SSM Referendum Spring 2015

NuMarvel · 03-07-2014 01:46PM

Grayson wrote: »

The gender and/or sexual orientation of the parents do not [affect a child's development].

Even if the gender or orientation of the parents did negatively affect a child's development, it wouldn't justify barring gay couples from marriage. People don't need to be married to raise children, so the bar on marriage does little if anything to prevent children being raised by gay couples.

In terms of children, the choice before the electorate next year will be do they want children to be raised by married gay couples or unmarried gay couples. What's ironic is that conservatives who in the past would have condemned unmarried people raising children, are now the ones campaigning to make sure children are raised in unmarried homes.

Grayson · 03-07-2014 02:03PM

miss no stars wrote: »

I don't think that's true. I remember reading that a two parent family where the parents are unhappy in their relationship can negatively affect the kids.

that can, so too can having a parent who's violent or one who's a serial killer (sorry to get facetious).

The point is that they are specifics for individual families. there is a correlation between being a bad parent and having an unhappy child for example. but there is no correlation between gender or orientation and unhappiness.

there is however a correlation in general between single parent families and child welfare. however when they investigated that further they found the correlation was not based on the number of parents but rather the income level.

Zubeneschamali · 03-07-2014 02:04PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That's simply not the case. They were up against a contrarian opinion piece writer and his solicitor.

Said writer was also a member of the BAI, RTÉs regulator.

Grayson · 03-07-2014 02:05PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Even if the gender or orientation of the parents did negatively affect a child's development, it wouldn't justify barring gay couples from marriage. People don't need to be married to raise children, so the bar on marriage does little if anything to prevent children being raised by gay couples.

In terms of children, the choice before the electorate next year will be do they want children to be raised by married gay couples or unmarried gay couples. What's ironic is that conservatives who in the past would have condemned unmarried people raising children, are now the ones campaigning to make sure children are raised in unmarried homes.

they are separate issues. If i believed that there was a big negative affect on children from same sex parents, I would be against gay adoption but for gay marriage.

If i believed that gay couples in general were bad for children in general, I'd be against gay marriage.

But neither are true so I'm for gay marriage and gay adoption.

rochey84 · 03-07-2014 02:08PM

denhaagenite wrote: »

Following this announcement yesterday, one of my friends (whose opinion and intelligence I highly regard) posted this statement on Facebook:

"You are in a not so admirable position to be voting on my rights as a citizen so I hope those of you that care about same will make sure and register to vote!"

I'm highly insulted. I think that while the referendum might change the rules about what gay people can/ can't do, they are not the only people who are affected by this. There are gay couples up and down the country who are raising families, whose childrens rights are being affected. There are parents of gay couples up and down the country whose rights are being affected. I really felt like he was insinuating that if people aren't gay, then they should have no say whatsoever in anything to do with the issue.

I'm a staunch believer in marriage for everyone (of age and sound mind etc etc), and I fervently disagree with those who aren't, but I am very tired of the likes of Rory O Neill (Panti) and the likes on crusades even with very little opposition- he talks about being called a queer when crossing the road in Dublin, that has happened to many straight friends of mine in numerous cities, it's just knackery kids ffs. Just for the sake of it, just to be known as a campaigner (and to further his own business and career). I think his efforts are very much needed in some Middle Eastern and African countries, wonder why he doesn't take them there?

I am not gay, but I have friends who are, family who are and I may one day have children who are. I want to pave the way for them to have the same freedoms and rights as I do, and as a citizen this also affects my rights.

Sorry for the long quote but I had to respond to the bit in bold first, Rory O'Neill has constantly said that he does not wish to be a campaigner for equal rights, he was thrown into this situation when he appeared on the Saturday Night Show as an entertainer something he has been on the gay scene for a very long time, he became the face and one of the voices of SSM when he was asked to name the people that Brendan O'Connor described as homophobic, Rory called them "not very nice people", it was then that he became a campaigner.

Also with regard to what your friend posted, I am sure he meant that it does not have an immediate or direct impact on the lives of the family and friends of gay people as they themselves already have the right that gay and lesbian people are fighting for!

Otherwise I think the rest of your post was spot on!

Grayson · 03-07-2014 02:29PM

Muise... wrote: »

Is the effect of economics noted in all areas of the child's development? Just guessing, but I'd say a child could be disadvantaged in terms of access to higher education and a well-paying career, but still emotionally stable and able to form healthy relationships. Which is what I think these comparative studies of family types should be looking at.

Poverty affects families in many ways and it doesn't necessarily matter how good parents are. If it did then we would be able to say that poor people make worse parents because there are more poor criminals than rich ones.

I think the most important aspect to note for for this thread is that gender/orientation doesn't matter

RobertKK · 03-07-2014 02:38PM

I am not voting in the AH poll, the results from AH will be the same as previous polls on the same issue. It would have been more interesting to see how many people intended on voting in the referendum.
Somewhere around 70% voted in the last general election, 56% in the presidential election, 51% for the European and local elections.
30% for the last referendum which was about children. 62% for the 1996 divorce referendum. Just under 42% for the rejected protection of human life in pregnancy bill in 2002.

A lot of people will not vote, anything from a third to over a half of the population will not vote would be my guess.

Sleepy · 03-07-2014 02:49PM

It'll need a massive "Rock the Vote" style campaign to get it passed imo.

I'll be voting for and encouraging everyone I know to use their vote to tell the bigots to **** themselves.

Grayson · 03-07-2014 02:57PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I am not voting in the AH poll, the results from AH will be the same as previous polls on the same issue. It would have been more interesting to see how many people intended on voting in the referendum.
Somewhere around 70% voted in the last general election, 56% in the presidential election, 51% for the European and local elections.
30% for the last referendum which was about children. 62% for the 1996 divorce referendum. Just under 42% for the rejected protection of human life in pregnancy bill in 2002.

A lot of people will not vote, anything from a third to over a half of the population will not vote would be my guess.

but that can be assessed in sampling. The last rte poll had over 80% in favor of it. I'd imagine the result on the day will be something similar.

hoodwinked · 03-07-2014 03:00PM

RobertKK wrote: »

A lot of people will not vote, anything from a third to over a half of the population will not vote would be my guess.

the best part is all the people i know who would vote no, are the ones who wouldn't be bothered to vote!

RobertKK · 03-07-2014 03:08PM

Grayson wrote: »

but that can be assessed in sampling. The last rte poll had over 80% in favor of it. I'd imagine the result on the day will be something similar.

You do know the polls for the children's referendum had over 75% to over 80% support.
First poll had 25% against, and that figure dropped in other polls...

The actual result:
58% Yes
42% No

One will yes they support children's rights and obviously untruths were told to pollsters. We can see on this forum how one is called a bigot or homophobic if against same sex marriage, that doesn't encourage one to tell pollsters the truth if they feel they are being judged by their reply.

RobertKK · 03-07-2014 03:12PM

hoodwinked wrote: »

the best part is all the people i know who would vote no, are the ones who wouldn't be bothered to vote!

There three sets of voter types.

1. Those who always vote.
2. Those who never vote for whatever reason.
3. Those who vote if they feel strongly enough to bother going to the polling station.

Muise... · 03-07-2014 03:20PM

RobertKK wrote: »

You do know the polls for the children's referendum had over 75% to over 80% support.
First poll had 25% against, and that figure dropped in other polls...

The actual result:
58% Yes
42% No

One will yes they support children's rights and obviously untruths were told to pollsters. We can see on this forum how one is called a bigot or homophobic if against same sex marriage, that doesn't encourage one to tell pollsters the truth if they feel they are being judged by their reply.

What happened there was a motley crew of old-school religious, crystal dreamcatcher loo-lahs and anti-government ranters got together under Kathy Sinnott and He Who Must Not Be Named A Homophobe, amongst others, and kicked up such a cloud of dust about their own neuroses and phobias that a shockingly high proportion of the electorate could no longer see and trust the proposed amendment.

What I'm seeing on this thread is a lot of concern that the same thing could happen again if those in favour of SSM are complacent. I hope that concern is expressed in a kick-ass campaign. I'll be there with my ally-bells on!

Annasopra · 03-07-2014 03:23PM

Grayson wrote: »

but that can be assessed in sampling. The last rte poll had over 80% in favor of it. I'd imagine the result on the day will be something similar.

Seriously folks its really really really really really dangerous to assume that right now. The last thing this campaign needs is a complacent attitude that it will pass by a massive majority. Its going to be hard bloody work over the next 9 months to make it happen.

Fr_Dougal · 03-07-2014 03:30PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Seriously folks its really really really really really dangerous to assume that right now. The last thing this campaign needs is a complacent attitude that it will pass by a massive majority. Its going to be hard bloody work over the next 9 months to make it happen.

It will also need a dignified and measured rebuttal of any outlandish claims made by the "No" side.

P_1 · 03-07-2014 03:32PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Seriously folks its really really really really really dangerous to assume that right now. The last thing this campaign needs is a complacent attitude that it will pass by a massive majority. Its going to be hard bloody work over the next 9 months to make it happen.

Without a doubt complacency is the biggest risk to this passing in my eyes. A turnout of less than 60% could have it in real danger

RobertKK · 03-07-2014 03:33PM

TheZohan wrote: »

It will also need a dignified and measured rebuttal of any outlandish claims made by the "No" side.

...and the same for the "Yes" side.

Nodin · 03-07-2014 03:35PM

RobertKK wrote: »

...and the same for the "Yes" side.

What outlandish claims have been made by the "yes" side, Robert?

P_1 · 03-07-2014 03:36PM

RobertKK wrote: »

...and the same for the "Yes" side.

True but to be honest I can't see the Yes side having any outlandish claims to make to be honest.

Annasopra · 03-07-2014 03:37PM

TheZohan wrote: »

It will also need a dignified and measured rebuttal of any outlandish claims made by the "No" side.

Actually in some cases a non response is probably enough.

Grayson · 03-07-2014 03:42PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Seriously folks its really really really really really dangerous to assume that right now. The last thing this campaign needs is a complacent attitude that it will pass by a massive majority. Its going to be hard bloody work over the next 9 months to make it happen.

the children's campaign was derailed because they managed to turn it into a "do you trust the government" issue. I'm not sure how they'll do that with this.

I Heart Internet · 03-07-2014 03:49PM

^^I heard that, if it's passed, men will be forced to marry male TD's when they reach the age of 18. I'm just repeating what I heard!

Annasopra · 03-07-2014 03:53PM

Grayson wrote: »

the children's campaign was derailed because they managed to turn it into a "do you trust the government" issue. I'm not sure how they'll do that with this.

Look. Its like this. Referenda in Ireland on social issues are hard fought battles and if there is a complacency that this will be a landslide yes then a lot of voters simply will not be motivated to come out. We do not need complacency. If the Yes side is complacent it will lose. Also I honestly do not believe myself this will be 80% yes.

Muise... · 03-07-2014 03:55PM

Nodin wrote: »

What outlandish claims have been made by the "yes" side, Robert?

That people should be free and equal and love each other! :eek:

RobertKK · 03-07-2014 03:57PM

Nodin wrote: »

What outlandish claims have been made by the "yes" side, Robert?

Claims of all no voters being bigots and homophobic is one.

I was told on national radio, I was a "bigot" for following my religious faith.

I was told on national radio I should not go to the polling station on the day of the referendum if I was voting No. That I did not have the right to vote in the way I intended.

I am sure the listeners were astounded as I was in reply to a text I had sent in, which said people of committed religious belief and who don't hate anyone will vote no, as I would be doing.

All I got was vile, and told I shouldn't use my democratic right. Yes, a national radio station telling people not to vote...and committed religious believers are bigots.

P_1 · 03-07-2014 03:57PM

Muise... wrote: »

That people should be free and equal and love each other! :eek:

I'm going to presume that young Robert is referring to another attempt at a jump down the 'what is homophobia and who can call somebody out on it' rabbithole to be honest.

I Heart Internet · 03-07-2014 03:57PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Look. Its like this. Referenda in Ireland on social issues are hard fought battles and if there is a complacency that this will be a landslide yes then a lot of voters simply will not be motivated to come out. We do not need complacency. If the Yes side is complacent it will lose.

There is also a strong contrarian and anti-government/politico feeling in Ireland. Some may be tempted to vote no just to give the governemnt a bloody nose, to piss-off "liberals" and/or just for ****s and giggles. That's why the YES side should not be patronising or insulting of peole who may be borderline yes/no voters. Some people will react to, "the only sane way to vote is Yes, only haters vote No," by going out and voting no just to piss people off.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 03-07-2014 04:00PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I was told on national radio, I was a "bigot" for following my religious faith.

'And lo, on the third day, the lord decreed..be sure and vote no in any same sex marriage referendums now lads, ok?'

P_1 · 03-07-2014 04:00PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

There is also a strong contrarian and anti-government/politico feeling in Ireland. Some may be tempted to vote no just to give the governemnt a bloody nose, to piss-off "liberals" and/or just for ****s and giggles. That's why the YES side should not be patronising or insulting of peole who may be borderline yes/no voters. Some people will react to, "the only sane way to vote is Yes, only haters vote No," by going out and voting no just to piss people off.

The 'you're being morally superior to me so f you because of that' attitude?

shruikan2553 · 03-07-2014 04:00PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Claims of all no voters being bigots and homophobic is one.

I was told on national radio, I was a "bigot" for following my religious faith.

I was told on national radio I should not go to the polling station on the day of the referendum if I was voting No. That I did not have the right to vote in the way I intended.

I am sure the listeners were astounded as I was in reply to a text I had sent in, which said people of committed religious belief and who don't hate anyone will vote no, as I would be doing.

All I got was vile, and told I shouldn't use my democratic right. Yes, a national radio station telling people not to vote...and committed religious believers are bigots.

Does your religion treat homosexuals as equals?
If not then it is calling a spade a spade.

I can be a member of a religion that thinks non white people inferior and people will call me racist because of my religious beliefs!

SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Comments