Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

I wish I could vote yes. I'm 16 and bi and as an Irish citizen, I have no say on something that will affect my life, more than a lot of the people that actually can vote on it.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It isn't about perception. It was hate filled bile. No two ways about it. I'm not sure why you seem to be trying to equate calling a bigot bigoted with calling homosexuals subhuman. The former may or may not be wrong depending on the context, but the latter is disgusting no matter how you look at it.

EVERYTHING, is about perception. I simply can't stress that enough, and how people react when they are being baited will very much colour people's perception of them. It's one of the reasons why even though I read through this thread, I was reluctant to contribute because the course of the thread had simply taken the same template course they always do. Right now, the default position in Ireland is that LGBT people are discriminated against in a number of areas in Irish law. In order to change that default position, the burden is on the people who want to change the laws, to come up with the compelling arguments. There is no burden on people who want to maintain the status quo - they simply have to turn up at the booth and vote 'no'. They don't have to convince anyone of anything, so looking for arguments against marriage equality is simply a futile exercise and a waste of energy IMO.

They aren't tolerated to anywhere near the same extent as some of the hate speech that has been defended on this thread. If I were to go around talking about how black people are a shower of thieves that would be better off as slaves, or claiming that every catholic is a pedophile based on the actions of a select few within the church, I'd be quite rightly shouted down across the board as a narrow minded bigot. Meanwhile we have people in this thread calling homosexuals subhuman and unnatural, and that's supposed to be, according to some people, 'contributing to the debate'?

You wouldn't though, at all, and up until recently you'd probably only have been sanctioned in the Christianity forum for expressing such an opinion. There are numerous posts in this thread that fail to make the distinction between the opinions of the Hierarchy within the Irish RCC, and the opinions of the congregation. Even when Joey called people on it early on in the thread, it continued unabated, and same goes for elderly people in this country - the perception that they are generally bigoted and would vote no in a referendum on marriage equality. Clearly the posters espousing such views haven't really engaged with ordinary members of the RCC or elderly people (I can't help but wonder are they languishing under the ignorant and misguided perception that there are no elderly LGBT members of the RCC. They'd be wrong, but I prefer to pick my battles than engage with those who absolutely will not be moved from their position).

That is a nonsense argument. People aren't going to be able to easily see their own flaws and biases. We should all be open minded to criticism and try to listen when other people point out these flaws, of course. The best place to start with putting an end to hated and intolerance is calling it out wherever you see it, and doing what you can to change peoples mind.

People aren't going to be able to see their own flaws and biases any clearer when you call them out on what you perceive to be their misguided perceptions without first making the effort to understand where they might be coming from, and deciding based on that whether it is worth your time and energy engaging with them. If they're already so rooted in their beliefs that you're likely to aggravate them, then IMO they're not worth engaging with. You would be better IMO to concentrate on supporting those people who already agree with you and encouraging them to come out and vote in favour of marriage equality for LGBT people.

floggg wrote: »

The thing is, I have considered every argument against marriage e equality and none have been rooted in facts and/or free of bigotry or ignorance /stupidity.

Have you considered the point that people who disagree with your opinion don't particularly care for your opinion? Have you considered that while there may be no argument against marriage equality (in your opinion), that doesn't necessarily mean that there are no reasons to reject a referendum on marriage equality? Politicians aren't known for their honesty and their straightforward manner, and this has been evidenced time and again with the wording of the divorce referendum, the abortion referendum, and successive legislation that has been brought forward as a result of both those issues.

We're currently in a legal quagmire with regard to both divorce and abortion in this country, and do you honestly think the proposed wording of any referendum on marriage equality will be any less ham fisted and arse covering than previous referenda? I wouldn't hold my breath that it will be anything as straightforward as a simple 'yes' or 'no', and if it's aims are anything less than what it says on the tin, I can tell you right now that I will be voting 'no', if only to send a message back to politicians that anything less than true equality in line with the EHCR guidelines on the issue is simply not good enough, and they need to go back to the drawing board until they can come up with copper fastened wording that will legislate for true marital equality regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of the parties involved in the marriage -

What does the Constitution say about Marriage and the Family?

Article 41 of the Constitution recognises that, in Ireland, the notion of the family is based on marriage.

Article 41.1 says that the family is the “natural primary and fundamental unit of society” and Art 41.3 states that marriage is the “foundation” of that unit.

What does that mean?

This means that the only type of family explicitly recognised by the Constitution is one that is based on marriage. As a consequence, other types of family, such as those based on civil partnership, cohabitants or other family relationships do not enjoy the same constitutional rights and protection.

What does a decision of the ECtHR mean in Ireland?

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was adopted to protect the rights of citizens in the 47 States which make up the Council of Europe region. As one of these States, Ireland has agreed to be bound by rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in cases taken directly against it. In addition, Section 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 requires the Irish courts to interpret Irish law, where possible, in light of the Convention and the judgments of the ECtHR. Under section 5 of the 2003 Act, Irish law may be declared incompatible with the ECHR, by reference to decisions of the ECtHR not involving Ireland. Although Ireland is not directly bound by the decision against Austria and does not have to make immediate provisions to recognise de facto families in the same way, if a similar case was taken against Ireland, it is likely that the decision would be the same and that Ireland would be bound by the decision.

In order to avoid this outcome, Ireland may decide to future proof its existing laws by amending the law in this area to provide recognition for the de facto family.

(Now I know some of these issues are being addressed under the recent CHILDREN AND FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS BILL 2014 which I think itself will require careful examination as it's being done in an arse about face fashion. IMO we should be legislating for marriage equality first, and then drafting legislation with regard to the rights of children and families afterwards, based on the outcome of a referendum on marriage equality. By putting the cart before the horse, politicians are again simply paving the way for far more complicated suffering and heartache, instead of legislation that could have been so bloody simple.

Even as a gay man, if you could show me actual harm to children or society by allowing marriage equality, I would agree that it should not be permitted.

It has not been even close to proved to date.

You're setting yourself up there on the back foot with the expression "as a gay man", it carries as much weight as anyone else who says "as a parent". If you truly want to make the point that there is no difference to a child regardless of the sexuality or gender of their parents, then I'd drop the "as a gay man" point of argument. Being a gay man doesn't confer you with any special powers that would differentiate your parenting ability from anyone else's potential ability to care for a child, including the biological parents of said children (and I say that as someone whose neighbour did a better job of raising me than my own parents did, and my neighbour was an elderly widow!).

Your saying I'm closed minded because I can't contemplate the possibility of a non-bigoted or non-stupid argument against it, but can you offer one?

Again, this is something even the courts have come to accept - there is no such argument. Any arguments put before them against marriage equality has been shown to either be thinly veiled hate or to have no basis in facts or reality.

Jesus, enough with the labelling already. I never meant to insinuate you were "closed minded" or any of the rest of that nonsense. Short-sighted perhaps, but that's hardly the same thing, as you're unwilling to acknowledge even at this point that what you think, isn't as important as thinking about the way your opponent thinks. You're unwilling to acknowledge any opinion that to you is bigoted or stupid, and that's fine, if your future weren't dependent on that person seeing things from your point of view. Call them bigoted and stupid all you want, but the day of the referendum, you may regret that you didn't extend an olive branch instead of beating them with a thorny stick.

As for tolerating racist language, we would never be asking why somebody jot banned for repeatedly saying "all black people are promiscuous whores".

Moreover, anybody who attempted to state that on prime time would be immediately challenged by the host.

We do not see that in debates about marriage equality - the inferiority of same sex relationships is treated as a reasonable position.

See you can make all the protests you want equating racism and homophobia, and the arguments may hold up in an abstract sense, but arguing that way fails to acknowledge that the two are based on very different motivations, not the least of which being that with racism the differences are present immediately on the exterior, whereas with homophobia, the differences are interior and not immediately evident. Even attempts to equate interracial marriage with same sex marriage, simply ignores the intrinsic components of both in order to make that equation. That does both a disservice IMO.

Finally, in what way have I evidenced hatred or intolerance? I don't believe I have done so once.

I have repeatedly recognised their right to their opinions and to express them. I have however asserted my right to call them out as bigoted when appropriate (though I haven't really actually done that to anybody in particular (I think)).

Refusing to accept or respect flawed argues and hateful believes is not intolerance. Nor is refusing to accept their intolerance of me and my relationship. I am happy for them to believe what they want.

Again, I will not treat the idea that I am less than as a reasonable position to hold.

If they want to produce some actual evidence as to why my marriage to another man might be harmful, then I will accept that we should not be permitted to marry as a matter of law.

I will not however accept their dislike of me or my relationships, or their unfounded believe that I am less than they are as a valid reason to deny me equality or as a reasonable position to hold.

You're entitled of course to hold fast to that position, and nothing I can say will change your mind I don't think at this point, but you're not going to like what I'm going to say next -

This referendum is more than just about you and what you want or what you will and won't accept, and you have to try and see the bigger picture rather than personalising the discussion as a gay man as if only you will be affected by whether the referendum passes or doesn't. While you're busy reminding everyone else that the outcome of this referendum affects everyone and even future generations, it might be worth keeping that in mind for yourself.

Billy86 wrote: »

There's probably a number of reasons depending on the area, but the spread of Islam and Christianity through the centuries play very significant roles. It was recognised in ancient Rome for centuries for example as not being an issue, until Christianity became the dominant religion... and then within about 30 years it carried the death sentence.

Yes there may have been examples of homosexual unions in ancient Rome and the obvious reason for this,i thought obvious reason anyway,was because the romans were pagans.The same pagans who persecuted the Christians until emperor Constantine brought Christianity and light to the empire.Ironic that still today the majority of the pro union side also persecute people with religious beliefs through there disrespectful comments here.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This referendum is more than just about you and what you want or what you will and won't accept, and you have to try and see the bigger picture rather than personalising the discussion as a gay man as if only you will be affected by whether the referendum passes or doesn't. While you're busy reminding everyone else that the outcome of this referendum affects everyone and even future generations, it might be worth keeping that in mind for yourself.

Can you elaborate on this? Who, apart from the LGBT community, is this going to affect and in what way? You can't say that it's not a personal issue because the fundamental topic for debate is whether fully grown consenting adults are allowed to legally marry those they're in love with and raise children. The only bigger picture is that society is currently making such marriages and families everyone else's business and preventing private relationships from developing.

keeponhurling wrote: »

Why is gay marriage banned in the vast majority of the world ?

Not sure if we are missing something here

I fail to see what's relevant about your post, only 80 years ago universal suffrage was banned in the majority of the world's countries.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Come back to me when gangs of LGBT people are going on "Christian safari" or stoning Christians.

The Huffington post pope...really? Sorry I forgot to include insulting Islam also in that.What was your view on the prophet muhammad again?

fran17 wrote: »

The Huffington Post Pope...really?

Yes, really. I have no reason to doubt the reliability of the article.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yes, really. I have no reason to doubt the reliability of the article.

And the question i asked you?

fran17 wrote: »

And the question I asked you?

I don't believe Mohammed was a prophet. Perhaps he was delusional, or perhaps he was a conman.

I guess that comment about "Christian safaris" hit a nerve?

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

No I won't be voting and mainly because I have lost all faith in the institution of marriage. Sadly I have watched as quite a few friends have had their lives & relationships destroyed by marriage. I wish gay couples the best and they deserve equality. But my advice to any couple of any orientation would be - don't get married.

If you think they deserve equality and they should have the choice then you should really vote yes. With respect, your opinion on whether people should get married or not isn't really the point.