SSM why are you voting no?

househero

There seems to be a lack of arguments for a no vote on the upcoming Same Sex Marriage referendum

I'm curious to see why somebody would vote no

Feel free to put your views forward, so people can better understand your point of view


To yes voters. PLEASE refrain from attacking no opinions. Everybody is entitled to their own view.

munchkin_utd

househero wrote: »

There seems to be a lack of arguments for a no vote on the upcoming Same Sex Marriage referendum

I'm curious to see why somebody would vote no

Feel free to put your views forward, so people can better understand your point of view


To yes voters. PLEASE refrain from attacking no opinions. Everybody is entitled to their own view.

was almost wondering myself what logical arguments could be made for a no and was trying to figure how someone could come to the decision, and put on my debating hat to see if there's arguments on the no side that would make sense.

Looking back at previous referendums, there was always a sense that a constitutional change should only come about if the actual change was needed and was robust / correct in how it was placed / phrased etc. Otherwise there was enough negativity toward the change to vote no.

With that in mind, one thing that struck me was that the amendment itsself is strange in the context of whats not being changed.
( NOTE - go read the section if you havent already, which I'd say many haven't to be honest)
That piece of the constitution is about the mothers place in the home being sacred, that women are special in the context of their role in the home, and that families are special and then theres an ammendment that implicitly says that familes now are being redefined without a woman, or mother.
If you want to make a logical decision, a no could be easily justified in that case that you felt the ammendment is somewhat contradictary to what comes before it.
By rights the whole section should be rephrased in gender neutral language to represent the new situation that the ammendment brings with regard to what is to be a family (i.e. the resulting unit from a marriage)

You might also say that theres no need for an ammendment in the first place.
There's no mention in the constitution of a marriage being between man and woman so why cant this just be dealt with by legislation - meaning a no to the proposed ammendment .

AlphaRed

househero wrote: »

There seems to be a lack of arguments for a no vote on the upcoming Same Sex Marriage referendum

I'm curious to see why somebody would vote no

Feel free to put your views forward, so people can better understand your point of view


To yes voters. PLEASE refrain from attacking no opinions. Everybody is entitled to their own view.

Can you give an example of a logical argument Househero

constance tench

The lack of posts on this thread speaks volumes.

AlphaRed

constance tench wrote: »

The lack of posts on this thread speaks volumes.

Maybe it's not a good thread to begin with. I get hundreds of responses and thousands of views on my threads. :0)

PutDownArtist

househero wrote: »

There seems to be a lack of arguments for a no vote on the upcoming Same Sex Marriage referendum

I'm curious to see why somebody would vote no

Feel free to put your views forward, so people can better understand your point of view


To yes voters. PLEASE refrain from attacking no opinions. Everybody is entitled to their own view.

I'm voting no to defend democracy.

The fact that you have to plead with the yes side not to attack people for daring to have a different opinion speaks volumes.

You can't just hose down those with opposing views.

BoJack Horseman

PutDownArtist wrote: »

Hyperbolae Alert!**I'm voting no to defend democracy.

It will be sad when 'Yes' carries the day & democracy ceases to exist.

I suppose it had a good run though.

PutDownArtist

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

It will be sad when 'Yes' carries the day & democracy ceases to exist.

I suppose it had a good run though.

You're missing the point. If yes wins that is democracy in action.

But my no vote is just as valid, no matter how many repulsive Dubs from the media elite crawl out to badger me into voting yes.

BoJack Horseman

PutDownArtist wrote: »

But my no vote is just as valid, no matter how many repulsive Dubs from the media elite crawl out to badger me into voting yes.

Dubs arent all repulsive.
I've known several with perfectly good hygiene.

PutDownArtist

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Dubs arent all repulsive.
I've known several with perfectly good hygiene.

But they do all have repulsive accents.

A conversation with a Dub is like having a flame-thrower blasting in your face.

NinjaTruncs

PutDownArtist wrote: »

But they do all have repulsive accents.

A conversation with a Dub is like having a flame-thrower blasting in your face.

Same can be said for many other counties. But let's just generalise everyone. Where are you from so we can apply our generalisation on you.

bee06

PutDownArtist wrote: »

You're missing the point. If yes wins that is democracy in action.

Then you are voting to exercise your democratic right. That doesn't really explain why you chose no over yes?

TwoShedsJackson

AlphaRed wrote: »

Can you give an example of a logical argument Househero

Why don't you give us an example? Oh wait, you haven't so far, nor will you ever.

neemish

I'm voting No because I don't agree with the wording. Simple as. I think that the constitution should be as wide as possible and then legislate for marriage within the Oireachtas.

constance tench

I have decided to vote No because the wording will fundamentally affect interpretation of Article 41 and Article 42.

Back to the drawing board to get a Yes from me.

johnnyskeleton

househero wrote: »

To yes voters. PLEASE refrain from attacking no opinions. Everybody is entitled to their own view.

PutDownArtist wrote: »

The fact that you have to plead with the yes side not to attack people for daring to have a different opinion speaks volumes.

Mod: I consider this not only to be backseat moderation, but also presumptous and potentially trolling.

If there is an abusive post report it and he mods will deal with it. We have a number of threads on this issue and I am offended at the suggestion implicit in both of your comments that we are allowing the "yes side" to abuse the "no side" (or, indeed, vice versa).

Personal abuse is not tolerated, and a robust counter argument is not personal abuse. Please be aware of the distinction.

Obviously there are instances in real life where people on either side havent covered themselves in glory, but I dont think that can be said that such is regular on boards.ie. If it is and im not aware of it, report the posts rather than doing your own moderation.

Just so we are clear - saying that the no side is silenced (in boards threads) is backseat moderation at best and trolling at worst and I will take action if it becomes a pattern.

johnnyskeleton

AlphaRed wrote: »

Can you give an example of a logical argument Househero

constance tench wrote: »

The lack of posts on this thread speaks volumes.

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Why don't you give us an example? Oh wait, you haven't so far, nor will you ever.

Mod: This type of thing does no one any good

Edit - for clarity, one liner comments are not helpful to the debate. If someone wants to put up the reasons for a no vote in this thread then they can do so. If not, they dont have to.

roadrunner16

A friend of my mams said she was voting no because she believed that to change the definition of marriage would take away from hers, she thought that marriage is one thing and changing it in favor of creating a new form of union was not the best course of action, she said marriage is a word that means a union between a man and a woman and to her it will always be that way, and that a civil partnership is what should be amended to include all the legal and practical implications of marriage. I will vote yes because unlike her I'm not married so to me marriage is just a word, I think that if civil partnership was amended to include all the practical implications of marriage a large number of people would still be unhappy.

( I feel that people will think I invented my mams friend as a way of expressing an opinion on a no vote, which goes to show the militant nature of some of the Yes campaigners ! :P )

constance tench

roadrunner16 wrote: »

A friend of my mams said she was voting no because she believed that to change the definition of marriage would take away from hers, she thought that marriage is one thing and changing it in favor of creating a new form of union was not the best course of action, she said marriage is a word that means a union between a man and a woman and to here it will always be that way. And that a civil partnership is what should be amended to include all the legal and practical implications of marriage. I will vote yes because unlike here I'm not married so to me marriage is just a word, I think that if civil partnership was amended to include all the practical implications of marriage a large number of people would still be unhappy.

( I feel that people will think I invented my mams friend as a way of expressing an opinion on a no vote, which goes to show the militant nature of some of the Yes campaigners ! :P )

There is an option to repeal 2 (2) (e) of the Civil Registration Act 2004.

(2) For the purposes of this Act there is an impediment to a marriage if-...(e) both parties are the same sex.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0003/sec0002.html#sec2

Paul.k.b.90

NinjaTruncs wrote: »

Same can be said for many other counties. But let's just generalise everyone. Where are you from so we can apply our generalisation on you.

HAHA I would just ignore that chap.. He has a chip on his shoulder regarding people from Dublin.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

munchkin_utd wrote: »

That piece of the constitution is about the mothers place in the home being sacred, that women are special in the context of their role in the home, and that families are special and then theres an amendment that implicitly says that familes now are being redefined without a woman, or mother.
If you want to make a logical decision, a no could be easily justified in that case that you felt the amendment is somewhat contradictary to what comes before it.
By rights the whole section should be rephrased in gender neutral language <...>
There's no mention in the constitution of a marriage being between man and woman so why cant this just be dealt with by legislation<..>

I'd identify with some of that. I've set out my core position before.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

• Any amendment to the Constitution creates uncertainty. For that reason, a proposal for change has to overcome a level of materiality before I'd back it. I'm afraid I just don't see that level of materiality here.
• If there's a protest element to the vote, its that there are more pressing issues requiring an amendment (specifically termination of unviable pregancy) that I expect this proposal is attempting to distract from.
• I don't like the Oireachtas getting an explicit power to regulate marriage. I'd want to know what the limits of this power will be (there don't seem to be any under the wording). No, I don't expect that a resurgent Catholic political force will re-criminalise contraception any time soon. I just see the right of married couples to access contraception under the Constitution as something that should not be disturbed. Ditto for the wider concept of marital privacy. Collectively, we needed it the past, and may need it in the future.
• I'd like to know the shape of any legislation planned following the amendment. I'd like to see it's consistency with the wording proposed; in particular, if there are areas where straight and gay marriages will need different treatment, or where measures applying to all marriages might need to change.

I'd add a kind of boilerplate one. The definitive text is the Irish version, as is generally the case in the Constitution. In every referendum, I feel that I'm effectively being asked to endorse a text that I can't follow (in common with most of the people voting). I think the first necessary referendum is to remove the primacy of the Irish text, so that at least we have some idea what we're talking about.

tHE vAGGABOND

I was about to post something asking why someone would vote no based on not liking a part of the wording - but then remembered I have done the same thing more than once, indeed several worthy referenda have lost for that same reason - people liking the idea, but hating the wording or that this or that should or should not have also been included/excluded

Billy86

PutDownArtist wrote: »

You're missing the point. If yes wins that is democracy in action.

But my no vote is just as valid, no matter how many repulsive Dubs from the media elite crawl out to badger me into voting yes.

Ok, so if you were voting no before the yes side made you feel bad, tried to make you feel bad, or whatever... what was the reason you were voting no? Because it had to be something before that for you to have been leaning towards no in the first place... so what was it?

munchkin_utd

tHE vAGGABOND wrote: »

I was about to post something asking why someone would vote no based on not liking a part of the wording - but then remembered I have done the same thing more than once, indeed several worthy referenda have lost for that same reason - people liking the idea, but hating the wording or that this or that should or should not have also been included/excluded

was thinking about that too, and didn't a referendum to get rid of the queen get defeated in Australia as the alternative presented was sufficiently unpalatable, i.e. a president elected by parliament ?
So the motion lost, and people wanting a republic voted no, as they did want a president but not elected by the parliament.

Actually, Wikipedia would confirm this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_republic_referendum,_1999

stefanovich

I think a lot of people will be voting no because they dislike homosexuality and do not want to see it normalised further. They are terrified to admit the real reason though because media and popular (or should I say vocal) opinion demonises homophobia [sic]. Only 20 something years ago homosexuality was illegal in Ireland.

Not certain I will vote no, but happy enough with the institution of marriage as it is, a heterosexual construct involving two people who consent, are not within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity etc. etc.

I had never perceived a pressing need to change it - albeit that I think it should not confer any benefit that is not available to civil partnerships - until Labour insisted it was the issue of our times. I am really not sure we should remove the consanguinity aspect, the number who can get married or the gender of the parties and so on. I resent the tired old argument that those who are voting no are homophobes as of course homosexuals are voting no too. I also think the entire referendum is a bit of a sop to Labour and their need to be seen as right on.

Penny Tration

stefanovich wrote: »

I think a lot of people will be voting no because they dislike homosexuality and do not want to see it normalised further. They are terrified to admit the real reason though because media and popular (or should I say vocal) opinion demonises homophobia [sic]. Only 20 something years ago homosexuality was illegal in Ireland.

I do agree that I think a lot of no voters simply do not like homosexuality. The rest of your post... Hmmm.

Only 20 something years ago, people couldn't divorce.

Only 20 something years ago, husbands could rape their wives at will because it wasn't rape, it was their wifely duty.

Just because it's only been decriminalised a relatively short time, doesn't mean it's okay to believe it's wrong.

Penny Tration

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not certain I will vote no, but happy enough with the institution of marriage as it is, a heterosexual construct involving two people who consent, are not within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity etc. etc.

I had never perceived a pressing need to change it - albeit that I think it should not confer any benefit that is not available to civil partnerships - until Labour insisted it was the issue of our times. I am really not sure we should remove the consanguinity aspect, the number who can get married or the gender of the parties and so on. I resent the tired old argument that those who are voting no are homophobes as of course homosexuals are voting no too. I also think the entire referendum is a bit of a sop to Labour and their need to be seen as right on.

The reason a lot of people voting no are being called homophobes is because tbh, their reasons are homophobic. I've seen gay parents called child abusers and likened to paedophiles. Of course they're gonna throw the homophobia argument back at those sort of vile reasons.

Just to point out, I'm a straight woman in a heterosexual relationship, with no intention of getting married or having children (cant have them anyway), so this referendum means nothing to me personally.

Your reasoning for voting no, I may not agree with, but is presented well and you've stated that you think civil partners should have the same rights as married heterosexual couples. So while I don't agree with your opinion, I think it wouldn't be one that many yes voters would call homophobic.

stefanovich

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

Only 20 something years ago, people couldn't divorce.

Divorce at a whim does diminish marriage as it is a promise to stay with someone forever.

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

Only 20 something years ago, husbands could rape their wives at will because it wasn't rape, it was their wifely duty.

Are you sure about this? I do think there is an expectation of sexual interaction within a marriage and I'm pretty sure lack thereof would be grounds for annulment but of course rape is wrong. Why it is relevant I'm not sure.

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

Just because it's only been decriminalised a relatively short time, doesn't mean it's okay to believe it's wrong.

My point was that there is a large percentage of the population who were adults back then who still think that way and who are not going to be persuaded by aggressive yes campaigners.

ardmacha

This referendum is taking something very long established legal concept, marriage, and altering it for the sake of the difference between civil partnership and marriage, so a very big change for little gain. Much of the campaign has been conducted as if civil partnership does not exist, "people just want to be together", and there has been little in way of review of the operation of civil partnership. I think there will be considerable legal confusion when marriages of a form never envisaged by older legislation take place and have to be considered in the light of that legislation.

Many people, while not wishing to prevent or restrict same sex relationships, feel that a heterosexual and a homosexual relationship might have different implications in at least some situations and the present legal separation between them should not be discontinued without mature and reflective consideration, something that hasn't happened.

stefanovich

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

The reason a lot of people voting no are being called homophobes is because tbh, their reasons are homophobic.

Just pointing out that your argument here sort of rests on the assumption that being homophobic is bad.

Just what does homophobia mean? Does it mean more than its direct interpretation like pedophilia? Does it mean you want to attack and kill all homosexuals or does it mean that you are scared of them or their culture?

Penny Tration

stefanovich wrote: »

Just pointing out that your argument here sort of rests on the assumption that being homophobic is bad.

Just what does homophobia mean? Does it mean more than its direct interpretation like pedophilia? Does it mean you want to attack and kill all homosexuals or does it mean that you are scared of them or their culture?

Homophobia is generally taken as an irrational dislike/fear/hatred of gay people.

You speak about the assumption that homophobia is bad - so enlighten me as to what is good about homophobia?

As for the ridiculous hyperbole in the second paragraph - lol.

stefanovich

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

Homophobia is generally taken as an irrational dislike/fear/hatred of gay people.

You speak about the assumption that homophobia is bad - so enlighten me as to what is good about homophobia?

As for the ridiculous hyperbole in the second paragraph - lol.

Hard to find a neutral definition of homophobia. The use of the word "irrational" in yours already shows bias.

Someone should be able to feel antipathy toward homosexuality without being demonised.

Penny Tration

stefanovich wrote: »

Hard to find a neutral definition of homophobia. The use of the word "irrational" in yours already shows bias.

Someone should be able to feel antipathy toward homosexuality without being demonised.

Irrational is the word used to describe a phobia. It's got nothing to do with a bias, it's how phobias are defined.

I see you're dodging my question.

People can feel whatever they like. If they choose to voice their opinions, I equally have the right to insult their opinions.

oscarBravo

stefanovich wrote: »

Someone should be able to feel antipathy toward homosexuality without being demonised.

Why?

Should someone be able to feel antipathy toward women or black people without being called out for it?

stefanovich

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

Irrational is the word used to describe a phobia. It's got nothing to do with a bias, it's how phobias are defined.

Popular usage makes the word a lot more loaded than a simple phobia. There are huge negative connotations, words have a lot of power. Of course it shows bias. What word would you use to describe a person who feels uncomfortable with homosexuality?

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

I see you're dodging my question.

Not really, just not sure why you asked it. Are you really sure you want to go down the road of what is good about homophobia? The word is too loaded and I can't really use it in good faith. People are entitled to a variance of opinions however.

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

People can feel whatever they like. If they choose to voice their opinions, I equally have the right to insult their opinions.

Fair enough!

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why?

Should someone be able to feel antipathy toward women or black people without being called out for it?

Why are you comparing this to racism and sexism?

sunshine and showers

stefanovich wrote: »

Why are you comparing this to racism and sexism?

That comparison is made for a very simple reason: racism and sexism are based on discrimination against people for something they can't help - ie the colour of their skin or their gender.

Being "against" gay people (homophobia or whatever you choose to call it) is similar. People can't help being gay. They are born that way.

Guy:Incognito

sunshine and showers wrote: »

They are born that way.

I sense an incoming tangent that attempts to distance it from the rest of the post.

sunshine and showers

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I sense an incoming tangent that attempts to distance it from the rest of the post.

If people still believe that people aren't born gay, then I really have nothing to say to them to try to convince them otherwise. Arguing with that kind of ignorance is less productive than banging your head off a brick wall.

Royal Legend

Saying that people who vote No are homophobic is like saying that people who feel uncomfortable around black people are Nazi's.

elfy4eva

Royal Legend wrote: »

Saying that people who vote No are homophobic is akin to saying that people who feel uncomfortable around black people are Nazi's

No it's not that's ridiculous....it's like calling people who are uncomfortable with black people xenophobic which it is.

Royal Legend

elfy4eva wrote: »

no it's not that's ridiculous....it's like calling people who are uncomfortable with black people xenophobic which it is.

People can be uncomfortable around people because they do not understand their culture, creed or beliefs, it does not make them xenophobic, it just means they are uncomfortable with the unknown or something they are unfamiliar with.
Yes there are homophobic people that will definitely vote No, but there are also others that will vote No because they do not fully understand the amendment and will look to keep the status quo and others that will vote No because the church they worship in says vote No, it does not make them homophobic.

This unfair labelling of people, this Political Correctness that you must have the popular view or else you get labelled a racist or a homophobe is getting worse by the day.

Royal Legend

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The unfair labelling of people as liberals or politically correct for being uncomfortable around people with homophobic or racist views is getting worse by the day.

Yes it has gone from one extreme to the other, the original extreme was that if you had a left agenda, supported gays, etc etc then you were a wimpy liberal that could never be let into power.

Now if someone voices an alternative opinion on anything to do with race, creed or sexuality, then they are labelled as being ignorant people, racist, homophobic.

Enda Kenny will not debate this issue IMO because he does not believe in it, he is using this referendum as a deflection away from Water, Banks, Health. It is more important for him to sway to the populist view, he is using this IMO as a legacy issue for him and his government.

C14N

Royal Legend wrote: »

Yes it has gone from one extreme to the other, the original extreme was that if you had a left agenda, supported gays, etc etc then you were a wimpy liberal that could never be let into power.

Now if someone voices an alternative opinion on anything to do with race, creed or sexuality, then they are labelled as being ignorant people, racist, homophobic.

That's because that's what those words were coined to describe. It's really weird the number of people who passionately argue points that are fundamentally homophobic and are then upset when they're labelled as homophobes. The belief that gay people should not be entitled to the same rights before the state as heterosexuals is undisputedly homophobic. It's discrimination against homosexuals because you do not think a gay couple should have the same legal status as a straight one (often it's extended further than this by also believing a gay couple are inherently going be substandard as parents). From Mirriam-Webster's dictionary:

Definition of HOMOPHOBIA

: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

If you're going to go against it, at least own the homophobia and try to defend it.

Royal Legend

C14N wrote: »

That's because that's what those words were coined to describe. It's really weird the number of people who passionately argue points that are fundamentally homophobic and are then upset when they're labelled as homophobes. The belief that gay people should not be entitled to the same rights before the state as heterosexuals is undisputedly homophobic. It's discrimination against homosexuals because you do not think a gay couple should have the same legal status as a straight one (often it's extended further than this by also believing a gay couple are inherently going be substandard as parents). From Mirriam-Webster's dictionary:



If you're going to go against it, at least own the homophobia and try to defend it.

P.S I have not decided what way to vote yet, but people's assertion that if I or anyone votes No makes them homophobic is complete BS.

You are deciding to pigeon hole me just because I am debating an opinion versus yours, read my post on the thread that was closed earlier on this same subject and then come back to me.
Tunnel vision is not a good way to look at the world.

C14N

Royal Legend wrote: »

P.S I have not decided what way to vote yet, but people's assertion that if I or anyone votes No makes them homophobic is complete BS.

You are deciding to pigeon hole me just because I am debating an opinion versus yours, read my post on the thread that was closed earlier on this same subject and then come back to me.
Tunnel vision is not a good way to look at the world.

I have said nothing about you personally. All I've said is that the belief that homosexual people should not be entitled to the legal privileges of marriage is intrinsically homophobic, which it is. It fits very neatly into the definition of the word and that's why people who hold the belief are often called "homophobic".

pauliebdub

I'm voting yes, but I've heard quite a few different opinions why people are voting no. I'm from rural Ireland and have encountered a lot of no's amongst friends and neighbours.

One reason is fear of change, if something isn't broken why fix it? Heterosexual marriage should be kept special and the way it is.

Another reason is a discomfort with gay men in particular, a few straight men have said that it is not healthy or should be encouraged or normalised.

Another reason is religion, if the church are against it then it's a no.

A few people I know have moved to the yes side due to the media coverage, there's nothing like an emotive story to appeal to peoples better nature.

pauliebdub

It's worth noting that nobody has mentioned children or surrogacy when explaining their reasons for voting no.

Royal Legend

pauliebdub wrote: »

I'm voting yes, but I've heard quite a few different opinions why people are voting no. I'm from rural Ireland and have encountered a lot of no's amongst friends and neighbours.

One reason is fear of change, if something isn't broken why fix it? Heterosexual marriage should be kept special and the way it is.

Another reason is a discomfort with gay men in particular, a few straight men have said that it is not healthy or should be encouraged or normalised.

Another reason is religion, if the church are against it then it's a no.

A few people I know have moved to the yes side due to the media coverage, there's nothing like an emotive story to appeal to peoples better nature.

People who fit into your second point for voting No could be seen as homophobic, but allow for the possibility that they have never met a homosexual or have met some and cannot connect, does been shy to talk to homosexuals or just unable to fit into a way of thinking make those people homophobic?

Point 1 and 3 I cannot see how someone can then define these groups of people as homophobic.

If you want to see real homophobia, go to Russia, absolutely what they are preaching there from a government standpoint is extreme homophobia

Royal Legend

C14N wrote: »

I have said nothing about you personally. All I've said is that the belief that homosexual people should not be entitled to the legal privileges of marriage is intrinsically homophobic, which it is. It fits very neatly into the definition of the word and that's why people who hold the belief are often called "homophobic".

Not if people believe through their religion that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. Catholics are not the only ones to have this view. So what is being stated is that to be Catholic is to be homophobic

In this day and age, religion has become an easy target. The de-churching of this country is for a different debate.

pauliebdub

Royal Legend wrote: »

People who fit into your second point for voting No could be seen as homophobic, but allow for the possibility that they have never met a homosexual or have met some and cannot connect, does been shy to talk to homosexuals or just unable to fit into a way of thinking make those people homophobic?

I agree with this, I wouldn't call any of these people homophobic, they're just uncomfortable with unfamiliar situations having grown up and lived in a fairly insular rural community. I don't know if they have ever met anyone who is openly gay.