making Jim Walsh and Breda O'Brien agree with him on gay parenting and a whole hose of other issues.

In the words of Varadkar tonight, he basically showed that some of those opposed to Marriage Equality simply don't like LGBT people but know they can't say that outright so try to talk about everything and anything but the issue at hand.

Vojera

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.

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

I think this point is where your worries are stemming from. Let me assure you that a yes vote won't change anything here.

If you are concerned about adoption, then be aware that gay people can already adopt as single applicants and due to the Children and Family Relationships Bill, gay couples will soon be able to apply jointly whether the referendum passes or not. There is no "right" to adopt, only a right to apply. Gay people have to go through the same rigourous process as straight people and all the adoption board care about is providing the best possible environment for the child, not the sexuality of the parents.

If you are concerned about donor assisted IVF (where a donor egg or sperm is used), then you should know that the vast majority of people using this method are straight couples with fertility issues, where the woman's eggs or the man's sperm don't seem to be able of forming a viable embryo. Voting yes isn't going to have an affect on that. Some people have a moral objection to using donor eggs and sperm and that's okay, that's their right, but the fact is that it's mostly straight couples who use this method and voting yes won't change that.

If it's surrogacy you're worried about then I agree with you that it's a legal minefield at the moment. But the laws on it are due a shake-up and the outcome of the referendum won't affect them.

The basic point of what I'm trying to say is that it's okay for you to have an ideal in your mind of what you think a family should look like. But the fact is that there are loads of families out there who don't fit that picture, whether they're single parents, gay couples where the children are the biological child of one partner, step-parents, etc. Voting yes will extend the definition of family to gay couples (and their children, if they have them) and give them constitutional protection. Voting no will leave those families without that protection. This is why the ISPCC, Barnardos and Childline, among others, have all called for a yes vote, because it will be good for children.

SpaceTime

It's scaremongering and rather nasty muddying of the waters and from your post it's quite sad to see that it appears to be working.

The amendment couldn't be simpler. This isn't like signing the Fiscal Compact Treaty which was a vast and complicated document. It's genuinely just a single line amendment to the constitution.

ALL of the political parties are on board, all of the children's rights agencies are on board and this is entirely in-step with all of Western Europe.

Bear in mind that Spain for example, which has a very similarly strongly catholic history, has had this for >10 years at this stage and Spanish society hasn't collapsed - far from it!

The nordic countries have all had this for a long time, as has Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium ... actually most of the countries that rank as the most developed and sensible places in the world have had this for quite some time now without any fuss at all.

Our nearest neighbours : the UK and France have both introduced this too. We would be left as the only country in Western Europe without same sex marriage if we don't pass it.

Our choice is simple really - Join the ranks of the most developed and socially progressive countries on earth, or join the ranks of the US bible belt and aspects of Southern and Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

ThinkProgress

Ok, I've read the replies so far... thanks everybody for not shouting at me or calling me an idiot. (although I do feel a bit stupid for ALMOST getting pulled towards the NO side)

The information has definitely cleared the grey areas up for me. Much appreciated guys!

@captainspeed - I think you might have got the wrong end of the stick. I never suggested that same-sex couples can't make great parents - in fact if you read my post, I clearly stated that they can and do.

The main reason I suggest male/female relationships as being ideal, is mostly because that dynamic is biologically harmonious for many children. It's currently the only way for a child to have BOTH their biological parents... and many children unfortunately do grow up feeling abandoned or lost without knowing where / who they come from. (Sometimes regardless of how loved they are by their adoptive parents)

I don't feel this is homophobic in any way. It's biased, for sure. But biased for logical reasons as I think it would be foolish to say all family environments are exactly the same. Even if they can produce the same results: HAPPY CHILDREN!

But obviously I'm not saying it's always the ideal scenario. And there are many children who can be given a great life by a non-biological parent or parents!

Having a child grow up in a SSM can be a great 2nd option for that child if the 1st option is not viable or available to them... that's simply all I'm saying.

With regards surrogacy... I agree it's a minefield. Smarter people than me or you will continue to debate that one - regardless of this bill.


Anyway - I'm firmly back on the YES side! I think the YES vote is overwhelmingly more beneficial than the NO vote!

And voting YES doesn't mean some grey areas can't be addressed and ironed out in the future anyway!


Thanks for the info guys - I don't want to abstain from voting because of confusion. This is important - we need to pick a side!

Vojera

^^ No problem ThinkProgress. Thanks for making the effort to get more information on your concerns and for listening to our point of view as well. We need more like you!

Mickeroo

There was a debate on Today FM on Monday evening if anyone want's to torture themselves.

Kiwi in IE

I so hope this goes through for you guys!