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

frostyjacks

cloud493 wrote: »

No, they state the bill is against mothers and fathers. That is presented as fact, not opinion.

Again, this is their opinion. If you take it to be a factual statement, good luck to you.

cloud493

frostyjacks wrote: »

Again, this is their opinion. If you take it to be a factual statement, good luck to you.

Its presented by them as factual, therefore that's how I shall take it

frostyjacks

Zaph wrote: »

Well in that case, in my opinion they're talking out of their asses.

Ok. But where are these FACTS (out of their arse if needs be) that are manipulating the electorate? Did I miss a Rafa Benitez style press conference today?

frostyjacks

cloud493 wrote: »

Its presented by them as factual, therefore that's how I shall take it

Can't believe the brain cells I wasted on this.

aloyisious

frostyjacks wrote: »

The bizarre video was in the style of Isis, this was the comparison. Still waiting on these facts.

Rather a bad choice of titles (ISIS) by John Waters, just because of the costumes worn by the alleged anti "vote no" anarchiists. as the former has a rather biblical style of treating gays it detains, not exactly what one might think a (on the face of it) pro gay group would do.

cloud493

frostyjacks wrote: »

Can't believe the brain cells I wasted on this.

The no campaign really is making itself look awful silly isn't it

WoolyJumper

Just found this video via TheJournal. I found it pretty emotional I have to say. You can tell he is not ordinarily a person that enjoys public speaking but he really put him self out there and laid his emotions bare. I think he summed up pretty beautifully what this referendum is about.

VinLieger

frostyjacks wrote: »

Can't believe the brain cells I wasted on this.

I chose to not waste my brain cells on your bigoted hate filled homophobic posts anymore it does my life a world of good

Bridge93

VinLieger wrote: »

I chose to not waste my brain cells on your bigoted hate filled homophobic posts anymore it does my life a world of good

Careful you're having a relapse at the minute!

3wayswitch

frostyjacks wrote: »

"We believe"....they aren't presenting this as fact. You've misinterpreted it.

They are presenting an opinion "We believe that the Government’s new Children and Family Relationships Bill is unjust" and then using a 'fact' to qualify their opinion "because it says mothers and fathers don’t matter to children."

aloyisious

Maybe this might help people confused as to what FFF stand for. I am a bit surprised by the claim that there is no link between FFF and other groups, not even common cause. John Waters "it is a completely stand-alone group with a completely different agenda to everybody else". http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/kathy-sheridan-first-families-first-take-up-fight-for-no-side-1.2197525

This part of Kathy's published report, (if it's correct to the last detail) in three separate paragraphs has me confused as to FFF's stance on things:

There was a handful of supporters in the room. The Iona Institute’s David Quinn made a brief appearance, chatting to a couple of familiar faces at the back before leaving. But the FFF three claimed to be “absolutely independent” of Iona or any group. “We’re a completely self-standing group with a completely different agenda to everybody else,” said Waters.


Anyway, they’re accustomed to starting small. The three have one important connection: each has raised a child or children as a single parent.


It’s one of the features that separates them from other No groups, in particular from the elements proclaiming that every child needs a father and a mother. That’s not their thing, said Waters. :end quote...........

aloyisious

frostyjacks wrote: »

Again, this is their opinion. If you take it to be a factual statement, good luck to you.

You don't trust their opinion to be worth defending, or non factual?

Ave Sodalis

frostyjacks wrote: »

Ok. But where are these FACTS (out of their arse if needs be) that are manipulating the electorate? Did I miss a Rafa Benitez style press conference today?

I've already told you. In a video called Make Up Your Own Mind.

cloud493

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25qhj7CYfss

ShoulderChip

cloud493 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25qhj7CYfss

Wow, being based away from Ireland this video has been my first exposure to that kind of filth, surely people wouldn't fall for that type of nonsense would they?

nicki11

cloud493 wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25qhj7CYfss

Does anyone else think the narrator sounds like the women from the late late show? The one who had the woman behind her facepalming.

LadyAthame

What is the future for Iona after this???

InitiumNovum

LadyAthame wrote: »

What is the future for Iona after this???

Protesting against future "abortion-on-demand" legislation, if that ever happens.

Maximus Alexander

LadyAthame wrote: »

What is the future for Iona after this???

An eternity in hell, I suspect.

Osmosis Jones

That video is embarrassing. Again they're on about issues around children when the referendum has nothing to do with that.

"Make up your own mind... by doing as I say"

WoolyJumper

Step 1: Make generic appealing message "make up your own mind" - we are not going to tell you what to think.
Step 2:subtly reference the idea that the yes side are "shouting people down"
Step 3: Coerce you into thinking about "honest questions" that have nothing to do with the actual referendum
Step 4: Mention a legal case from another country and subtly word it so it sounds like they are facing legal action for wanting to vote no "they facing legal action because they didn't want support the same sex marriage campaign"
Step 5: Remember those honest questions you were thinking about? well here is what the yes side think of you for having them. - followed by "actual real mean quotes from the internet"
Step 6: here are two gays that don't support same sex marriage and were boycotted for it (let's not mention they later back peddled on their position)
Step 7: I'm going to think for myself, "maybe you should to" if your clever enough not to listen to the yes side.





PS. I'm drunk

Nodin

WoolyJumper wrote: »

Step 1: Make generic appealing message "make up your own mind" - we are not going to tell you what to think.
Step 2:subtly reference the idea that the yes side are "shouting people down"
Step 3: Coerce you into thinking about "honest questions" that have nothing to do with the actual referendum
Step 4: Mention a legal case from another country and subtly word it so it sounds like they are facing legal action for wanting to vote no "they facing legal action because they didn't want support the same sex marriage campaign"
Step 5: Remember those honest questions you were thinking about? well here is what the yes side think of you for having them. - followed by "actual real mean quotes from the internet"
Step 6: here are two gays that don't support same sex marriage and were boycotted for it (let's not mention they later back peddled on their position)
Step 7: I'm going to think for myself, "maybe you should to" if your clever enough not to listen to the yes side.





PS. I'm drunk

Or just scream "What about the children? Won't somebody please think of the Children....." over and over and over.

Bannasidhe

This was shared by a friend on FB.


Very good summary.

Thus far, I have remained relatively silent on the issue of the upcoming Marriage Equality referendum on social media. Mainly because plenty on my friends list are already sharing good quality material and sensibly advocating their stance and I didn't feel as though I had anything new to add. I try to be respectful of everyone's opinion, provided they are reasoned. What I don't and cannot respect is stupidity and narrow-mindedness. As a result of something said to me today, my dander has been ruffled. Therefore, I'll bite and address some of the arguments as I see them.
Bear with me folks, this is long-winded (and for many of you, as I mentioned, contains nothing new).

1. “We already have Civil Partnership. Don't redefine Marriage”. To address one of the major differences between Civil Partnership and Civil Marriage, Civil Partnership is NOT protected by the constitution. Unlikely as it may seem and as turbulent as it might be to carry on a practical level, there's nothing in the constitution to stop a future conservative government revoking Civil Partnership and removing the current status held by many couples throughout the state. Civil partnership also does not protect dependent spouses, nor provide social supports to spouses in cases of hardship. There are over 160 statutory differences between Civil Marriage and Civil Partnership. A full list of these differences is available from the Marriage Equality website.
It's also rather ironic that groups, comprised of a majority of people who have the constitutional right to marry and enjoy the benefits and protections that that brings, are telling those without that right, to be happy with what they have and stop asking for the same rights, but all the while claiming that this is not discrimination.

2.“Traditionally, marriage is a complimentary union between a man and a woman”. The “traditional institution of marriage” has changed and evolved significantly, not just historically (recognised same sex unions and marriages existed before Christianity), but in far more recent times.
Traditionally, women were the property of their husband.
Traditionally, until 1973 (1958 for Primary school teachers) Irish women working in civil servant, public servant and banking jobs, had to resign from said job once they married.
Traditionally, Divorce in Ireland was illegal. Divorce was prohibited by the constitution until 1995.
Traditionally, a man was considered to have the right to have sex with his wife. Her consent was not an issue. Marital rape was not defined as a crime in Ireland until 1992 and not successfully prosecuted until 2002. I can't imagine that many would now suggest or believe that these are 'traditions' that held marriages together and should be revoked or reinstated.
These 'traditions' were changed, by altering both the constitution and legislation. Marriage did not collapse. Successfully allowing the yes vote to carry will not see marriage collapse either.

3. “Marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of having children.” If this is the case, why are the marriages of infertile/childless heterosexual couples not dissolved? Why are those heterosexuals beyond childbearing years allowed to marry? Marriage is not merely about procreation. Family is not defined solely by the presence of children.

4. “Surrogacy denies a child the right to a mother and father”. The issue we are being asked to vote on is not surrogacy, it's marriage equality. Muddying the waters with red herrings and misleading information may sway some towards a no vote, but consider this for a moment; The first “test tube baby” was born in England in 1978. Since then, countless people and couples have had children through Assisted Human Reproduction. Surrogacy is predominantly the domain of heterosexuals. Those wishing to access surrogacy can do so already and will continue to be able to do so, whether through commercial, legal or other channels after May 22nd, regardless of the outcome of the referendum. Legislation is very much needed in this highly sensitive area and is currently being addressed by the government. The fact remains however, that the outcome of the referendum will NOT affect how surrogacy currently takes place.

5. “Children deserve a mother and father”. Again, the referendum is about MARRIAGE EQUALITY, not adoption or surrogacy. Ireland has a huge variety of non “traditional” family structures, such as single mothers, single fathers, widows and widowers, legal guardians, grandparents raising grandchildren, divorced/separated parents, same sex parents etc. These individual situations have been dealt with in a piece of legislation called the The Children and Family Relationships Bill. One can download and print a PDF format copy of this document from the Oireachtas website, should one need further clarification of it's contents.
Again, there's a somewhat stinging irony to the fact that quite a number of those advocating a No vote, have strong religious, especially Catholic beliefs. The irony of course, being their support for an institution which in this very country, tore so many families apart, destroyed the lives of countless women and children, violated and abused children almost systematically, and, to this day still denies closure to many individuals seeking information about their child/parents. Along with this, the same institution still views women as second class, refuses them entry into their higher echelons and places far more emphasis on the notions of impurity and sin in relation to women, merely due to their gender.

6. “Homosexuality is not natural”. In regard to this point, nature itself is the argument to contradict this statement. Homosexuality is witnessed in species ranging from insects and worms, to giraffes, sheep, elephants, birds (an estimated one quarter of all Black Swans pairs are same sex), primates, lions, buffalo, dolphins etc etc.. However, it is worth noting that the only species that makes such a fuss about homosexuality are humans themselves. Along with this, plastic is not natural, we still use it. Flying is not natural to humans but we still do it. Nature adapts, evolves and changes. The very nature of nature, demonstrates that change is inevitable.

7. “Homosexuality is against God's law” According to “God's law”, owning slaves, both male and female is acceptable, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations, selling one's daughter into slavery is acceptable, working on the Sabbath day is punishable by death, wearing cloth made from two different threads is forbidden, planting two different crops in the same field is forbidden, eating shellfish is an abomination and that those with a sight defect may not approach the altar of God. . I was raised a Catholic and am more than familiar with the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Christians get to pick and choose what parts of the Bible they may consider sacrosanct and which parts they may disregard, as the mood suits.
Alongside this, no one is asking the church to marry same sex couples. This is a referendum about civil marriage. Please leave religion and religious marriage out of it. Religious beliefs are a choice. Homosexuality is not.

8. “Same sex marriage is dangerous to children”. With the exception of a few discredited and peer rejected studies that the No campaign frequently bandy about to further this argument, no accredited and peer reviewed study has proven and difference in the outcomes for children raised by same sex parents. This includes years of research by the American Association of Paediatrics, Dr. Abbey Goldberg - Associate Professor of Psychology, Clark University, Dr. Simon Crouch – University of Melbourne, Australia and a host of others. Children's charities and support groups across the country are advocating a yes vote. This in itself, speaks volumes about the positive impacts that a Yes vote will have.

9. Comments are being bandied about by some No campaigners, regarding a Yes vote setting a precedent for further changes down the line, including, but not limited to incestuous marriage, marriage to animals etc. Some have also included discussions about sexual conduct between couples. Aside from possibly indicating the perverse concerns in the minds of some individuals, I don't believe this kind of commentary to be worthy of being dignified with a response. In the words of Judge Judy “Beauty fades. Stupid is forever”.

In countries that already have Marriage Equality, there has been no negative impact on heterosexual marriage. Voting Yes will not change the status, or devalue the status of a heterosexual marriage. However, voting No will have a significant negative impact on the lives of others, their families and their friends. I cannot tell anyone how to vote, but I would hope that logic and reason will prevail and a Yes majority will carry. Ireland has the chance to be a world leader here, by becoming the first country to legalise Marriage Equality by popular vote in a referendum. Let's not waste this opportunity.

He forgot to add that we aren't going to go away so unless you want to go through all this again....

Boom_Bap

That Make Your Mind Up video is awful. It's the closest thing to brainwashing I've seen.

MrWalsh

ShoulderChip wrote: »

Wow, being based away from Ireland this video has been my first exposure to that kind of filth, surely people wouldn't fall for that type of nonsense would they?

Scary really. Factually incorrect homophobic scaremongering.

aloyisious

Re what will Iona do next?: I imagine that, if it has the funding, Iona will take a case about the Children and Family Relationships Bill 2015 to the courts (first the high court, then when that fails, to the supreme court on a matter of public importance - or whatever the term is - to get a fee-free hearing) in an attempt to weaken the new equality measures for LGBT people. Despite wishing it away, I suspect Iona will not sail away into the sunset.

Re the "the relationship between the child and his/her biological mother or father will be destroyed" claim. no one from the "vote no" side of this debate has shown me where there is something in writing (either in law or other) that say's any child or biological parent of a child cannot make contact with the O/P, when it come's to the post-surrogacy period. I'd imagine that also applies to AHR situations. The "vote no" side have continually spoken/written about this alleged denial of contact as a reason for their opposition to the referendum on marriage. I'd like some-one, any-one, on the "vote no" side of this debate here to post a link to this alleged denial of rights in Irish Law, as their argument is about Irish Citizen Children. I am not interested in "vote no" propaganda or foreign studies.

aloyisious

Last rally for LGBT Noise (if there's a YES result) at 2 PM on 10th May at Merrion Square. Variation of Dorothy image below.....

falan

Agree 100% with this guy. 100% voting yes.

https://www.facebook.com/djwaynescottfox/videos/10200593910566857/

opiniated

TheChizler wrote: »

Well what would be the point in that? Equal yet different?

I haven't read the entire thread. I don't have time to read 500+ pages, so I've dipped in here and there.

I've read a couple of times that there are 100+ differences between marriage and civil partnership. I will check those differences when time allows.

Your post caught my attention, because, though I am not in the least homophobic, and believe in inheritance rights, etc. for gay couples - I can't get my head around the idea that gay couples are the "same" (as in identical to), as heterosexual couples. Equal, yes. Identical, no. (Stands ready to be attacked as homophobic!)

So, I'm genuinely wondering why equality legislation that addresses the issues gay couples face isn't enough? What is wrong with being regarded as an equal citizen, with equal legal rights, without using the word "marriage"?

I don't understand the issues for those who don't want a religious ceremony, though I acknowledge that it is an issue for those who would like a religious ceremony - which civil marriage rights will not address in any case.

Can anyone explain why the word "marriage" is so important?

Shrap

opiniated wrote: »

So, I'm genuinely wondering why equality legislation that addresses the issues gay couples face isn't enough? What is wrong with being regarded as an equal citizen, with equal legal rights, without using the word "marriage"?

I don't understand the issues for those who don't want a religious ceremony, though I acknowledge that it is an issue for those who would like a religious ceremony - which civil marriage rights will not address in any case.

Can anyone explain why the word "marriage" is so important?

In answer to your question, can I ask you to read this important blog published today by Geoff Shorts - "A Taste of Sincerely Held Beliefs." in which he is TOLD about his marriage by a no voter who mistakes him for a gay man.

http://geoffsshorts.blogspot.ie/2015/05/a-taste-of-sincerely-held-beliefs.html

An excerpt here, but I would strongly advise everyone to read this article in full.

As a married person it buoys me to see so many willing to fight for the institution. I see a trend in these new canvassers as they shuffle through their notes and rehearse long practiced conversations. They all worry that they won't correctly recall the myriad legal distinctions between civil partnerships and marriage.

In ten weeks of canvassing that question has never arisen.

To my mind this is because the population already knows the privation inherent in a civil partnership that can never be corrected by legislative tweak: respect. The bulwark of societal support that could counteract the attempts to be made feel less by No posters and their public speakers. The right to share your relationship status without concern for the reaction. The privilege of crossing the road without strangers following you to disavow your love for your spouse. This respect, this difference between civil partnership and marriage is why my experience of what the sincerely held beliefs of that no voter is now an anecdote and not a damaging experience.