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

dashcamdanny

Bowlardo wrote: »

61.5% + for yes vote on paddy power... I think it will come in higher than that for certain. Only question Is how much to put on it

The catholic community in rural Ireland might surprise you.

The Yes side don't have this in the bag yet. It would be wrong to assume anything in this country.


The same electorate sent Justin and Jedward to the eurovision FFS.

KungPao

dashcamdanny wrote: »

The catholic community in rural Ireland might surprise you.

The Yes side don't have this in the bag yet. It would be wrong to assume anything in this country.


The same electorate sent Justin and Jedward to the eurovision FFS.

Don't you dare disrespect the great DUSTIN...Justin, like come on man, he's a national treasure!

An Riabhach

I will be voting Yes-for the simple reason that samesex couples getting married will not do any damage to anything or anybody else.
As for the argument against it about "redefining marriage",that sounds to me as if the opposition are trying to say that if samesex couples marry,it would mean that men and women would no longer get married(don't ask me why)....

And also the argument of samesex couples becoming parents-this is a totally separate issue and the opposing people need to be reminded that this referendum is about marriage,not parenting.
From an asexual atheist.

KungPao

Seasan wrote: »

I will be voting Yes-for the simple reason that samesex couples getting married will not do any damage to anything or anybody else.
As for the argument against it about "redefining marriage",that sounds to me as if the opposition are trying to say that if samesex couples marry,it would mean that men and women would no longer get married(don't ask me why)....

And also the argument of samesex couples becoming parents-this is a totally separate issue and the opposing people need to be reminded that this referendum is about marriage,not parenting.
From an asexual atheist.

But childerenen deserve a fadder AND a mudder!

noway12345

I usually like sticking up for the underdog so I'll be voting no.

Bannasidhe

noway12345 wrote: »

I usually like sticking up for the underdog so I'll be voting no.

The status quo is the new underdog - who knew! :eek:

noway12345

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The status quo is the new underdog - who knew! :eek:

The yes vote is hot favourite. All the political parties are backing a yes vote, all the media is. The no side is a huge underdog!

Baggy Trousers

dashcamdanny wrote: »

The catholic community in rural Ireland might surprise you.

The Yes side don't have this in the bag yet. It would be wrong to assume anything in this country.

At one point I was worried about the Catholic guilt vote but I think it's Yes all the way now. The No side have not presented a credible argument to vote No.
My guess is 72/28.

Shrap

KungPao wrote: »

I wonder will this vote be like when Bart Simpson was seemingly class president elect...but everyone thought it was such a foregone conclusion that they didnt bother voting and bloody Martin won?

As said, I'm not registered...I may register though, just to stick it to the religious weirdos.

Yeah....MAYBE. That could conceivably happen. Pleeease register dude. This happened before with the divorce referendum. Everyone thought it was in the bag and it lost. Took 10 years before we could get another go at it. This time though, it's your friends and family's actual human rights up for question.

An Riabhach

KungPao wrote: »

But childerenen deserve a fadder AND a mudder!

Again,a totally separate issue to what this referendum is about.

It has to be said that not all gay couples will automatically want kids,in the same way as not all straight married couples will want kids either.

Bannasidhe

noway12345 wrote: »

The yes vote is hot favourite. All the political parties are backing a yes vote, all the media is. The no side is a huge underdog!

Sometimes its not so much 'underdog' as just plain wrong side.

I can't believe I am voting the way FG and FF are urging *little sick in the throat there* - that alone will mean I will have to have a lie down in a dark room for a while but needs must.

RobertKK

Homophobic rain and wind made the mural look really bad.
Twitter which is supporting the Yes campaign had their earnings report leaked early yesterday and it was bad, and their share price is down about 25% since.
There is something sinister affecting the Yes side...:P

Cold War Kid

kneemos wrote: »

Each side is afraid to play dirty for fear of alienation their supporters.

Pretending the referendum is about adoption, when it isn't, is a pretty dirty tactic IMO.

Ozymandius2011

frostyjacks wrote: »

No. We're voting as to whether or not homosexuals, who are equal citizens like everyone else in a republic, should be allowed to marry each other. It doesn't mean we think less of them if we vote no.

Sounds like the "Separate but Equal" argument of the Southern segregationists in the US South. I won't get to the back of the bus.

Bannasidhe

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Sounds like the "Separate but Equal" argument of the Southern segregationists in the US South. I won't get to the back of the bus.

I get motion sickness and throw up if I sit at the back of the bus.
Is that want you want Ireland? Vomiting homosexuals on public transport? Well is it?

BontyMurns

I'll be voting no. I don't care if you're straight, gay, bisexual, or whatever else you may want to classify yourself as. What you do behind closed doors, so long as nobody is getting hurt, is noone else's business.

I am however absolutely sick of the LGBT political movement and would be delighted to see it (the movement) receiving a swift kick in the face by virtue of receiving a "no" in May.

Besides that, a gay partnership simply isn't equal to a straight one and shouldn't be formally recognised as such. No matter how many times the lefties want to repeat the contrary, it'll never be true. Gay couples can't naturally have children and that fundamentally makes them of less social worth than the union of a straight couple.

"But but they can adopt!" I hear the lefties protest. Gay adoption, at this stage, amounts to a social experiment as we have absolutely zero idea of how it will turn out at scale and over time. I think it's rather cruel to put innocent children into unknown situations for social experiments simply to see how things turn out. We, as a species, have done just fine until now relying on men and women reproducing and raising kids.

A child needs a mother and a father, we've learned this from the sheer havoc single parent, mother-only families have brought to society over the last few decades. I don't care for your personal anecdotes about being raised by a single mother either, there is a vast amount of research and data that points to single parent families being terrible for society, you being a special snowflake bears little weight.

I'm tired of mindless, left-wing, feel-good politics. It has wrought vast amounts of damage, economically and socially, throughout Europe over the last few decades and at this stage needs to be vigorously stamped out and I'll vote against any further silly leftism whenever it may arise, as is the case this May.

kneemos

RobertKK wrote: »

Homophobic rain and wind made the mural look really bad.
Twitter which is supporting the Yes campaign had their earnings report leaked early yesterday and it was bad, and their share price is down about 25% since.
There is something sinister affecting the Yes side...:P

Someone on the wireless thother day saying twitter is worth either sixty or seventy billion he said,that's billion with a b.
Doesn't that just take the virtual biscuit?

Ozymandius2011

BontyMurns wrote: »

I'll be voting no. I don't care if you're straight, gay, bisexual, or whatever else you may want to classify yourself as. What you do behind closed doors, so long as nobody is getting hurt, is noone else's business.

I am however absolutely sick of the LGBT political movement and would be delighted to see it (the movement) receiving a swift kick in the face by virtue of receiving a "no" in May.

Besides that, a gay partnership simply isn't equal to a straight one and shouldn't be formally recognised as such. No matter how many times the lefties want to repeat the contrary, it'll never be true. Gay couples can't naturally have children and that fundamentally makes them of less social worth than the union of a straight couple.

"But but they can adopt!" I hear the lefties protest. Gay adoption, at this stage, amounts to a social experiment as we have absolutely zero idea of how it will turn out at scale and over time. I think it's rather cruel to put innocent children into unknown situations for social experiments simply to see how things turn out. We, as a species, have done just fine until now relying on men and women reproducing and raising kids.

A child needs a mother and a father, we've learned this from the sheer havoc single parent, mother-only families have brought to society over the last few decades. I don't care for your personal anecdotes about being raised by a single mother either, there is a vast amount of research and data that points to single parent families being terrible for society, you being a special snowflake bears little weight.

I'm tired of mindless, left-wing, feel-good politics. It has wrought vast amounts of damage, economically and socially, throughout Europe over the last few decades and at this stage needs to be vigorously stamped out and I'll vote against any further silly leftism whenever it may arise, as is the case this May.

Parenting is not what we are voting on. Gay people are already allowed adopt under the Children and Family Relationships Act which is already law.

I know very few gays that want to be parents. The issue is making a commitment and equal access to the financial and hospital visitation rights. Also in Massachussetts, there was a decline in HIV/AIDS cases after marriage equality became law.

Tell me this. Why is a marriage of infertile heterosexuals any more value to society than that of two men or two women? Alex Salmond's marriage to his wife for example.

Do you want us to "go forth and multiply" like in Africa which has constant famine from overpopulation?

We will not go to the back of the bus.

Frank Bullitt

BontyMurns wrote: »

I'll be voting no. I don't care if you're straight, gay, bisexual, or whatever else you may want to classify yourself as. What you do behind closed doors, so long as nobody is getting hurt, is noone else's business.

I am however absolutely sick of the LGBT political movement and would be delighted to see it (the movement) receiving a swift kick in the face by virtue of receiving a "no" in May.

Besides that, a gay partnership simply isn't equal to a straight one and shouldn't be formally recognised as such. No matter how many times the lefties want to repeat the contrary, it'll never be true. Gay couples can't naturally have children and that fundamentally makes them of less social worth than the union of a straight couple.

"But but they can adopt!" I hear the lefties protest. Gay adoption, at this stage, amounts to a social experiment as we have absolutely zero idea of how it will turn out at scale and over time. I think it's rather cruel to put innocent children into unknown situations for social experiments simply to see how things turn out. We, as a species, have done just fine until now relying on men and women reproducing and raising kids.

A child needs a mother and a father, we've learned this from the sheer havoc single parent, mother-only families have brought to society over the last few decades. I don't care for your personal anecdotes about being raised by a single mother either, there is a vast amount of research and data that points to single parent families being terrible for society, you being a special snowflake bears little weight.

I'm tired of mindless, left-wing, feel-good politics. It has wrought vast amounts of damage, economically and socially, throughout Europe over the last few decades and at this stage needs to be vigorously stamped out and I'll vote against any further silly leftism whenever it may arise, as is the case this May.

Shouldn't you be out on the street with a cardboard sign?

BlitzKrieg

looks like panti bliss's facebook page has gone down? Neither me nor my friends can access it.

Frank Bullitt

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

looks like panti bliss's facebook page has gone down? Neither me nor my friends can access it.

I'm seeing it fine?

dashcamdanny

Gintonious wrote: »

Shouldn't you be out on the street with a cardboard sign?

Should you not be out there with him then?

Let him have his say with undermining his argument with crap.

Try facts.

AndonHandon

KingBrian2 wrote: »

A very weak argument for voting no.

Well considering there's no justification for which way one votes (all votes being equal) then it's arguably as strong as any other reason for voting no or yes.

pl4ichjgy17zwd

Gintonious wrote: »

I'm seeing it fine?

Yep, coming up for me too.

kevin12345

BontyMurns wrote: »

I'll be voting no. I don't care if you're straight, gay, bisexual, or whatever else you may want to classify yourself as. What you do behind closed doors, so long as nobody is getting hurt, is noone else's business.

I am however absolutely sick of the LGBT political movement and would be delighted to see it (the movement) receiving a swift kick in the face by virtue of receiving a "no" in May.


Besides that, a gay partnership simply isn't equal to a straight one and shouldn't be formally recognised as such. No matter how many times the lefties want to repeat the contrary, it'll never be true. Gay couples can't naturally have children and that fundamentally makes them of less social worth than the union of a straight couple.

"But but they can adopt!" I hear the lefties protest. Gay adoption, at this stage, amounts to a social experiment as we have absolutely zero idea of how it will turn out at scale and over time. I think it's rather cruel to put innocent children into unknown situations for social experiments simply to see how things turn out. We, as a species, have done just fine until now relying on men and women reproducing and raising kids.

A child needs a mother and a father, we've learned this from the sheer havoc single parent, mother-only families have brought to society over the last few decades. I don't care for your personal anecdotes about being raised by a single mother either, there is a vast amount of research and data that points to single parent families being terrible for society, you being a special snowflake bears little weight.

I'm tired of mindless, left-wing, feel-good politics. It has wrought vast amounts of damage, economically and socially, throughout Europe over the last few decades and at this stage needs to be vigorously stamped out and I'll vote against any further silly leftism whenever it may arise, as is the case this May.

You should win some sort of medal for insulting such a large group of people in just one post, really, I think you touched on nearly every bit of misinformation the No side is spreading all wrapped up in one post. Bravo.

Social experiment my ar*e.

BlitzKrieg

BontyMurns wrote: »

I'll be voting no. I don't care if you're straight, gay, bisexual, or whatever else you may want to classify yourself as. What you do behind closed doors, so long as nobody is getting hurt, is noone else's business.

I am however absolutely sick of the LGBT political movement and would be delighted to see it (the movement) receiving a swift kick in the face by virtue of receiving a "no" in May.

why are you sick of it, what did they do more then any of the other movements of recent years to make you more sick of them?

Besides that, a gay partnership simply isn't equal to a straight one and shouldn't be formally recognised as such. No matter how many times the lefties want to repeat the contrary, it'll never be true. Gay couples can't naturally have children and that fundamentally makes them of less social worth than the union of a straight couple.

So we shall be putting an age limit on marriage then, only young fertile people capable of providing offspring shall be married? Should we also introduce a mandatory fertile test before one can take a marriage licence?

"But but they can adopt!" I hear the lefties protest. Gay adoption, at this stage, amounts to a social experiment as we have absolutely zero idea of how it will turn out at scale and over time. I think it's rather cruel to put innocent children into unknown situations for social experiments simply to see how things turn out. We, as a species, have done just fine until now relying on men and women reproducing and raising kids.

They can already adopt, even before the recent law that allowed

A child needs a mother and a father, we've learned this from the sheer havoc single parent, mother-only families have brought to society over the last few decades. I don't care for your personal anecdotes about being raised by a single mother either, there is a vast amount of research and data that points to single parent families being terrible for society, you being a special snowflake bears little weight.

will you take actual studies in the area:

From ‘Children of the Recession: Children of the Recession: The impact of the economic crisis on child well-being in rich countries’ (Unicef, 2014).

Do Mothers and fathers matter?

Dr Carmal Hannan writes:

Most of you will have received a fancy brochure in your letter box telling you “7 Great Reasons to Keep Marriage as is”. The well-funded group “Mothers and Fathers Matter” are advocating a no vote in the upcoming referendum quoting evidence that two married parents, a male and a female, provide the optimal family for raising children.

Kate Bopp, of this group, announced that “studies have shown that teens who have grown up without a father are more prone to crime, they have greater presentations of emotional distress: volatile anger in young men and boys, and young women tend to gravitate towards abusive relationships”.

This is not the case. This is the classic misinterpretation of research which continues to be presented as fact; where association is interpreted as causation. Yes, family type matters, but they do not “cause” children to grow up unhappy, under-educated or prone to crime.

Growing up in Ireland, the national longitudinal study of children in Ireland provides a rich source of data on contemporary families in Ireland.

Brendan Halpin and I investigated the effects of growing up in a one parent family, examining data from over 8,000 nine year old children from this study. We concluded that marriage does not have a major direct influence on child development.

Across 14 measures collected from parents, teachers and the children themselves, differences across family types were indeed evident. In other words, growing up in a one parent family is associated with lower educational scores, lower levels of school attendance, and negative self-concept among 9 year olds.

However, these children are more likely, on average, to live with a mother who has low levels of education, to live in poverty and to attend a DEIS school – just to name a few important factors that differ across families and which should be taken in consideration.

Once you take account of the wide array of ways in which resources differ across family types, children whose parents were not married look remarkably similar to those whose parents were married on all these measures.

The reason for differences in child development is therefore not the marital status of parents, but rather child development is strongly related the background characteristics of the parents, particularly the mother’s education.

In a separate study, Prof Tony Fahey confirmed these findings and advocated a reform to the social welfare system so that income supports would be directed at families on the basis of their low incomes rather than the residential status of parents.

If we want to focus the debate on marriage equality on child development, the largest issue we need to address in this regard is the growing rates of child poverty.

The child poverty rate as measured by Eurostat rose from 18% to 28.6%, between 2008 and 2012, an increase of 10.6%. This corresponds to a net increase of more than 130,000 poor children in Ireland (UNICEF 2014).

The resources available to parents – be they black or white, old or young, gay or lesbian – is what really matters.

Parental access to education, access to childcare, employment opportunities that fit with the realities of every day family life are just some of the issues that need to be addressed. Irrespective of family structure, we want parents to be able to give children the best possible start to life.

Reason 7 to keep marriage as is states that “Every Child Deserves a Mother’s Love” rather every child deserves a roof over their head, food in their belly and access to a school of choice.

I'm tired of mindless, left-wing, feel-good politics. It has wrought vast amounts of damage, economically and socially, throughout Europe over the last few decades and at this stage needs to be vigorously stamped out and I'll vote against any further silly leftism whenever it may arise, as is the case this May.

You keep making this as some left wing *thing* yet I dont see any of the major right wing parties or groups or major businesses in ireland opposing it either?

BontyMurns

Parenting is not what we are voting on. Gay people are already allowed adopt under the Children and Family Relationships Act which is already law.

The point still stands: A gay union is not equal to a straight one and shouldn't be formally recognised as such.

I know very few gays that want to be parents. The issue is making a commitment and equal access to the financial and hospital visitation rights. Also in there was a decline in HIV/AIDS cases after marriage equality became law.

I don't care about HIV/AIDS, that's a matter for the gay community to sort out for themselves.

Tell me this. Why is a marriage of infertile heterosexuals any more value to society than that of two men or two women? Alex Salmond's marriage to his wife for example.

A marriage of infertile heterosexuals only has more value to society in that it could adopt/raise a child in the familial structure we know to be the most successful. Apart from that, you're absolutely correct in that naturally it has relatively the same worth as a gay union.

Do you want us to "go forth and multiply" like in Africa which has constant famine from overpopulation?

You realise that the low reproduction rate and aging population in western Europe is actually an enormous problem, and that we should be encouraging straight, stable relationships to be producing children?

And yes, I believe we should be doing everything we can to get young, straight couples to have kids including providing free childcare for working parents, totally free schooling through college, generous maternal/paternal/whatever leave, etc.

BlitzKrieg

Gintonious wrote: »

I'm seeing it fine?

strange, it shows up in google but everytime I click it I get sent back to my timeline on facebook. and a link from the page I shared has vanished from my own page.

Bannasidhe

BontyMurns wrote: »

I'll be voting no. I don't care if you're straight, gay, bisexual, or whatever else you may want to classify yourself as. What you do behind closed doors, so long as nobody is getting hurt, is noone else's business.

I am however absolutely sick of the LGBT political movement and would be delighted to see it (the movement) receiving a swift kick in the face by virtue of receiving a "no" in May.

Besides that, a gay partnership simply isn't equal to a straight one and shouldn't be formally recognised as such. No matter how many times the lefties want to repeat the contrary, it'll never be true. Gay couples can't naturally have children and that fundamentally makes them of less social worth than the union of a straight couple.

"But but they can adopt!" I hear the lefties protest. Gay adoption, at this stage, amounts to a social experiment as we have absolutely zero idea of how it will turn out at scale and over time. I think it's rather cruel to put innocent children into unknown situations for social experiments simply to see how things turn out. We, as a species, have done just fine until now relying on men and women reproducing and raising kids.

A child needs a mother and a father, we've learned this from the sheer havoc single parent, mother-only families have brought to society over the last few decades. I don't care for your personal anecdotes about being raised by a single mother either, there is a vast amount of research and data that points to single parent families being terrible for society, you being a special snowflake bears little weight.

I'm tired of mindless, left-wing, feel-good politics. It has wrought vast amounts of damage, economically and socially, throughout Europe over the last few decades and at this stage needs to be vigorously stamped out and I'll vote against any further silly leftism whenever it may arise, as is the case this May.

So many many issues.
The 21st century must be very difficult for you petal.

Zen65

Gintonious wrote: »

This woman should hang her head in shame, filthy pig.

"Studies have shown that homosexual men are 40 times more likely than the general populace to abuse children"

I think she should be asked to reference those studies so we can all take a look at what it is exactly that she calls evidence!!