How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

Ave Sodalis

To Elland Back wrote: »

Because bullies should never win

Oh right, so when someone says "gay people shouldn't have children because they can't possibly be good parents and will mess up the child" that's fine. When someone says "gay people are sin. They should be shunned and excluded and looked down upon" that's fine aswell. When someone says "gay people are wrong. They make me sick, the whole lot of them" that's fine. When someone says "I'm not going to give an entire group of people their rights because I don't agree with it" that's perfectly okay. When someone starts name calling and spitting out nasty and/or ignorant comments, that's grand.

But when someone says "you know what, feck that, why do I have to put up with that? Come up with a rational argument or shut up"... that's the worse thing that could possibly happen and you're going to deny thousands of people rights just because a few people got fed up. Bullying isn't the former but is the latter?

Can you point out the logic there?

One eyed Jack

floggg wrote: »

Look at the Childrens Rights referendum and how easily scare mongering and allusions to unintended consequences can sow doubt and muddy the waters.

Y'know that's exactly the referendum I was thinking of, lowest ever turnout of the electorate to vote, because they weren't directly affected by the outcome -


http://m.rte.ie/news/2012/1111/345129-counting-of-childrens-referendum-votes-begins/


The same will happen with this referendum if the yes campaign, not to put too fine a point on it but if they don't get their shìt together, it's likely this referendum will suffer from the same voter apathy, because while 70% of the electorate support marriage equality, the fact is that those who aren't directly affected by the outcome aren't likely to bother coming out and voting in favour of it.

reprise

floggg wrote: »

While firstly LGBT couples can and do have children, so any child related purposes of marriage is equally applicable to LGBT couples.

Surely you aren't trying to suggest that a biological parent would have less rights on account of ssm? That kind of talk could lose the referendum right there.

floggg wrote: »

Secondly, the state has never made children, or child production capacity a requirement of marriage. it never will.

It allows married couples to have kids if they wish, and supports them if they do, but it has never been a requirement. the state views a childless marriage as equal to one which has produced children.

You are right, child birth has never been compulsory. Hasn't stopped it happening in the overwhelming majority of cases mind

floggg wrote: »

LGBT people are in no different position to infertile couples, and so they argument that lgbt couples are incapable of marriage is fallicous when infertile couples quite plainly are.

You could make the same arguments for brothers. It's not persuasive.

Shrap

conorh91 wrote: »

I can't be any more clear.

Oh, you could if you tried real hard.

Marriage Equality is a misnomer.

If Ireland levies a tax on blacks, Asians and Jews, and after extensive negotiation, Jews are emancipated from this tax, the outcome is not "equality".

What's happening here is that we're being told that the proposed amendment is a referendum on marriage equality. It patently is not. It's about one group attempting to enjoy greater rights than everyone else, by allying themselves with the original beneficiary of discrimination. That can never be equality.

I don't think this makes the sense you think it means. If you are trying to say that the yes side (by allying themselves with gay people who are discriminated against by their lack of marriage rights) are trying to have greater rights than the no side, that is patently untrue.

We live in a democracy, we're ALL going to vote on the issue. That is the very definition of fairness as to what rights we are entitled to.

floggg

reprise wrote: »

Surely you aren't trying to suggest that a biological parent would have less rights on account of ssm? That kind of talk could lose the referendum right there.

I neither suggested or inferred anything of the sort. And I can see little basis for you jumping to that conclusion.

Do people believe that marriage equality would give lgbt people the right to snatch children away from their parents or something? That certainly seems to be the case given some of the arguments we've seen.

I think it is worth noting as well as that heterosexual parents are completely free to marry people other than their child's other parent at the minute, so if an LGBT person with a child from a previous heterosexual relationship subsequently marries their partner, then it would be no different a situation to those heterosexual couples.

reprise wrote: »

You are right, child birth has never been compulsory. Hasn't stopped it happening in the overwhelming majority of cases mind

That doesn't change the analysis however. Children or the ability to conceive has never been the purpose of marriage in the Irish State.

reprise wrote: »

You could make the same arguments for brothers. It's not persuasive.

You really couldn't, and it would be absurd to try.

Two brothers do not (or at leat should not) enter into a life long commitment and sexual and romantic union with one another, and their relationship is in no way comparable to the relationship between a couple, gay or straight.

I can only assume you don't have siblings, because I could never even begin to describe my relationship with my brother as being anything akin to my relationship with my boyfriend or any form of marriage.

The argument that they are is absurd, and is again one that I cannot believe is being made in good faith.

conorh91

Shrap wrote: »

Oh, you could if you tried real hard.



I don't think this makes the sense you think it means. If you are trying to say that the yes side (by allying themselves with gay people who are discriminated against by their lack of marriage rights) are trying to have greater rights than the no side, that is patently untrue.

I wrote five lines, and you still misinterpret what I said. Maybe you shouldn't vote at all.

I did not say that the Yes side are trying to "have greater rights than the no side".

Marriage equality is a misnomer because what is actually being sought is greater rights than are available to other types of conjugal or committed relationships of a family nature, such as certain unmarried couples in heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

B_Wayne

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

Give up with your persecution complex, it's boring if not a little pathetic.

Seems pretty fair, nobody in this topic has produced a reason to vote no. Some say they'd prefer to be voting on other things, that's not a reason to limit a person's rights. Another doesn't agree with marriage, well we're voting on the existing structure. Campaign against marriage in general but don't limit the rights of one group because you don't agree with anyone marrying...

To Elland Back wrote: »

Because bullies should never win

The opposition to the referendum have already referred to incest and marrying one's relative in the last week. They've consistently lied about same sex parenting and happily scare monger to limit the rights of others. That's behaving like a bully tbh.

Wildlife Actor

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Remarks by Iona members have further alienated me from their cause. On Morning Ireland a few days ago, Breda O'Brien compared same-sex marriage to a mother marrying her daughter. This reminds me of the rhetoric of the Christian Right in the US Deep South.

OP, don't fall into the trap here. Iona institute are both right and wrong in what they say.

The logical argument in favour of gay marriage (a compelling one: I am voting yes) is that if two men or two women, both consenting adults, want to join their legal personality by getting married, it is their business. It does not cause me or anybody else harm (offending religious or traditional sensibilities is not harm). Therefore I have no moral right to interfere in their personal autonomy, even if my sensibilities are offended.

So Iona institute are right because the very same argument justifies allowing mothers and daughters to marry one another.

But both Iona institute (in suggesting that this justifies voting against gay marriage) and those (possibly including OP) who are appalled by the comparison (in thinking treating the point as scare-mongering) are wrong: if two consenting adult gay men can marry, then why should society have the right to deny any other two consenting adults the right to that legal construct.

Those who are appalled by the notion of a mother and daughter getting married (or three-way marriages for that matter) ought to remember that society in general was appalled by homosexuality (not to mention gay marriage) until very recently. The notion of human rights trumping societal (or religious) sensitivity is very new in practice. Some day we may look back at today's society, where people in incestuous or polygamous relationships are considered abnormal and abhorrent, as barbaric.

efb

Breda, Brenda and Ronan in a wig

Shrap

conorh91 wrote: »

Marriage equality is a misnomer because what is actually being sought is greater rights than are available to other types of conjugal or committed relationships of a family nature, such as certain unmarried couples in heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

I think you're misunderstanding that the equal right to marry regardless of gender is what is being sought. I have no idea what you're banging on about in that last sentence.

Try and come up with a good enough reason to say "no, gay people should not be allowed to marry" and people might actually take note.....or not, as the case may be. All other topics are irrelevant.

eviltwin

Love nor Money wrote: »

OP, don't fall into the trap here. Iona institute are both right and wrong in what they say.

The logical argument in favour of gay marriage (a compelling one: I am voting yes) is that if two men or two women, both consenting adults, want to join their legal personality by getting married, it is their business. It does not cause me or anybody else harm (offending religious or traditional sensibilities is not harm). Therefore I have no moral right to interfere in their personal autonomy, even if my sensibilities are offended.

So Iona institute are right because the very same argument justifies allowing mothers and daughters to marry one another.

But both Iona institute (in suggesting that this justifies voting against gay marriage) and those (possibly including OP) who are appalled by the comparison (in thinking treating the point as scare-mongering) are wrong: if two consenting adult gay men can marry, then why should society have the right to deny any other two consenting adults the right to that legal construct.

Those who are appalled by the notion of a mother and daughter getting married (or three-way marriages for that matter) ought to remember that society in general was appalled by homosexuality (not to mention gay marriage) until very recently. The notion of human rights trumping societal (or religious) sensitivity is very new in practice. Some day we may look back at today's society, where people in incestuous or polygamous relationships are considered abnormal and abhorrent, as barbaric.

How many parent/child combos are out there campaigning to be allowed marry? Let them fight their own battle. This is solely about same sex marriage.

Shrap

Love nor Money wrote: »

The notion of human rights trumping societal (or religious) sensitivity is very new in practice. .

What a huge pile of horse droppings. Human rights have always been and will continue to be decided by society. Where do you think they came from otherwise, eh? Carved in stone and handed down from the clouds by a supernatural being?

conorh91

Shrap wrote: »

Try and come up with a good enough reason to say "no, gay people should not be allowed to marry"

Why would I say that? I've pointed out multiple times that I have no problem with the extension of the right to marry per se. I'm just not stupid enough to believe that extending marriage rights to only one more category of conjugal relationship, or taxing a married couple less than a couple who cannot afford to marry, or are disqualified from marrying, amounts to "equality".

And since the thread title refers to a "marriage equality" referendum, I don't think it's irrelevant at all, but you're under no obligation to reply or point-out opinions you feel are irrelevant.

floggg

conorh91 wrote: »

Why would I say that? I've pointed out multiple times that I have no problem with the extension of the right to marry per se. I'm just not stupid enough to believe that extending marriage rights to only one more category of conjugal relationship, or taxing a married couple less than a couple who cannot afford to marry, or are disqualified from marrying, amounts to "equality".

And since the thread title refers to a "marriage equality" referendum, I don't think it's irrelevant at all, but you're under no obligation to reply or point-out opinions you feel are irrelevant.

It costs €200 to get married in Ireland. There is nobody who can't afford to marry.

Ave Sodalis

conorh91 wrote: »

Why would I say that? I've pointed out multiple times that I have no problem with the extension of the right to marry per se. I'm just not stupid enough to believe that extending marriage rights to only one more category of conjugal relationship, or taxing a married couple less than a couple who cannot afford to marry, or are disqualified from marrying, amounts to "equality".

And since the thread title refers to a "marriage equality" referendum, I don't think it's irrelevant at all, but you're under no obligation to reply or point-out opinions you feel are irrelevant.

Actually, what you're discussing (I think) and what we're discussing seems to be two different things. We're discussing equality in terms of same sex. You seem to be discussing equality in terms of marriage vs single people. You can apply that logic to straight people. Why are you bringing it up here?

Shrap

conorh91 wrote: »

Why would I say that? I've pointed out multiple times that I have no problem with the extension of the right to marry per se. I'm just not stupid enough to believe that taxing a married couple less than a couple who cannot afford to marry, or are disqualified from marrying, amounts to "equality".

And since the thread title refers to a "marriage equality" referendum, I don't think it's irrelevant at all, but you're under no obligation to reply or point-out opinions you feel are irrelevant.

Oh right....you're banging your own drum. I get it now. I was confused because you're not discussing the issue at hand. I actually happen to agree with you, now I'm clear you're not talking about the right of people to marry regardless of gender.

Perhaps confusing people is leading to derailing the thread, so I for one will stop discussing your issue and stick to the main one.

Wildlife Actor

eviltwin wrote: »

How many parent/child combos are out there campaigning to be allowed marry? Let them fight their own battle. This is solely about same sex marriage.

So Conorh91 is right. Some are more equal than others. Lucky you weren't gay in the 1950s then.

Wildlife Actor

Shrap wrote: »

What a huge pile of horse droppings. Human rights have always been and will continue to be decided by society. Where do you think they came from otherwise, eh? Carved in stone and handed down from the clouds by a supernatural being?

You are saying that it was correct to criminalise homosexuality until 1993 because that's what society wanted. Is that what you mean?

Ave Sodalis

Love nor Money wrote: »

So Conorh91 is right. Some are more equal than others. Lucky you weren't gay in the 1950s then.

At the minute, there is. However, the fight of other couples who can't get married doesn't lie with SSM. Why would it? If they want equality, go fight for it, just like there was a fight for SSM. When and if they do, we'll talk about it then. However, this is about SSM and SSM alone. Any other type of marriage is irrelevant.

eviltwin

Love nor Money wrote: »

So Conorh91 is right. Some are more equal than others. Lucky you weren't gay in the 1950s then.

The only reason we've reached a point where we are being able to vote on this at all is due to years of work and campaigns by the gay community. Same as what happened with rights for women, single mothers, other races etc. Rights aren't just handed to you if you are in a minority group. You have to fight for them. All we are being asked to vote on is SSM. Not parent and child marriage or sibling marriage or multiple spouses or inter species marriage. If such couples exist and want their right to marry the onus is on them to present their case. To the best of my knowledge none have done so. Their arguments have to be specific to them. This referendum is only about same sex marriage.

Shrap

Love nor Money wrote: »

You are saying that it was correct to criminalise homosexuality until 1993 because that's what society wanted. Is that what you mean?

You are incorrect, please try again.

If you have never been given a vote on an issue then you can't say what society wants. If you are given a vote only every 20 years then you can't tell how society has moved on in the meantime. If there is enough demand for rights to be given where a serious injustice is being done to people by their lack of rights, often the government will realise that they too are there on the basis of our vote and eventually we get to vote on the societal change that there is such a demand for.

Fairly sure they teach this in school. Did you attend school here?

conorh91

floggg wrote: »

It costs €200 to get married in Ireland. There is nobody who can't afford to marry.

I'm referring to affordability in the context of divorce. There are plenty of people who cannot afford a divorce and consequently cannot afford to remarry.

sup_dude wrote: »

Actually, what you're discussing (I think) and what we're discussing seems to be two different things. We're discussing equality in terms of same sex.

Then the correct term is same-sex marriage.

Marriage Equality is one of these Mom & Pop & Apple Pie terms. Everyone thinks marriage is just neat, and ditto equality. But that's not what this is about. This is about bringing one category of people 'up from the back of the bus' and leaving the rest of the outcasts segregated.

Wildlife Actor

sup_dude wrote: »

At the minute, there is. However, the fight of other couples who can't get married doesn't lie with SSM. Why would it? If they want equality, go fight for it, just like there was a fight for SSM. When and if they do, we'll talk about it then. However, this is about SSM and SSM alone. Any other type of marriage is irrelevant.

I think you misunderstand me as siding with the no campaign. On the contrary, I am voting yes and hoping for invitations to a lot of weddings on Irish soil. However, I refuse to accept the flawed logic that this is "battle" is "fought" solely for one group. If it was solely to be contested on grounds of self-interest, why should a straight person vote at all. It's not their problem. Straight people should vote yes because it's not morally right to interfere with the autonomy of consenting adults, not vote their mates into a club cause they're cool now.

Ave Sodalis

conorh91 wrote: »

Then the correct term is same-sex marriage.

Marriage Equality is one of these Mom & Pop & Apple Pie terms. Everyone thinks marriage is just neat, and ditto equality. But that's not what this is about. This is about bringing one category of people 'up from the back of the bus' and leaving the rest of the outcasts segregated.

It's a branch of marriage equality, no?

Love nor Money wrote: »

I think you misunderstand me as siding with the no campaign. On the contrary, I am voting yes and hoping for invitations to a lot of weddings on Irish soil. However, I refuse to accept the flawed logic that this is "battle" is "fought" solely for one group. If it was solely to be contested on grounds of self-interest, why should a straight person vote at all. It's not their problem. Straight people should vote yes because it's not morally right to interfere with the autonomy of consenting adults, not vote their mates into a club cause they're cool now.

I can honestly say that I didn't misunderstand you as siding for no, I'm pointing out that this referendum is about gay marriage, not incest marriage or anything else. Just gay marriage.
It's not flawed logic. It's been extremely difficult to get the referendum to referendum. Why would anyone bite off more than they can chew by including everything? The same logic you've come up with can be applied to inter-racial marriage. Why didn't they fight for gay marriage at the same time? Because it wasn't relevant. I have no idea what you're talking about with regard to the last line.

Wildlife Actor

Shrap wrote: »

You are incorrect, please try again.

If you have never been given a vote on an issue then you can't say what society wants. If you are given a vote only every 20 years then you can't tell how society has moved on in the meantime. If there is enough demand for rights to be given where a serious injustice is being done to people by their lack of rights, often the government will realise that they too are there on the basis of our vote and eventually we get to vote on the societal change that there is such a demand for.

Fairly sure they teach this in school. Did you attend school here?

You shouldn't feel the need to be offensive.

Make yourself clear (and please, humour me by answering): do you think a mother and (adult) daughter should be allowed to marry?

For the record, I do. I find the whole idea somewhat uncomfortable, but that's my problem, not that of the two adults involved.

conorh91

sup_dude wrote: »

It's a branch of marriage equality, no?

What does 'marriage equality' mean?

It's like 'equal favoritism', it's a contradiction in itself. Marriage is about enhanced rights. How can you have enhanced rights if you are equal?

eviltwin

Love nor Money wrote: »

You shouldn't feel the need to be offensive.

Make yourself clear (and please, humour me by answering): do you think a mother and (adult) daughter should be allowed to marry?

For the record, I do. I find the whole idea somewhat uncomfortable, but that's my problem, not that of the two adults involved.

What has that got to do with it? Are you suggesting that because marriage won't be available to every conceivable type of relationship that it's a valid enough reason to continue to deny marriage to same sex couples?

reprise

floggg wrote: »

I neither suggested or inferred anything of the sort. And I can see little basis for you jumping to that conclusion.

Your quote verbatim:

While firstly LGBT couples can and do have children, so any child related purposes of marriage is equally applicable to LGBT couples.

Maybe you can better explain what you mean.

floggg wrote: »

Do people believe that marriage equality would give lgbt people the right to snatch children away from their parents or something? That certainly seems to be the case given some of the arguments we've seen.

Hyperbole aside, no.

floggg wrote: »

I think it is worth noting as well as that heterosexual parents are completely free to marry people other than their child's other parent at the minute, so if an LGBT person with a child from a previous heterosexual relationship subsequently marries their partner, then it would be no different a situation to those heterosexual couples.

You are contradicting yourself.

floggg wrote: »

That doesn't change the analysis however. Children or the ability to conceive has never been the purpose of marriage in the Irish State.

Just because I tax and insure my car, it doesn't mean I HAVE to drive it and your attempt to downplay the role of family in marriage is absurd.

floggg wrote: »

You really couldn't, and it would be absurd to try.

Two brothers do not (or at leat should not) enter into a life long commitment and sexual and romantic union with one another, and their relationship is in no way comparable to the relationship between a couple, gay or straight.

As we are trying to divine the original purpose of marriage, the "should not" element of your response looks almost like a Freudian slip.

floggg wrote: »

I can only assume you don't have siblings, because I could never even begin to describe my relationship with my brother as being anything akin to my relationship with my boyfriend or any form of marriage.

So failure to provide for the marriage of brothers was seen as obviously pointless, but there was a pointed jab at same sex couples? I'm not buying that.

Ave Sodalis

conorh91 wrote: »

What does 'marriage equality' mean?

It's like 'equal favoritism', it's a contradiction in itself. Marriage is about enhanced rights. How can you have enhanced rights if you are equal?

You're equating the wrong things.

Marriage equality = equality in marriage. That's really all there is to it. Gay people having the same right to marriage as straight people. Not more right, not less. Equal.

Shrap

Love nor Money wrote: »

I think you misunderstand me as siding with the no campaign. On the contrary, I am voting yes and hoping for invitations to a lot of weddings on Irish soil. However, I refuse to accept the flawed logic that this is "battle" is "fought" solely for one group. If it was solely to be contested on grounds of self-interest, why should a straight person vote at all. It's not their problem. Straight people should vote yes because it's not morally right to interfere with the autonomy of consenting adults, not vote their mates into a club cause they're cool now.

What a silly thing to say! I won't be voting on the basis of what is cool, I will be voting on the basis of what is NORMAL. And I hope it will be as normal for my children to be gay as it is to be straight - if either of them are (one may be, the other shows every sign of being a raging hetero) and maybe my son turns round to me in 15 years time and says Mum, I asked Jim to marry me. I would like to be able to say congratulations without feeling like I'm in a country of knuckle-dragging folk from the 17th century.