SSM Referendum Spring 2015

SW wrote: »

They faked being married, it doesn't say they actually got married. It doesn't say they were heterosexual.

The lead detective said this could also happened with a male/female couple. In addition to that, I notice that the police didn't dismiss the reports of abuse just because the abusers happened to be two men posing as a married couple.

Nothing in this story suggests that same-sex marriage should be banned anymore than heterosexual marriage should be banned.

So yeah, it still is insane to use child molesters as an excuse to bar LGBT from marrying.

We can be reasonably certain they weren't married, because they were Australian residents and Australia doesn't allow gay people to marry.

Although it's not entirely clear, my reading of the story is that they claimed to be married after being arrested in the States, as an attempt to drum up additional public sympathy for their case.

Their adoption of the child certainly wasn't granted because they were married because Australian authorities would have known the couple weren't married and couldn't be married. In fact, I'm wondering if they had joint custody at all, because the Australian state they lived in doesn't permit joint adoption by gay people in any circumstances.

I've went through this thread quite slowly; along the way I've found quite a number of posts that I want to respond to which I found interesting in some form (they aren't necessarily all homophobic, just elements I feel necessarily to touch upon or aspects to include), although admittedly this isn't nearly all of them as eventually I just gave up. I've grouped them in categories to make it somewhat easier to read, and to break up what would otherwise be a wall of quotes. It should be noted that this isn't necessarily designed to respond to the individuals featured in the quotes, merely some of the ideas/points being conveyed so that readers undecided on the issue may adequately be persuaded one way or the other.

RobertKK wrote: »

It is natural and I never said there was anything wrong with it.

I just find the equality argument in regards to marriage as weak, as it is really just for perception of equality, as nature denies what some would argue is a 'right' if they could change it.

Changing marriage to allow same sex marriage does not equate to equality, when the possibility in a marriage of couples of same sex couples of child bearing age are not the same as the possibilities for those of the opposite sex.

RobertKK wrote: »

Well we hear the term 'marriage equality', I just think it is a stupid term when the possibilities for couples of child bearing age are different for heterosexual couples compared to homosexual couples within a marriage.

It makes the people who use the term seem uneducated if they are arguing for something and different possibilities exist for heterosexual compared to homosexual.
It is viewing different possibilities within marriage as equal, where one groups has a high percentage chance of one outcome and the other has no chance of the same outcome.
It is a stupid term as it is not marriage equality.

To start off, we have comments about 'marriage equality' and the supposed stupidity of the term. The issue that you are having with this is a misunderstanding with regards to the 'equality'. It does not mean that there are no differences. In fact, it must assume that there as otherwise there would only be one 'thing'. In relation to 'same sex marriage' there is the clear and blatant difference in the marriage in that one marriage would compose of two people of the opposite sex, while the other would compose of two people of the same sex. The goal of 'marriage equality' is that they are treated the same, regardless of the differences which exist. See also the definition of 'gender equality'

United Nations wrote:

efers to the equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities of women and men and girls and boys. Equality does not mean that women and men will become the same but that women’s and men’s rights, responsibilities and opportunities will not depend on whether they are born male or female. Gender equality implies that the interests, needs and priorities of both women and men are taken into consideration, recognizing the diversity of different groups of women and men.

This is also why civil partnership is currently not acceptable; they do not carry with them the same rights, and they are not treated as the same thing (inequality). Some of the differences include:
"-does not permit children to have a legally recognised relationship with their parents - only the biological one. This causes all sorts of practical problems for hundreds of families with schools and hospitals as well as around guardianship, access and custody. In the worst case, it could mean that a child is taken away from a parent and put into care on the death of the biological parent.
-does not recognise same sex couples' rights to many social supports that may be needed in hardship situations and may literally leave a loved one out in the cold.
defines the home of civil partners as a "shared home", rather than a "family home" , as is the case for married couples. This has implications for the protection of dependent children living in this home and also means a lack of protection for civil partners who are deserted"

but there ultimatly are over 160 differences between civil partnership and marriage (source: marriagequality.ie/marriageaudit/full-list). You are removing a huge amount of legal rights and security from people, and removing the display of love and commitement that engaging in a civil marriage with another is indicative of. If individuals of the same sex are acting as a married couple would in their day-to-day lives, I would adamantly like you to propose a supported reason (with facts and peer-reviewed studies) that they should not be extended the same legal rights that a married couple where both participants are of the opposite gender currently have.

Now, responding to your comments about child-bearing, if the purpose of marriage is to procreate, then one must be in favour of barring marriage from those, homosexual, lesbian, heterosexual, or otherwise that have absolutely no desire, or ability to procreate. If you stringently believe that procreation is the sole purpose of marriage, it must be restricted from all who are unable to do so, be it for medical reasons (inferitility), sexual orientation, or age. In arguing this, you are also overlooking the many legal rights that pertain to marriage which don't impact children or procreation, legal rights which rebuke the idea that it is solely to do with procreation. Yet even without this legal aspect, you have ran into another flaw with this argument; you are assuming that homosexual couples cannot have children, which is not the case. Through adoption, surrogacy, or even a past relationship, gay couples may possess children. In the US, in fact, 37% of LGBT people have a child (williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/lgbt-parenting-in-the-united-states/). If marriage is truly to be centred around the rearing of children, why should this not apply to a gay couple rearing a child just as it would a heterosexual couple (before you jump in with 'a child needs a father and a mother', this is commented on later!)? To quote a recent ruling "Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have."

Perhaps one would refute that it's not 'natural' in which case you are sorely mistaken, with it present throughout the animal kingdom (telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5550488/Homosexual-behaviour-widespread-in-animals-according-to-new-study.html and pactiss.org/2011/11/17/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality/ and wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior and wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals and libchrist.com/other/homosexual/sheepandanimals.html [I hate this website, but the sources are listed at the bottom, so please check them out if you oppose the website itself and try to use that as a response, thanks]). It is also present in humans, ourselves 'natural' things. To state it is 'unnatural' requires us to reject the statistically significant prevelance. The natural reason for homosexuality is a current debate in evolutionary biology, that's correct, yet there are numerous very plausible hypotheses as to why this could occur (bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486), and the evolutionary benefit that homosexuality entails.

Nobody is proposing that religious institutions be forced to defy their doctrines, it is civil marriage that people are seeking, so let's not conflate the two. This is not a spiritual matter, it's a secular one. This is ignoring how marriage predates modern religions of course. If you are suggesting we abolish marriage in all forms except within religious institutions, then what can be done about all of these (citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/married_couples/how_marriage_changes_your_legal_status.html) rights? Ultimately, it'll be marriage in all but name only unless you can suggest a realistic scenario, that can be implemented in a plausible manner, that somehow differs from what marriage currently is.

Stinicker wrote: »

I am voting no because I believe Marriage is for heterosexual couples only. Left-wing liberal beliefs like this are not good for Ireland, like I can never understand why a man would want to marry another man. It makes no sense and while I am myself am sympathetic towards lots of things the attitudes of the gay community is as if they are somehow superior to everyone else and that they are are so discriminated against. Looking back at that guy "Panti" on RTE a few months ago and the furore about it and they way the way the other guy was ostracised leads me to believe there is a lot more intolerant people in the left wing than the right which really shows them up as hypocrites.

I am also against Gay adoption and believe children who are adopted should be given the same upbringing as everyone else and have a father and mother in their lives.

I'm not shy to say I'm voting No and while it's fine for people have the privacy of their bedroom and private lives I just wish they'd stop pontificating about it to the rest of society and whining about being oppressed. Go to Saudi Arabia or much of the Middle East, Africa etc. and then you'll know what true oppression is.

fran17 wrote: »

the problem with attempting to gather any credible data surrounding how this referendum would go is that any individual who makes the slightest leaning towards voting no in the public domain is automatically labelled a "homophobe" and a vicious attack and character assassination campaign by the pro lobby groups ensue.or likewise when the good people of Ireland are polled on the street they now feel they cannot give there true opinion because we're now told its not politically correct to disagree with this issue.
on the day of this referendum people can vote in secret with the security of knowing that they wont be vilified in the polling booth for expressing there democratic right to have a different opinion.i believe this referendum will be defeated

dxhound2005 wrote: »

You call it intolerant. They could argue that in their thinking marriage means man woman and is designed for procreation in a regulated manner. Or they might just be homophobic, as is a feature of society worldwide and through all time. Whatever the result on the day it will be whoever bothers to vote will decide and all sides will have to accept it.

Woodville56 wrote: »

I agree on this point and like I said in previous postings in this thread, name calling and throwing abusive comments each way won't add to the debate. I have no problem with same sex marriage, none whatsoever but what I do have a problem with is the pro SSM lobby labelling as homophobic or intolerant anyone who, for whatever reason, votes no in the upcoming referendum. I believe in equality across the board, no exceptions, but those supporting gay marriage are way off the mark in chastising and name calling people who don't see things their way. If the debate gets hung up on homophobic name calling, I've no doubt that the anti gay marriage crowd will use that very term as a means to rustle up support to their cause. No amount of name calling and mudslinging will make someone vote yeah or nay in the privacy of the polling booth. In short it's not doing the SSM lobby any favours to be out there telling the electorate that if they don't vote in favour of this legislation they're being homophobic ! That's a cheap shot and won't convince anyone who is undecided or doubtful how to vote, and it will probably alienate more that it will gain in terms of public support. So maybe more emphasis on the reasons why gay marriage is desireable and meaningful for those who support it would be a better approach.

denhaagenite wrote: »

My apologies, I was under the impression that she had gone to see a drag show (obv I'm more prejudiced than I thought, presuming that a lesbian was at the Abbey for a drag show:/).

My opinion stands though, Rory O Neill can be an activist as long as he's not feigning hysteria and painting everyone gay, lesbian, trans, bi, drag with the same brush and chucking any opinion or say that straight people have in issues to do with gay rights out because of their sexuality. I'm sure he's experienced prejudices, but a lot of us have and sometimes for the most minute of things. I felt that some of what he had to say was important for gay people to hear, but some of it was trying to separate himself to make himself "special". Also I'm sure it didn't do his business any harm.

And again, "Drag Queen" is not a sexuality, it is a preference. Gay, straight, bi are sexualities. Male, female, transgender are genders.

Off topic though, I am for gay marriage but definitely think that a lot of the reason that it hasn't yet been implemented is that these things take time legally. I grew up in Ireland in the 80s and left 7 years ago. Now living in a country where homosexuality is totally accepted, where gay marriage has been in place for years, where there is gay sex education is taught in schools I can see that Ireland has a long way to go but general consensus towards gay people has been good for a while and will continue to improve. I'm often almost ashamed of Irish society for a lot of things but from my own experience I'm quite proud of the level of acceptance of homosexuality in urban Ireland, all things considered. We're not going to get anywhere by screaming at homophobes for being homophobic.

denhaagenite wrote: »

My brother and his friend were called a homophobic expletive when they crossed a street once. Neither of them are gay. Was it homophobia or bigotry? No- it was just some dragged up scut in a car. Same anecdote that Rory O Neill had, only difference is that they paid no attention to it and he did. I don't spend my whole day analysing what people have said to me in the past about being a woman, Irish, an immigrant, whatever else- I know that some people don't like it but tough. It's their problem, not mine.

Because wars were fought so that women were given an equal place in society alongside men (not 100% there yet but improving every day). Ireland fought for sovereignty and won. I wasn't treated equally when I moved to a strange country with a strange language but because of the internet, my own work at integration and the EU I have the freedom to live where I like and how I like in this country. And gay equality is also taking time- because that's how equality works.

A few small minded people might be homophobic but they are the minority. The referendum, I have no doubt, will lead to marriage equality. It is a bureaucracy, a formality, nothing else. Some people are still racist, sexist, xenophobic and always will be. It's a shame, but it's a fact and shouting at them won't change anything.

NewCorkLad wrote: »

At the same time not everyone who is against marraige equality is a homophobic bigot. There are people in this world who have no problem with the gay community and support it in every other way but who were brought up with the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman and this is a belief that is so ingrained it will never be changed.

This might not be right in your or most peoples opinion but this is how they feel and accusing people like this as homophobic bigots will take the debate nowhere.

RobertKK wrote: »

You are the one that is hateful if you believe I am because I don't hate anyone. I think hate is the worse trait for any human, it just adds a weight one has to carry around, it may not directly affect the person one might hate, it affects the person who holds the hate.
I hope you can stop hating me, as the feeling is not mutual.

It is perceived embarrassment, it is not a reason to vote yes or no. Anyone moritified by any outcome has little to worry about in life. I wish that is all I had to to concern me.


I never said I had ownership over anything, but as a citizen of this state I have a right to cast my vote on civil marriage, I will not vote for more of something I oppose.
I have also stated in the past about marriage without God for those who don't believe in a God. But that will be ignored.

denhaagenite wrote: »

Look folks, while I don't agree with RobertKK's views, he is voting no and is entitled to exercise his civil liberties in doing so- he is not campaigning for the "No" side. He doesn't agree with any civil marriage as he outlined a few pages back so I don't see how anyone can act incredulous at his opposition to SSM, which would be civil marriage. Fair enough, his comment re: hetero paedos adopting was a tangent of epic proportions but I think if you keep pushing someone who has a strong belief to provide more and more reasons as to why they disagree, that's probably what's going to happen.

He has his opinions, you have yours. Nobody needs to ram anything down anyone's throat. I think he has a prejudice (he is RC so he has to have) but I wouldn't go so far as to say he is homophobic.

fran17 wrote: »

so the little old lady who votes no because of a strong religious belief or the man who votes no because he feels it is eroding his understanding of the family unit are "homophobes". fact?

Cydoniac wrote: »

It depends on what you define as 'homophobe', but they are imposing a pretty unfair limit on others based on their own opinion. Do you think that's very fair? If I don't like a kind of television show should I strive to stop other people watching it?

Just a reminder of your own stance on this subject again, just to help other posters understand;

fran17 wrote: »

yes its a question that none of us KNOW the answer to,its your opinion I request?as it was my opinion I gave you in relation to the question you asked. quid pro quo

Most of these quotes are related in some part to 'oppression', but parts are related to adoption (and this is also something I've had to choose not to quote throughout the thread as it entwined with many other aspects, such as the 'marriage equality' aspect above).

Regarding the topic of homosexual couples rearing children, I would like to direct those who feel a 'father and mother figure are necessary' to studies which clearly show an overall negligible difference between children being raised by same-sex couples in comparison to more common couples between two people of differing genders.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20879687 wrote:

The results show that children of same-sex couples are as likely to make normal progress through school as the children of most other family structures.

tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15504280802177615#.U7SQOfldWSo wrote:

Results confirm previous studies in this current body of literature, suggesting that children raised by same-sex parents fare equally well to children raised by heterosexual parents.

(any more than the abstract has to be purchased, sorry)

pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/126/1/28.abstract wrote:

Adolescents who have been reared in lesbian-mother families since birth demonstrate healthy psychological adjustment. These findings have implications for the clinical care of adolescents and for pediatricians who are consulted on matters that pertain to same-sex parenting.

/pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/18/peds.2013-0377.full.pdf+html wrote:

(I can't copy and paste quotes, but ultimately the AAP concludes that it's in the best interest of children that there is marriage equality as children being raised by same-sex couples benefit from it, and that the gender of both parents have little effect on the child's development)

(this is a metastudy so is extra-exciting)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9586218 wrote:

These results held true for teacher reports as well as for parent reports. Variables associated with family interactions and processes were, however, significantly related to indices of children's adjustment. Parents who were experiencing higher levels of parenting stress, higher levels of interparental conflict, and lower levels of love for each other had children who exhibited more behavior problems.

I would ask that if you've issues with some of these studies, that you don't cite 'there are studies for every viewpoint' or something of a similar fashion which amounts to very little in way of objection ultimately, but instead please clarify what you believe to be the methalogical faults in these studies and meta-analyses that lead them towards what you believe to be an incorrect conclusion. I've avoided the entire issue of how 'needing a man and a woman' completely ignores divorced and single parents as some of these studies also factor this into their analyses by examining them too.

Now, regarding the oppressive aspect, and homophobia itself. The first thing that must be established as to what homophobia is, and this is going to be something major in the run up to the referendum in Spring given that we've seen murmurings of it already with Panti Ross' comments.

I cant quote this but its the Google Cache version of europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do%3FpubRef%3D-//EP//NONSGML%2BTA%2BP6-TA-2006-0018%2B0%2BDOC%2BWORD%2BV0//EN+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie wrote:

A. whereas homophobia can be defined as an irrational fear of and aversion to homosexuality and to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people based on prejudice and similar to racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism and sexism,

B. whereas homophobia manifests itself in the private and public spheres in different forms, such as hate speech and incitement to discrimination, ridicule and verbal, psychological and physical violence, persecution and murder, discrimination in violation of the principle of equality and unjustified and unreasonable limitations of rights, which are often hidden behind justifications based on public order, religious freedom and the right to conscientious objection.

Now, the primary thing that many will cite with regards to 'homophobia' is the '-phobia' aspect suggest it must mean an irrational fear of homosexuals. This is actually not the correct etymology of the word, and the word itself is an etymological nightmare through its terrible composition. First, 'homo' would be interpretted as either 'same' or 'man' due to the suffix of '-phobia', yet this would imply 'homophobia' to mean 'fear of sameness' or 'fear of man'. Obviously, these are not correct. In truth, the word was coined not due to an irrational fear of homosexuals, but to refer to (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia#Origins) "heterosexual men's fear that others might think they are gay", with the 'irrational fear of homosexuals' later stemming from the incorrect assumption that prejudice towards homosexuals was necessarily based in a fear. Ultimately, ignoring the origins of the word, languages are not concrete, and evolve, and this word, in particular, has taken on a meaning similar to that of racism and sexism, where it is used to describe prejudice/discrimination. If people wish to be overly semantic/pedantic, it is their prerogative, yet this focusing upon the '-phobia' part, and liking it towards something comparable to a 'fear of heights' or 'fear of spiders' is quite disingenuous. This isn't really a matter of 'opinion' as to what it means, when it has been accepted legally and socially, and readings to the contrary focus upon an incorrect presumption about the origin of the word (which, as highlighted, has nothing to do with a fear of homosexual people, but about being perceived incorrectly as homosexual). Even if you are adamant that the word means an irrational fear of homosexuals, if you can recognise the individual is trying to say 'you have some prejudices against homosexuals', there's little need to resort to the semantics when you can instead respond to what you are aware is the accusation.

Anyway, the semantics of it out of the way, the first thing that must be emphasised is that homophobia being cited does not mean the homophobic individual is a terrible person, or without good qualities. Citing 'homophobia' in reaction to a comment is not designed to shut down conversation, but to make the individual it is being directed at to question their own values, prejudices, and beliefs. With regards to whether or not it is homophobiato be against same sex marriage, unless the individual can demonstrate that it is not justified based "on public order, religious freedom and the right to conscientious objection.", it is, unfortuantely, in the eyes of the European Parliament, homophobia. One of the most important things regarding the religious aspect that must be considered is that, if the individual is so adamant about it being immoral in the eyes of god (and this is ignoring the distance that should exist between religion and state), they must also be a firm believer in some of the rather disgusting gender disparity that exists in the bible, complete objection to abortion and divorce, and a refusal to use birth control methods, and a complete unwillingness to engage in sex outside of marriage, amongst various other codes of conduct stated or implied throughout the bible. If not, and the reader is free to pick-and-choose what they wish to follow adamantally, how is it not personal prejudice that they choose to fervently follow homophobic elements yet not other elements? If you wish to hide behind religious adherence as a reason to oppose it, unless you can demonstrate that you follow all aspects of the religion stringently, this still comes down to personal judgement, where you view homosexual relations being wrong as more significant than other aspects without any real reason other than some form of prejudice to do so. Even still, institutions themselves can be prejudiced, as is the case in this instance. Another user mentioned that if somebody's system of belief in the 1960s in America was that black individuals were inferior they would be regarded as racist, and this applies to this situation quite wonderfully. You don't necessarily need to 'hate', 'despise', or 'abhor' homosexual people to be homophobic, just as you don't need to hate those of a different race to be racist, the possession of prejudices, which is not necessarily your fault as they are a product of societal outlooks and the views of institutions, is enough; what we need to look at is how to remove these prejudices, regardless of who they're towards, so that everybody is welcome, and free to be who they are, with equality; a goal that I really don't see how anybody could stand against for any reason.

Asking to remain silent with regards to citing homophobia is requesting to 'tolerate my intolerance'. If we ignore the issue, nothing can be resolved, and people aren't challenged to self-examine potential prejudices. Irish people do not have a right to hate speech, where 'hatred' means hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation (irishstatutebook.ie/1989/en/act/pub/0019/print.html), and even ignoring this, while people may have a right to their opinion, people also have a right to challenge, disagree with, dismiss, and call somebody out on their opinion. With regards to potential defamation, a list of some defences against this claim can be found here (anthonyjoyce.ie/defamation-ireland) and it's important to note that if a claim can be proven to be largely true, defamation does not apply.

There is, ultimately, a homophobia, and oppression towards homosexual individuals throughout Irish society today. Nobody will argue it is comparable to what is featured in the likes of Russia or countries where it is punishable by death, and raising these does nothing to refute the claim that there is a degree of homophobia in Irish society. With an Irish study having found that:

Supporting LGBT Lives: A Study of the Mental Health and Well-Being of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People: nosp.ie/lgbt_lives_dec_2008.pdf wrote:

Eighty percent of online survey participants had experienced verbal abuse, and a quarter of all
respondents reporting having experienced physical violence, as a consequence of their LGBT
identification.
• Two fifths of survey respondents had been threatened with physical violence because they were, or
were thought to be LGBT, with a quarter of respondents reporting having been punched, kicked or
beaten as a result of their LGBT status.
• Almost 8% reported being attacked with a weapon or implement (such as a knife, gun, bottle, or stick)
on at least one occasion.
• Nine percent reported that they had been attacked sexually on at least one occasion as a consequence
of being LGBT.
Fifty eight percent of the overall survey sample and half of all current school goers reported the
existence of homophobic bullying in their schools. Over half of all online survey respondents reported
having been called abusive names related to their sexual orientation or gender identity by fellow
students, while 8% admitted to having experienced name-calling by staff while in school.
• Forty percent of online survey participants indicated that they had been verbally threatened by fellow
students because they were, or were thought to be LGBT, while 4% of the sample had been verbally
threatened by staff.
• A quarter of the overall sample had been physically threatened by their peers. Over one percent had
been physically threatened by staff.
Just over a quarter of those who had ever been employed reported having been called abusive names
related to their sexual orientation or transgender identity by work colleagues.
• Fifteen percent of those who had ever been employed reported that they had experienced verbal
threats because they were, or were believed to be, LGBT.
• Almost 7% reported having been physically threatened by a work colleague, while almost 10%
admitted to having missed work because they were afraid of being hurt or felt threatened because of
their LGBT identity.
The vast majority of online survey participants (86%), and 90% of in-depth interview participants,
reported having experienced feelings of depression at some point in their lives.
• Two thirds of respondents to the online survey reported having felt down or depressed in the past 12
months, and over two fifths reported having felt depressed in the previous 30 days.
• Almost 25% of the sample had taken medication prescribed by a doctor for the treatment of anxiety or
depression at some stage, and 8% of the sample were currently taking such medications
Over 60 % of in-depth interview participants attributed the experience of depression directly to social
and/or personal challenges connected with their LGBT identity. They identified a range of psychological
and external stressors which contributed to their psychological distress, including the stigma that LGBT
people experience, their lack of integration with the community, their social isolation and problems
of self-acceptance, low levels of, and/or limited access to, formal or informal mechanisms of social/
psychological support.
• Participants who experienced homophobic bullying or other forms of victimisation were particularly
susceptible to depression.
Ninety two percent of the survey sample were current drinkers, about half of whom consumed alcohol
on a weekly basis.
• The vast majority of survey respondents who drank (84%) also reported that they engaged in heavy
episodic or ‘binge’ drinking either intermittently or regularly, a fifth of whom did so at least twice a
week.
• Over 40% of survey respondents reported that their alcohol consumption made them ‘feel bad or
guilty’ and that almost 60% felt they should reduce their intake of alcohol.
• Responses to standardised measures of alcohol use (CAGE and AUDIT-C) suggest that the alcohol
consumption patterns of a significant minority of online survey participants could be characterised as
problematic, as they exceeded the threshold for hazardous drinking or probable alcohol misuse.
Twenty seven percent of online survey respondents and a similar proportion of in-depth interview
participants indicated that they had self-harmed at least once in their life. However, the proportion of
the overall survey sample that had harmed themselves intentionally in the recent past was relatively
low.
• Six percent reported that they had harmed themselves intentionally within the previous 12 months,
while 3% had self-harmed within the last thirty days.
• The average length of time that survey respondents had self-harmed for was just over four and half
years. A number of in-depth interview participants also reported multiple episodes of self-harm over a
period of two or more years.
• Forty six percent of those who had self-harmed also reported having attempted suicide on at least one
occasion.
Almost a fifth of online survey respondents (17.7 %), and almost one third of in-depth interview
participants had attempted suicide at least once in their lifetime.
• Just under two thirds of survey participants, and over a half of in-depth interview participants who had
ever attempted to take their lives, did so on more than one occasion.
• Fourteen percent of the overall survey sample had sometimes or often given serious consideration to
the idea of ending their own life within the previous year.

(this in particular goes into extreme detail about the methodology, including potential sources of error)

These are absolutely horrifying statistics, which unfortunately correlate to similar figures in the United States, where 40% of homeless youths are in the LGBT community (williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Durso-Gates-LGBT-Homeless-Youth-Survey-July-2012.pdf ), 21% of hate crimes being due to sexual orientation (fbi.gov/news/stories/2012/december/annual-hate-crimes-report-released/annual-hate-crimes-report-released), with an upto 400% increased risk of substance abuse (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2680081/), and, jumping back to Ireland for a moment, seven times more likely to attempt suicide than their peers (seanduke.com/2013/04/01/gay-people-in-ireland-seven-times-more-likely-to-attempt-suicide/). To assume the casual homophobia we experience in the form of slurs (yes, the homophobic slurs your heterosexual friend experienced is part of what forms this culture where being homosexual is seen as something bad). To try and diminish these horrifying statistics by claiming it has nothing to do with any form of homophobia prevelant in our society, without some very well founded basis that refutes the above conclusions, is quite disrespectful to those who face the direct brunt of it. By legalising same-sex marriage you go one step further in solidifying it as something normal, that one doesn't need to be embarassed about, and removing some of the stigma that may be attributed to being gay or lesbian, while simultaneously granting additional legal rights to homosexual couples, and helping to break some of the harmful stereotypes surrounding it.

padd b1975 wrote: »

Generally speaking....

A freewheeling attitude to sexual promiscuity, a lot of gay men would have little or no concept of monogamy and the figures for HIV/ AIDS amongst gays are beyond shocking-they are a disgrace with the amount of info and precautions freely available.


Obviously I accept there are exceptions, but unless attitudes to the above change drastically amongst gays, (can't see it happening myself any day soon) I will be voting no.

padd b1975 wrote: »

Of course it's to do with their sexuality.

The sexual behaviour and attitudes of a gay man differs enormously from that of a straight guy.

padd b1975 wrote: »

No it's not.

Figures for AIDS/HIV amongst gays are easily googled.

If you think the rest is misinformation, you know very little about the lifestyle of gays in general.

padd b1975 wrote: »

Google AIDS/HIV amongst gay men.

And as a follow up......Why do so many gay men lack the self-respect to practice safe sex??


Aaaand. Go!

padd b1975 wrote: »

It's what happens when the harsh reality of married life sets in that concerns me.
A lot of gay men may find it difficult to switch off from their previous lifestyle.


I feel they could marry because it's fashionable or trendy or because they want an attention-seeking party. Marriage and the commitment it brings is something that is totally alien to the gay community.

I honestly have no idea.

Just one while I was married, wish I could say the same for the wife though!

Daith wrote: »

This is a fact? How are you so sure?

While a lot of this is quite insulting, padd is correct in stating that HIV skews heavily towards homosexual individuals, with 46% of new diagnoses occuring in men who have sex with men compared to 38% in individuals who engage solely in heterosexual relationships (dublinaidsalliance.ie/uploads/HPSC%20HIV%20stats%202013.pdf). This may seem like a small difference, but when considering the rate of homosexuality being estimated as somewhere below 10%, is quite large and it is unfortunately a correct statement to say that HIV is transmitted amongst homosexual males more than it is amongst heterosexual couples. Fortunately, his correct assertions end there, as the idea that it is due to a 'lifestyle', 'lack of self-respect', or a difference in the behaviour of heterosexual and homosexual individuals, is sorely mistaken, as a variety of factors, including the prevelance of homophobia in society sending people to more sleazy areas to hook-up discreetly (which would be combatted by legalisation of same-sex marriage, actually, making the otherwise irrelevant discussion about STDs in relation to marriage equality somewhat more relevant), increased risk due to anal sex's risk, a desire for increased intimacy by foregoing condoms, understimating the prevalence of HIV and assuming the risk is exaggerated, ignoring proper, improved treatment making it seem less serious than it once was, embarassment with visiting STD clinics for younger individuals, assuming HIV-status based on irrelevant factors, and being victim to a cheating partner who exposes you to additional risk under the assumption that you're engaging in a monogamous relationship, increase this risk significantly. Either way, forbidding same sex marriage on the basis that homosexual males are at an increased risk of HIV is completely counter-intuitive as legalising it would be greater in lower this rate rather than augment it. I'm not really sure where the logic of it increasing the rate of STD transmissions is if I'm honest.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Try writing an article in a newspaper (for example) saying that celebrity X is a racist. See how long it takes for legal letters to start flying.

This nonsense of believing that one can slander people and get away with it is hilarious.

Somewhat noted above, but defamation has some key defenses listed here: anthonyjoyce.ie/defamation-ireland. The truth of a claim is one of the most significant of these, and one cannot conflate refusing to go to trial with a fear that one would lose. Defamation trials would end up time-consuming and costly for the individuals involved, and it is reasonable to assume that they felt compensation would amount to a lower amount than what would be paid in legal fees and time should it go to court, with the risk of losing/having to settle on top of this.

RobertKK wrote: »

Heterosexual marriage has risks, but two men are a much higher risk than two women or a man and a woman.

A priest is not allowed under church rules for child protection to be alone with a child, to prevent abuse and to prevent false allegations. A child molester would not join the church now, it doesn't make sense, it has been exposed and the church's own child safety standards were deemed to be higher than what the state requires.

I am showing them empathy, I am thinking of the hurt that is possible if paedophiles do to homosexuals what they did to priests.

RobertKK wrote: »

It is easier to hide abuse in a family setting. We know from cases it is often years after the abuse the abuser is exposed by the victim.

RobertKK wrote: »

The stats show men are many many more times likely to abuse than a woman is.
The case is strong for woman/woman adoption, much weaker for men overall.

This (psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html) quite thoroughly deconstructs there being any link between paedophilia and homosexuality. Some of your arguments are not really well founded also as while most children will know the abuser, it is twice as likely to be somebody outside of the family unit tham it is to be somebody inside (apa.org/pi/families/resources/child-sexual-abuse.aspx). I'm also unsure what same sex marriage being legalised would have to do with this, as this seems like a somewhat dangerous reccounting of the unmeritted propoganda that falsely links homosexuality to paedophilia.

RobertKK wrote: »

A scientist on Newstalk today said there are genes associated with religious belief and it is an advantage to have those genes as one will live longer and will be healthier.

I am hoping you would be able to demonstrate, as a moderator requested, some peer-reviewed studies, as my research into this area suggests it stems solely from one study that went unpublished and unreplicated (scientificamerican.com/article/faith-boosting-genes/) making it rather irrelevant as far as trustworthy studies go. I'm still unsure what this really has to do with same sex marriage unless it's linked to the religious basis of marriage.

I've tried to source as much as possible in this. I know the formatting isn't as nice as it could be given that I'm currentlly unable to directly link items, but I hope the factual basis to almost all of this is clear. I've purposely avoided anecdotal evidence as much as possible because, ultimately, everybody has their own experiences, actual analysis and aggregation of these experiences is what truly matters, while simultaneously avoiding any actual criticism of the individuals I'm responding to in order to remain as courteous as possible (so I hope, should somebody reply, the same level of courtesy and factual basis will be used).

Anyway, all of that out of the way I'm unsure as to what the result will ultimately be. I would imagine, perhaps too optimistically, that it will pass, but I expect the campaigning will get quite nasty towards the referendum's date. I assume the younger age bracket will be more heavily in favour of it yet voter turn it is a potentially worrying aspect to me.

RobertKK wrote: »

I am voting with my conscience and it doesn't support same sex marriage or any civil marriage...

You are voting to maintain discrimination and unequal treatment as a matter of law. You are voting for one type of relationship (homosexual) to be treated as inferior to another (heterosexual) as a matter of law.

Don't talk to us about voting with your conscience. Voting to maintain discrimination is plainly unconscionable.

Solid Shepard, while I admire your research, do not lump me in with those who are clearly homophobic. Do not cheapen the suffering of those who physically fought for the right to just live as the people that they are. The fact that Ireland do not already allow SSM is not because Ireland is a homophobic country, it is just not in the law at the moment and must be written into the law. The whole world was actually homophobic not so long ago. No point in taking a "It's a disgrace Joe" stance on the matter, this law will go ahead but will take time. It's administration more than homophobia. Civil partnerships only went ahead in the last couple of years!

I have made choices. I choose to live in a society where it is normal for everyone to be treated equally in all matters. Marriage equality was not the main factor for my choice, it is simply one of the many. Marriage here does not award me and my partner any more rights than civil partnership, but it does in Ireland so it was necessary for us to do it. We tried to avoid doing it by making wills (very morbid when you're 24 and 28 respectively) but again, not airtight for Ireland. This is why I can understand the necessity for same sex couples in Ireland to be able to marry.

There is no fight now. RobertKKs point of view is asked of him by his church. I am lucky enough not to follow organised religion and thus am free to make my own decisions, but again, shouting at people is not going to make them change their minds. I am trying to see things from his point of view, he has not at any point tried to change my point of view or force his on me. He's not even campaigning, he's just made a personal choice to vote "No".

The referendum will most definitely impact on me, as I have dear friends in Ireland and Irish friends abroad who I have no doubt will marry their same sex partners at one point or another and I want them all to have the same rights and responsibilities I have in my marriage. I don't want them to worry about the legal implications of having children, being ill, dying etc etc etc. I am proud to live in a society where ssm is totally normative in society and where "tolerated" and "homosexuality" don't even appear in the same sentence. Acceptance with open arms would be more apt.

I believe Religion came from humble origins of teachings, but the books written upon them have been manipulated by Rulers throughout the centuries so that they can control the masses with.

Example: In the Quran, a Persian King had a law inserted where all Muslims MUST follow command to fight, a Jihad, else they will be executed.

Likewise, there's numerous "Laws" that try to keep people around as much as possible and thus more 'tax' income for the Ruler / Governments.

Things such as to not commit Suicide, else you're damned to hell - scare mongering.

Likewise, Pro-creation - More people = more taxes and man power for the country to work with. Same sex coupling would counter this, was as such was deemed illegal.

"But the Gays Joe"

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Just a single person voting no because of their religious beliefs.

Where's the poster that said Ireland is a Catholic State?

You'll find that a large percentage of the voting public will be the ones who go to mass most days and they aren't the type to be posting on boards.

Personally I think it may squeeze through but it'll be a close one.

Solid_Shepard wrote: »

What subjectivity are you referring to, and what are the 'number of reasons' you are commenting upon that have not been considered within the studies that have been conducted which are designed to look at the well-being of LGBT individuals compared to non-LGBT peers?

Intrinsic and extrinsic factors. We don't know fully know if their wellbeing has been affected by the cognitive processes they have (for example) or by society.

denhaagenite wrote: »

Intrinsic and extrinsic factors. We don't know fully know if their wellbeing has been affected by the cognitive processes they have (for example) or by society.

Referring to this (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2040383/) specifically as it's listed on the CDC's website, "Sexual orientation was found to exert significant interaction effects with risk markers for both suicidal ideation and suicide attempts".

Race, gender, and age were covaried in all multivariate analyses. After conducting descriptive analyses, we conducted regressions to examine the relationship between predictors (depression, problem alcohol use, and problem drug use) and outcomes (suicidal ideation and suicide attempts) in the 2 strata (LGB and non-LGB). Next, we used interaction models to test whether the strength of the relationship between predictors and outcomes differed for the 2 groups of respondents. Each model included 1 of the 3 putative predictors along with LGB status and an interaction term for LGB and the putative predictor. The t value associated with the product term was used to determine if the interaction was significant,21 and the exponent was used to assess the effect size. Listwise deletion was used for each model tested.

Given that there was a strong correlation between LGB status and certain prodictors, unless you're trying to propose a link between LGBT status and a hugely significant proportion of mental illness not as a result of some form of stress (so much that it completely overwhelms prevelance in non-LGBT individuals) your explanation appears flimsy to me at best I must confess, as there's no reason why this should be the case. Individual differences are, overall, going to be rather irrelevant, and indeed necessary in any study in order to capture a representative sample.

EDIT: Again, I think I need to just clarify that this isn't one or two studies, there is an overwhelming body of evidence that display clear links between substance abuse and LGBT status, risk of suicide and LGBT status, and homophobic bullying in a school environment. The CDC is so confident in the level of research that has been done that it directly displays these figures without skepticism.