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

ohnonotgmail

frostyjacks wrote: »

What's the problem about having an ideal vision of a family? Children growing up with their mother and father in a stable and secure environment...is that offensive now?

nobody has said it is. It is the idea that family consisting of gay couple is somehow not as worthy as your 'ideal' family. that they cannot provide a stable and secure environment for children. that is what is offensive

One eyed Jack

frostyjacks wrote: »

What's the problem about having an ideal vision of a family? Children growing up with their mother and father in a stable and secure environment...is that offensive now?

The problem is, that's an ideal vision for some, but reality is quite different for others.

People are by all means entitled to their ideal vision for themselves, but ignoring other people's reality is quite something else entirely.

S.O

sup_dude wrote: »

And you've been asked multiple times to explain this difference, because I can't see it. In fact, the only difference I see is that in one, the child grows up in a happy home, and the other, the child has to go through mammy and daddy fighting and then breaking up.




As I asked earlier... why are you so fixated on the posters and ignoring the content?



No, they aren't labelled with a homophobe tag immediately. Same question: why is taking down posters so much worse than the insults and dehumanising lies the No side have been using?

The difference is it would be allowed under the law for a kid to be deprived of a mother or father figure by allowing same sex couples to adopt or access AHR, about the content on the posters MAFM explained their content of the posters on their facebook page.

About our third poster. The Government has indicated that one of the primary
reasons the Children and Family Relationships Act was passed was to attempt to take children out of the referendum debate in order to make life easier for the Yes campaign. But it has been deliberately evasive on what a passed referendum will mean for the right to procreate. Our Courts have judged that the right to procreate is derived from Article 41 of the Constitution, meaning that if the referendum passes same-sex married couples will likewise have a constitutional right to procreate. They can only procreate through donor assisted human reproduction and, in the case of men, surrogacy as well. So it is very possible that surrogacy will be seen as part of a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to procreate. In such case the Constitution will endorse as a “right” a child having a biological mother and a birth mother but being left legally and socially motherless for the rest of her life.

Even if a future court does not find that two married men have a right to
have children through surrogacy, any Government which permits opposite-sex
married couples to use surrogates will be bound by the Constitution to also
allowed two married men to use a surrogate, which once again is a deliberate
attack on the child’s right to a mother.

About our second poster. Since its introduction five years ago, Civil
Partnerships have allowed over two thousand same sex couples in Ireland to say “I Do”. After campaigning for legal recognition and equality on inheritance,
next of kin status, taxation provisions etc, same sex couples have the long
sought after legal recognition of their relationships. Almost all of the initial
differences with Civil Marriage have now been removed. Those that remain reflect the differences between same sex and opposite sex relationships when it comes to bringing children into the world. Civil Partnerships give same-sex couples the rights of married couple but don’t attack a child’s right, where possible, to a mother and a father.

osarusan

S.O wrote: »

the kid hasn,t being deprieved by design of a mother or a father figure,

You keep saying this, but it doesn't really mean anything does it - you never try to explain any substantial difference.

ohnonotgmail

S.O wrote: »

T

Civil Partnerships give same-sex couples the rights of married couple

It very much does not do that

Ave Sodalis

Despite what that website says, a kid doesn't have the right to a mother. There are numerous kids that live with only their father, be it through seperation or death. There is also the fact that gay couples can already adopt so the referendum will not change this. However, this has been said countless times already so I'm going to assume you're choosing to ignore this.

Also, surrogacy involves consenting people. That link makes it sound like some woman gets kidnapped and rape and forced to bare a child for a gay male couple.

You are also aware that children of gay parents aren't locked away, never to see a person of the opposite sex in their lives?

As already been pointed out, there are numerous differences between civil partnership and marriage.

B_Wayne

S.O wrote: »

With heterosexual couples adopting, the kid hasn,t being deprieved by design of a mother or a father figure, in cases of single mothers and the father not being around , if its one of these cases of he walks away after learning she is pregnant, he should be made pay child support towards his kid from his source of income.

Gay people can raise children already and can adopt/avail of surrogacy regardless of the referendums outcome. So yep, it's pretty bizarre that raising kids is affecting your decision. :pac:

Shrap

S.O wrote: »

youngster aged about 12 to 13 still sees his father during the week , its my understanding he stays at his fathers place one night at the weekends, the thing is the kid still has both a mother + father figure in his life, now lets imagine if he had of being adopted at very early age by a same sex female couple and they broke up , he wouldn,t have a father figure in his life at all.

Sorry now....what are you saying here exactly? Parents separated or not, one imagines (as this is what parents do when they have children) that the child's best interests are at the heart of every family, if they have children.

Let's get this right. If the child never had a "mother/father figure" (although why she/he would need one of each in particular hasn't yet been explained), then the child will not be missing a mother or father figure (whichever one they didn't have) in the event of a separation. I'm not sure how much clearer that can be made to you.

Children are adaptable (as are adults, but we don't know it till we are challenged .....we see it in our kids more regularly). Once children are loved and cherished and given to understand that although Mammy&Mammy/Mammy&Daddy/Daddy&Daddy have broken up, their best interests are at the heart of each parent all of the time and the parenting relationship will continue so that the children can have the best of love, care and fun with each, I DON'T SEE THE EFFING PROBLEM. How many children go through this? Hundreds of thousands. Plenty with parents (gender regardless) who get along because they have a COMMON INTEREST.

The automatic response is "It's not ideal, but..."

WTF is ideal? Isn't this separated scenario better than Mammy and Mammy/Daddy or Daddy and Daddy/Mammy fighting full time in front of the kids? Why yes, separation is a more ideal scenario than this.

I think tho, what you are really talking about is not separation, but gender roles, and how important YOU think they are to children. I happen to think they're not important at all, but if you do, I'd rather you came out and said so (giving your reasons) than hid behind the pathos of the "separation scenario". I've been through that scenario twice, and my kids have good relationships with their other parents. Nothing to do with the gender mix in their experiences, and believe me, I should know.

One eyed Jack

S.O wrote: »

The difference is it would be allowed under the law for a kid to be deprived of a mother or father figure by allowing same sex couples to adopt or access AHR, about the content on the posters MAFM explained their content of the posters on their facebook page.

They've some neck to be claiming that the Yes campaign are being evasive, when even after reading their 'explanations', they're posting nothing but lies and speculation that has no basis in reality whatsoever!

They're making up "rights" that simply don't exist, and could never exist even in theory - a child doesn't have a "right" to a mother and father any more than I have a "right" to put the cart before the horse, which is exactly what they're doing.

Marriage equality is based on removing a discriminatory criteria in the constitution, and has fcukall to do with surrogacy or how anyone brings a child into the world, let alone how they raise that child.

That's not denying a child of anything, because a parent is just that - a parent, and children aren't denied any amount of both male and/or female influences in their lives. Hell by their standards, I was "denied" the "right" to a mother and father because they were always working and I was practically raised by my elderly, widowed neighbour.

That's actually how stupid they sound really. Absolutely no sense in their "argument" whatsoever, all I'm seeing there is -

"Mothers and fathers only matter as long as they're not LGBT". The rest is only waffly window dressing.

K4t

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We need the support of straight people to vote yes to counteract the straight people who will vote no.

Yeah if life was fair, people who are homophobic or believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, would abstain from the vote and carry on their homophobic beliefs, and simply not attend same sex marriages if given invites. But no, they have to enforce their ideals on everyone else as per usual. They crave control.

frostyjacks wrote: »

What's the problem about having an ideal vision of a family? Children growing up with their mother and father in a stable and secure environment...is that offensive now?

No problem at all. Nope. But your ideal is not necessarily another person's ideal. And your ideal should not be enforced on another person. And finally, this thread and the referendum is about same sex marriage, not children or parents.

shruikan2553

S.O wrote: »

Im back online I will reply to some posts, a neighbour of mine down the road was married and living with her husband for the last 15 years roughly, last summer they broke up and have separated he no longer lives there, although they broke up and separated the youngster aged about 12 to 13 still sees his father during the week , its my understanding he stays at his fathers place one night at the weekends, the thing is the kid still has both a mother + father figure in his life, now lets imagine if he had of being adopted at very early age by a same sex female couple and they broke up , he wouldn,t have a father figure in his life at all.

I know a couple who split up and had children at the same age, theydidnt see their father for over 10 years.

I know another person who's mother died while giving birth.

They have no mother or father figure in there life and they didn't spontaneously combust or anything.

Same sex couples can already adopt. Same sex couples have been shown to be able to raise a child just as well so a mother and father can't be necessary. What has this got to do with the referendum?

If a father and mother figure is necessary for a child, something which has yet to be proven, then we should be removing children from these situations where they dont have them.

crockholm

marienbad wrote: »

I really don't care to discuss what if scenarios . I too have grandchildren and am quite sure they will not be traumatised by these posters particularly as there are enough of us around to answer any concerns they might have .

And 4 weeks is nothing if we succeed in making such vile nonsense from the no side irrelevant for the remainder of our lives and those kids lives.

The truth is that we should not have to have to ask the electorate to legalise ssm , just like women should not have had to ask men for the vote . But that is the situation we find ourselves in for apparently sound legal reasons . So on a once off basic we have to carry the majority with us . Can we concentrate on that .

Was it General Westmoreland that said when it was pointed out to him that a measure they were proposing would alienate the Jewish vote said '' Fcuk em , they won't vote for us anyway'' That should be our attitude to all those no voters - let us concentrate on getting our own vote out and convincing the undecided to come with us.

Anything else is just poor me emotional I have the moral high ground prepare to fail talk.

Let us win and win decisively and stop getting distracted.

Are you sure that "F...em" quote wasn't by James Baker? It sounds more from a political hack than a military man.

eviltwin

There is no such thing as an ideal family. You're talking about individuals here with all the nuances and family dynamics that entails. To reduce parenting to mother and father is offensive tbh. As a parent myself I know my gender and sexuality are very minor things I bring to the table. My talents and skills, personality traits and personal experiences are what I parent with. I could move in with a woman tomorrow or fly solo and still be exactly the same type of parent I am with a man beside me. It's not relevant. Certain groups seem to think gender and sexual preferences are the most important things, no wonder we have so many fcuked up families in this country.

S.O

Shrap wrote: »

Sorry now....what are you saying here exactly? Parents separated or not, one imagines (as this is what parents do when they have children) that the child's best interests are at the heart of every family, if they have children.

Let's get this right. If the child never had a "mother/father figure" (although why she/he would need one of each in particular hasn't yet been explained), then the child will not be missing a mother or father figure (whichever one they didn't have) in the event of a separation. I'm not sure how much clearer that can be made to you.

Children are adaptable (as are adults, but we don't know it till we are challenged .....we see it in our kids more regularly). Once children are loved and cherished and given to understand that although Mammy&Mammy/Mammy&Daddy/Daddy&Daddy have broken up, their best interests are at the heart of each parent all of the time and the parenting relationship will continue so that the children can have the best of love, care and fun with each, I DON'T SEE THE EFFING PROBLEM. How many children go through this? Hundreds of thousands. Plenty with parents (gender regardless) who get along because they have a COMMON INTEREST.

The automatic response is "It's not ideal, but..."

WTF is ideal? Isn't this separated scenario better than Mammy and Mammy/Daddy or Daddy and Daddy/Mammy fighting full time in front of the kids? Why yes, separation is a more ideal scenario than this.

I think tho, what you are really talking about is not separation, but gender roles, and how important YOU think they are to children. I happen to think they're not important at all, but if you do, I'd rather you came out and said so (giving your reasons) than hid behind the pathos of the "separation scenario". I've been through that scenario twice, and my kids have good relationships with their other parents. Nothing to do with the gender mix in their experiences, and believe me, I should know.

Im pointing out in the event of separation by circumstance, the kid still has a father figure in its life, if same sex couples are allowed to adopt or access AHR a kid has no mother or father as it grows up.

pl4ichjgy17zwd

S.O wrote: »

if same sex couples are allowed to adopt or access AHR .

There is no 'if'. It is happening.

efb

Just reading a few of my gay friends FB statuses

Some of the shyte being thrown our way in the name of "balance" is getting in on people

I really hope we can do this

S.O

Heather Barwick who recently wrote an online essay against same sex marriage/same sex parenting will be speaking at a conference by MAFM next Monday in Dublin.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/head-to-head-a-daughter-of-a-lesbian-mother-argues-against-same-sex-marriage-1.2186608

S.O

I think David Quinn raised an interesting point in a recent article.

I received a call the other day from the owner of a coffee shop. He was asked
to display a 'Yes' poster. He didn't want to but was worried that if he didn't there might be consequences. No one should ever have to fear loss of business
because he won't take sides in a referendum campaign

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-quinn/the-secret-life-of-a-no-voter-may-haunt-official-ireland-yet-31167115.html

With all the shops/cafes displaying the yes posters, how many of them privately agree or disagree with the referendum proposal, furthermore how many display a yes poster because they might fear an organised boycott of their business ?

The first time I ever voted upon reaching voting age was (Nice 1 referendum) maybe my memory is short but I can,t recall shops/cafes being asked to take sides in a referendum by displaying yes or no posters in their windows.

Maximus Alexander

I don't see why things that are only happening in people's imaginations should have any relevance to the issue at hand.

pmasterson95

Thats one of the things. The "yes" isnt as popular as people think. Its just more suitable and "cool"/"stylish" to say "yes". You can see here if you dare vote no you are labelled a bigot or religious intolerant nut. It'd be business suicide if they didnt leap on the "yes" bandwagon to get those "yes fanatics" business it'd be reccommended to vote yes for profit!

lazygal

S.O wrote: »

Heather Barwick who recently wrote an online essay against same sex marriage/same sex parenting will be speaking at a conference by MAFM next Monday in Dublin.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/head-to-head-a-daughter-of-a-lesbian-mother-argues-against-same-sex-marriage-1.2186608

She's more of an argument against divorce than gay marriage tbh. Does anyone think we should reban divorce?

galljga1

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I know a couple who split up and had children at the same age, theydidnt see their father for over 10 years.

I know another person who's mother died while giving birth.

They have no mother or father figure in there life and they didn't spontaneously combust or anything.

Same sex couples can already adopt. Same sex couples have been shown to be able to raise a child just as well so a mother and father can't be necessary. What has this got to do with the referendum?

If a father and mother figure is necessary for a child, something which has yet to be proven, then we should be removing children from these situations where they dont have them.

That's my two kids gone and that just is not going to happen.

They seem to be doing fine with just a father, the older one having a very balanced view of life including sexuality. The younger is a bit too young to tell yet but I hope to also raise him with as little bias as possible.

galljga1

S.O wrote: »

Im pointing out in the event of separation by circumstance, the kid still has a father figure in its life, if same sex couples are allowed to adopt or access AHR a kid has no mother or father as it grows up.

This is currently happening and will continue to happen regardless of the outcome of the referendum. Please learn to differentiate between the affect of the referendum and the affect of the recent act.

galljga1

S.O wrote: »

Heather Barwick who recently wrote an online essay against same sex marriage/same sex parenting will be speaking at a conference by MAFM next Monday in Dublin.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/head-to-head-a-daughter-of-a-lesbian-mother-argues-against-same-sex-marriage-1.2186608

She did not have a father growing up so she is voting no.
Not sure how this would change the circumstance in which she found herself. Her parents split up and her father opted out.

Anita Blow

S.O wrote: »

Im pointing out in the event of separation by circumstance, the kid still has a father figure in its life, if same sex couples are allowed to adopt or access AHR a kid has no mother or father as it grows up.

You are entirely missing the point that gay people will not be stealing children off heterosexual couples and depriving them of their mother or father. They will be adopting children from orphanages/foster system who by circumstance have no parents. So you would rather these children grow up with no parents, rather than 2 loving parents who have demonstrated their capability to parent to the adoption agency?

Bannasidhe

S.O wrote: »

Im back online I will reply to some posts, a neighbour of mine down the road was married and living with her husband for the last 15 years roughly, last summer they broke up and have separated he no longer lives there, although they broke up and separated the youngster aged about 12 to 13 still sees his father during the week , its my understanding he stays at his fathers place one night at the weekends, the thing is the kid still has both a mother + father figure in his life, now lets imagine if he had of being adopted at very early age by a same sex female couple and they broke up , he wouldn,t have a father figure in his life at all.

Imagine he was conceived during a drunken one-night stand.
Imagine his 'father' just wasn't interested.
Imagine his 'father' skipped town.
Imagine his 'father' just couldn't cope because it was too painful so cut all ties.
Imagine his 'father' began a new relationship and decided his 'new' family took precedence.
Imagine his 'father' was already married and his 'old' family took precedence.
Imagine his 'father' emigrated for work.

All of these things have happened.

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE REFERENDUM?

galljga1

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Imagine he was conceived during a drunken one-night stand.
Imagine his 'father' just wasn't interested.
Imagine his 'father' skipped town.
Imagine his 'father' just couldn't cope because it was too painful so cut all ties.
Imagine his 'father' began a new relationship and decided his 'new' family took precedence.
Imagine his 'father' was already married and his 'old' family took precedence.
Imagine his 'father' emigrated for work.

All of these things have happened.

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE REFERENDUM?

You need to go easy on the "father" stuff. You don't want to wake John Waters.

NuMarvel

S.O wrote: »

The difference is it would be allowed under the law for a kid to be deprived of a mother or father figure by allowing same sex couples to adopt or access AHR, about the content on the posters MAFM explained their content of the posters on their facebook page.

M&FM will need to revise that content, because they are wrong on several key points. The courts have ruled that Article 41 does not grant a right to procreate; they've instead determined that such a right resides in Article 40 - Personal Rights. Last time I checked personal rights weren't dependant on marital status.

They also ignore other relevant case, such as last year's surrogacy case. Despite the fact that the genetic parents in that case were married, the courts still ruled that the birth mother, i.e. the surrogate, was the legal mother.

I would recommend that you this blog post on the matter by UCC law lecturer, who is an expert in constitutional law and children's rights. Even if you disagree with him he at least cites relevant case law to back up his claims; something M&FM hasn't done.

Bannasidhe

frostyjacks wrote: »

What's the problem about having an ideal vision of a family? Children growing up with their mother and father in a stable and secure environment...is that offensive now?

Ideal is not the same as reality. It is an ideal. A goal. It's not my goal but it is many people's gold standard. That is fair enough however this blanket biological mother + biological father = ideal fails to take in real life.
What if B.M and or/B.D. have serious addiction issues? Is that Ideal?
Or just hate each other and fight constantly? Is that ideal.

If Biological Mother + Biological Father was as ideal as people claim we would have no need of Child Protection legislation. Many social workers would be out of a job. Need for Childline reduced.

Lastly - This had nothing to do with the Referendum.

Clockwork Owl

My walk to work has been plastered with NO posters on literally every single lamp post, and I honestly cannot fathom how it is legal to do that - much less how it can be illegal to take some of it down. That sheer number of the same two or three posters is not there to inform the electorate. It's just a barrage of crying children and happy babies; it's base emotional blackmail of the lowest kind, and it's frankly disgusting.

Personally, I find the 'Every child needs a Mammy and a Daddy' rigmarole deeply patronising. The argument is that a mother and father offer different things to a child's development, which ultimately encourages them to grow into a well-rounded individual.

Sounds nice, right?

Not so much, when you unpack it. Because what is it exactly that a mother can provide and a father can't? The implication is that the mother is soft and squishy and emotionally available, and she cooks the dinner and nurtures the child and sings them lullabies and soothes them when they get hurt. And the father is STRONG and STOIC and POWERFUL, and he goes to WORK and plays SPORTS and puts up SHELVES.

Ugh. Ugh, ugh, ugh.

As a woman, it actually makes me angry that the NO campaign are pushing this sugar-sweet, apron-wearing, gingham-clad stereotype of what a mother 'should' be. Similarly, it's totally dismissive of the possibility that a man can be just as, if not MORE emotionally intelligent than a woman. It's a reduction to outdated gender roles that I honestly feel have no place in modern society.

... And that's without even getting into the NO Campaign's dismissive and derogatory treatment of the LGBT community, which is a whooooole other rant of it's own.