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

drunkmonkey

smash wrote: »

Well marriage should be portrayed as being something that couples of any sex can aspire to if they should feel that way inclined. Sex education shouldn't discuss marriage and should definitely include homosexuality. Teachings of parenting should revolve around showing love and affection and support to your child/children.

Family needs to be in there somewhere, marraige > family. For the average kid homosexuality is irrelevant when it gets to the family part unless were going to start education on how they can create a family, just like the rest of the kids. Then parents are not necessary for a family were teaching.

jimdublin15

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Yea but now that your no longer saying marriage is just between a woman and a man will somebody not get the hump and call it discrimination. I'm sure 2 gay parents wouldn't be happy the with current status quo.

Most schools are religious (church based) so my own experience is someone is always going to get the hump either way. Nothing much will change about that I think anytime soon.

smash

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Family needs to be in there somewhere, marraige > family. For the average kid homosexuality is irrelevant when it gets to the family part unless were going to start education on how they can create a family, just like the rest of the kids. Then parents are not necessary for a family were teaching.

Kids are out riding at 13/14.
The age demographics for marriage are getting older and older.
More and more people are coming out as gay.
Everyone knows single mothers and fathers.
Separation and divorce are on the rise.

Kids need real world sex education and not the old crap about waiting until your married etc etc. they also need to know that not all marriages produce children, and not all children are a result of marriage. That families are diversified. All these aspects need to be separated.

drunkmonkey

jimdublin15 wrote: »

Most schools are religious (church based) so my own experience is someone is always going to get the hump either way. Nothing much will change about that I think anytime soon.

It has to change as those schools are now discriminating if we redefine marriage and they do not start teaching about all sorts of sex/marraige/families and how you can create one.
It's not out of the realms of possibility they could legally be forced to change in the future.

jimdublin15

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Family needs to be in there somewhere, marraige > family. For the average kid homosexuality is irrelevant when it gets to the family part unless were going to start education on how they can create a family, just like the rest of the kids. Then parents are not necessary for a family were teaching.

I don't know depends on the parents and what family & parents they have at home. My kids love and stay with their two aunts all the time, and they see them nearly daily they know that the aunts are Girls and "Married" to each other.

I would hope and expect most responsible parents not to leave the topic fully up to the school and to have an open discussion with kids before that time comes when the school discuss it.

smash

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It has to change as those schools are now discriminating if we redefine marriage and they do not start teaching about all sorts of sex/marraige/families and how you can create one.
It's not out of the realms of possibility they could legally be forced to change in the future.

I went to a Christian Brothers school. Sex education was taught by an outsourced contractor who was a doctor. It wasn't based around religion or family or marriage. It was based around fact and it included homosexuality. How it should be! That was 20 years ago now, I'm surprised that there's schools who are still teaching it any other way.

jimdublin15

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It has to change as those schools are now discriminating if we redefine marriage and they do not start teaching about all sorts of sex/marraige/families and how you can create one.
It's not out of the realms of possibility they could legally be forced to change in the future.

Schools discriminate all the time, and always someone has the hump. Nothing will change. If you have a "civil right" does not mean a "church based" schools must talk about it.

I mean homosexuality is legal under the law but the school is not forced to discuss it if it's again the schools (church) beliefs. making civil SSM legal will equally not cause the religion or church based schools to talk about it to kids.

EDIT (Sorry)
Just to add for clarity both should be discussed in schools (I feel) but I'm just realistic that a church based school may not and this referendum will certainly not change that.

KingBrian2

The civil partnership bill was an act that discriminates against homosexuals in essence because it only exists so as to placate those whose rights and entitlements are not already enshrined in the constitution without a full constitutional amendment homosexuals will continue to be looked down upon by heterosexual couples. This referendum merely eliminates the loophole that allows homophobes to get away with the whole argument about the sanctity of marriage.

drunkmonkey

smash wrote: »

Kids need real world sex education and not the old crap about waiting until your married etc etc. they also need to know that not all marriages produce children, and not all children are a result of marriage. That families are diversified. All these aspects need to be separated.

Granted they need to know all that, but should we not put something at the top and say that's the ideal but it doesn't play out like that for a lot of people. Were now changing what's at the top of the pyramid.
If were not going to say to young children wait until your married, what do we tell those 13 year old?
I'm not worried about adults 18+ they'll do what they like.

One eyed Jack

cursai wrote: »

I see what your saying. Maybe i don't but why not create a new equal legal union 'not called marriage' and appease both sides.

A new legal union 'not called marriage' would still be discriminatory, so you wouldn't be appeasing both sides there at all.

I think a lot of the YES vote hold the 'marriage' term as a religious 'holy matrimony' meaning even if its hidden. 'I think of marriage as a contract or promise but not the be all and end all'. Although i think it would be wrong to give them exclusive rights over the term Marriage.

Do you mean the NO side there? Because it's the no side are hiding the fact that the referendum is in relation to civil marriage as recognised by the State, and will have no bearing on religious marriage as recognised by religious organisations.

In that respect, it's not just simply about the terminology. It's about the features of the institution of civil marriage as recognised by the State. The institution of civil marriage has much greater significance in Irish law than the institution of religious marriage.

Religious ceremonies include the civil marriage registration part into the ceremony, or you can do as I have done and simply conduct a civil ceremony in a registry office.

Could all sides not be appeased by not altering the civil partnership Act? or altering the significance of marriage in the constitution.

Nope, because quite simply no matter how much the CP Act is modified, it still could never have the same constitutional protection as the institution of civil marriage. There isn't any way to alter the significance of the institution of civil marriage without a referendum, and even then, however you alter the constitution to create two distinct civil marriage criteria, would immediately be discriminatory.

smash

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Granted they need to know all that, but should we not put something at the top and say that's the ideal but it doesn't play out like that for a lot of people. Were now changing what's at the top of the pyramid.

Well if you feel that marriage is ideal then expanding that right to homosexual couples is surely the right thing to do. Especially so as to not make any gay children in school feel even more excluded.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If were not going to say to young children wait until your married, what do we tell those 13 year old?

Instead of telling them that they'll go to hell, we should be telling them to be careful, and explain properly what the consequences are.

drunkmonkey

KingBrian2 wrote: »

This referendum merely eliminates the loophole that allows homophobes to get away with the whole argument about the sanctity of marriage.

You've demonstrated a point I was trying to make with that statement. Your now discriminating against people while trying to create equality and your using hurtful language to do it.

jimdublin15

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If were not going to say to young children wait until your married, what do we tell those 13 year old?

I find the truth is a good place to start myself on this topic and then onwards to safe sex followed by Q&A round.

smash

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You've demonstrated a point I was trying to make with that statement. Your now discriminating against people while trying to create equality and your using hurtful language to do it.

What? Now discriminating against homophobes?

drunkmonkey

smash wrote: »

Well if you feel that marriage is ideal then expanding that right to homosexual couples is surely the right thing to do.

I feel that marriage > parenthood should be at the top as the ideal as the way it is now. Something else should be just something else not the ideal but none the less a worthwhile pursuit but not the ideal for society to be promoted.

I'm sure children from single families would like to some day get married and start a family, just because there from a single parent house doesn't mean there going to see there family as the ideal.

anyway, time for sleepy town.

drunkmonkey

smash wrote: »

What? Now discriminating against homophobes?

He was, no?

One eyed Jack

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You've demonstrated a point I was trying to make with that statement. Your now discriminating against people while trying to create equality and your using hurtful language to do it.

drunkmonkey now in all fairness, you know well the difference between KingBrian, random internet poster, and the State, which currently discriminates against people who are LGBT on the basis of their sexual orientation.

The State in one breath says all citizens are equal, and then in the next breath so to speak, it actively sets conditions that are hurtful to people because it discriminates againt them by denying them the equal opportunity to enter into marriage.

You're not seriously going to hold one random poster on the internet to the same standard as the actions of the State surely?

jimdublin15

drunkmonkey wrote: »

You've demonstrated a point I was trying to make with that statement. Your now discriminating against people while trying to create equality and your using hurtful language to do it.

Well if I read the whole post below from the poster in context (My understanding in the way it's worded) is it would only be upsetting to a person who is a homophobe that also uses sanctity of marriage as an excuse to exclude SSM and instead push civil partnership.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The civil partnership bill was an act that discriminates against homosexuals in essence because it only exists so as to placate those whose rights and entitlements are not already enshrined in the constitution without a full constitutional amendment homosexuals will continue to be looked down upon by heterosexual couples. This referendum merely eliminates the loophole that allows homophobes to get away with the whole argument about the sanctity of marriage.

drunkmonkey

smash wrote: »

What? Now discriminating against homophobes?

all i could think of was you in your best John Cleese accent and poor old Brian trying to join the people's front of Judea.
Brought a tear to me eye, still laughing.

jimdublin15

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I feel that marriage > parenthood should be at the top as the ideal as the way it is now. Something else should be just something else not the ideal but none the less a worthwhile pursuit but not the ideal for society to be promoted.

I'm sure children from single families would like to some day get married and start a family, just because there from a single parent house doesn't mean there going to see there family as the ideal.

anyway, time for sleepy town.

Cool. well as it happens to be I'm what most people would consider Gay, and I am married (as it is now) and I have kids so i'm the ideal. Perfect lets promote that.

All joking aside, I understand but I think we will always disagree at that's okay were not all the same. So just to let you know why I disagree it is with what you call "ideal" and " marriage > parenthood"

Ideal for me you see is promoting tolerance towards other "family" dynamics and the ideal that we should promote (i feel) is that "family" or "home" situation should be loving/caring and supportive no matter what that dynamic/structure of that "home" might be.

silverfeather

smash wrote: »

What? Now discriminating against homophobes?

Oh remember we can't call them that it's offensive *rolls eyes*

dubscottie

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SW0W7L4vRc

Wulfie

I will be voting no.
The more you normalise homosexuality, the more normal it will become.
As a parent of a gay son, who despises me. What looks like a woman , might or might not be female.
I think , society has given lots of rights since decriminalisation .

This debate should take place in 50 years time.

It's all a devisionary tactic by the civil service .

Ffs ........,. VOTE NO.

Wulfie

The vote yes peoples were referring to the other side as mouth breathers . Is that a term for a breeder ?

Was it to prompt a name calling ? Like Stabbers and packers .

dubscottie

Wulfie wrote: »

I will be voting no.
The more you normalise homosexuality, the more normal it will become.
As a parent of a gay son, who despises me. What looks like a woman , might or might not be female.
I think , society has given lots of rights since decriminalisation .

This debate should take place in 50 years time.

It's all a devisionary tactic by the civil service .

Ffs ........,. VOTE NO.

I am glad I am not your son.. Wakeup.. its 2015 not 1915..
Give him a call and mend bridges FFS.. Life is too short!

DrGreenthumb

To accommodate the estimated turnout, polling stations will be letting people in the rear door

dubscottie

And as a gay person.. I hate children.. I don't want them.

So I am not going to steal your kids..

But I would like to get married as after 15 years of living together.

Fran1985

Wulfie wrote: »

I will be voting no.
The more you normalise homosexuality, the more normal it will become.
As a parent of a gay son, who despises me. What looks like a woman , might or might not be female.
I think , society has given lots of rights since decriminalisation .

This debate should take place in 50 years time.

It's all a devisionary tactic by the civil service .

Ffs ........,. VOTE NO.

I call shenanigans on this post. And if im wrong then your son is right to despise ya.

Wulfie

dubscottie wrote: »

And as a gay person.. I hate children.. I don't want them.

So I am not going to steal your kids..

But I would like to get married as after 15 years of living together.

Do you think civil partnership is not enough , for now ?


I'm sure it was a crime up.to 20yrs ago.

All parties in the daíl want us to vote yes.

That's enough reason to vote no.

This should be shelved . As for the vote yes for ogra FG presidency .

I'd.like to have on the ballot paper as well:
Do you want a civilian army ? Y N.
Do you want a general election tomorrow?
Would you like British troops to go back to their own island and defend their own borders ?
They can take the loyalists back too?
Does Ireland need a new Capitol city ?

More important stuff. Like.

Annasopra

Wulfie wrote: »

I will be voting no.
The more you normalise homosexuality, the more normal it will become.
As a parent of a gay son, who despises me. What looks like a woman , might or might not be female.
I think , society has given lots of rights since decriminalisation .

This debate should take place in 50 years time.

It's all a devisionary tactic by the civil service .

Ffs ........,. VOTE NO.

I genuinely feel sorry for your Son