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

Daith · 26-01-2015 12:54PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Until that time however - it is a definite derail from the issue at hand.

Agreed and it's not something you're actually voting on. The wording of the referendum is very clear here.

Rochelle · 26-01-2015 01:01PM

I'll make up my mind on the day based on which side has annoyed me less.

Already, they're both annoying the sh1t out of me with the pontificating, preaching, one-upmanship and generally being complete tossers.

If they both continue as bad as each other and I can't pick one as having annoyed me less, i won't bother voting.

bodice ripper · 26-01-2015 01:03PM

Rochelle wrote: »

I'll make up my mind on the day based on which side has annoyed me less.

Already, they're both annoying the sh1t out of me with the pontificating, preaching, one-upmanship and generally being complete tossers.

If they both continue as bad as each other and I can't pick one as having annoyed me less, i won't bother voting.

please don't vote ever, if this is an indication of your level of analysis.

Riverireland · 26-01-2015 01:04PM

Daith wrote: »

How would that work? If a man married two women, are the two women married to each other? However that's not allowed because two women can only get civil partner-shipped.

Therefore you would need to allow marriage between people of the same sex first.

Everything else depends on that.

If "everything else depends on that". Why not tackle the lot of it now. I get the impression that as a community gay people seem to have missed the point that straight people are marrying less and less. Gay marriage means little or nothing to straight people which is why so many are happy enough to vote yes to it. My point is if we're going to change the constitution, let's change all aspects of how marriage is covered to accommodate everyone's desires instead of just gays. Doesn't seem fair to leave out bi sexuals and include lesbians if you know what I mean. Truth is I really don't want to do this twice!

Shrap · 26-01-2015 01:05PM

Rochelle wrote: »

If they both continue as bad as each other and I can't pick one as having annoyed me less, i won't bother voting.

I'll second your decision not to bother, if you don't plan on basing your vote on your opinion of the subject of the referendum.

Delirium · 26-01-2015 01:06PM

Rochelle wrote: »

I'll make up my mind on the day based on which side has annoyed me less.

Already, they're both annoying the sh1t out of me with the pontificating, preaching, one-upmanship and generally being complete tossers.

If they both continue as bad as each other and I can't pick one as having annoyed me less, i won't bother voting.

grand. I'll bring some sweets to your voting station for you to vote yes :rolleyes:

floggg · 26-01-2015 01:20PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It has never been an argument I have seen done very successfully. Or at least those who attempt to - tend to make good arguments worth exploring - but not ones that support the core premise.

At best what can be done is show that statistically certain configurations are more successful than others - but that does not mean that those configurations are themselves therefore better or worse than the others.

The obvious one is single parenting. Clearly single parents have on average a greater challenge on time and financial resources than any other configuration. But that is not an attribute of being single parents. We have single parents with more of both than some married couples. It comes down to the nature of the work they do for one example and many other factors.

So one can not simply make this an attribute of single parenting and therefore claim that single parenting is "worse" than couples parenting. That is a leap from the statistics - even when we acknowledge that on average single parents are less successful in being able to offer these things - and if we normalise for income and free time - there is little else to suggest single parenting is better or worse than a couple.

Similar errors are made comparing other configurations to each other too. At the end of the day to support the argument that one configuration is better or worse than another the correct way to do so would be to list the things children actually require in their rearing - and then make some argument as to why one configuration is by definition precluded from offering one of those things successfully - or at all.

And I simply have never seen this done.

Put another way - I see this word "ideal" thrown around - and incorrectly. The correct way to use it - the actual "ideal" - is that certain things that a child requires be provided - and I have yet to see a single argument that suggests anything on that list is precluded a single parent - a heterosexual couple - a homosexual couple - or a configuration like my own.

First, I'm excluding family arrangements such as your own from my comments below as I'm not aware of any study on them, or how they operate in practice. I imagine though that provided they are stable and there is a healthy division of parental responsibility and labour it wouldn't be too much different drom a stable two parent home.

I certainly wasn't trying to argue that two parent families are necessarily or automatically better than any other type of family - only that they tend to be better for the child than unstable or single parent homes.

Of course there are many single parents who are amazing at parenting, and their kids do better than many two parent homes. But there is no denying its tougher for single parents and that kids will tend to do better in stable two parent homes.

And again, that doesn't mean two parent homes are good homes - many of them will be terrible. And an unstable two parent home is also a poor environment to raise kids.

I don't think there is anything wrong with recognising one family model tends to produce the best results (again, emphasising the word tends) and supporting and encouraging that model where possible - as long as we also recognise and support other family models as well.

Hoop66 · 26-01-2015 01:24PM

Well, obviously, I'll have to examine a seagull's entrails on the day. It would be foolish to make a decision otherwise.

FFS.

It's an absolute disgrace for the 'no' campaign to bring children into and just shows in how much fear they are, realising that their outdated views are being challenged and will be overthrown.

Do a same-sex couple have to have children for their marriage to be valid? No.
Do a same-sex couple have to be married to have children? No.

That answers the question re: children. Now, what's the next ridiculous argument going to be?

AnonoBoy · 26-01-2015 01:27PM

Riverireland wrote: »

If you have 2 partners instead of 1 do you not want to marry both of them?

Can't fault immaculate reasoning like that.

Nope.

Not one bit.

Shrap · 26-01-2015 01:33PM

floggg wrote: »

I certainly wasn't trying to argue that two parent families are necessarily or automatically better than any other type of family - only that they tend to be better for the child than unstable or single parent homes.

Of course there are many single parents who are amazing at parenting, and their kids do better than many two parent homes. But there is no denying its tougher for single parents and that kids will tend to do better in stable two parent homes.

Have to say that as a single parent, I was quite hurt by your assertion that two parent families "tend" to care better for their children. From this, I can see that you meant to say stable two parent families, and I can say (being in a stable, respectful relationship now) that you are somewhat right. It is easier to parent with help from another adult (parent or not). And that's the point really.

Single parent families frequently have as good support, in many cases better support from friends and extended family, as two parent families and I can't for one minute agree that two parent families are even generally better for producing well rounded, well cared for and well educated children. Certainly not to a point where it can be claimed that single parenting is less good than some notional ideal where the 2 parents, 2 jobs, 2.4 kids, the white picket fence and the dog have tipped the balance.

One eyed Jack · 26-01-2015 01:49PM

Rochelle wrote: »

I'll make up my mind on the day based on which side has annoyed me less.

Already, they're both annoying the sh1t out of me with the pontificating, preaching, one-upmanship and generally being complete tossers.

If they both continue as bad as each other and I can't pick one as having annoyed me less, i won't bother voting.

bodice ripper wrote: »

please don't vote ever, if this is an indication of your level of analysis.

Shrap wrote: »

I'll second your decision not to bother, if you don't plan on basing your vote on your opinion of the subject of the referendum.

SW wrote: »

grand. I'll bring some sweets to your voting station for you to vote yes :rolleyes:

Snappy answers and all lads that might garner a few appreciative "thanks" on here, but you've all missed the bigger picture if you're telling that person not to bother voting. Right now, the yes campaign needs every single vote it can get, and that posters opinion is a fair representation of a lot of people's opinions who I have talked to about this issue.

They simply don't care, they don't want to know. They have more going on in their lives than to be bothered enough about who marries who and listening to people on either side of the argument throw childish and petty insults at each other and wind each other up and all the, as that poster says, "one upmanship" that goes on.

I'd sooner do what it takes to get someone over to my side of the fence than ignore their opinion in favour of duking it out with people who I know for definite are staying over the other side of the fence.

Daith · 26-01-2015 01:58PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They simply don't care, they don't want to know. They have more going on in their lives than to be bothered enough about who marries who and listening to people on either side of the argument throw childish and petty insults at each other and wind each other up and all the, as that poster says, "one upmanship" that goes on.

That's fine but don't use other people as an excuse why you can't be arsed to vote.

floggg · 26-01-2015 01:59PM

Shrap wrote: »

Have to say that as a single parent, I was quite hurt by your assertion that two parent families "tend" to care better for their children. From this, I can see that you meant to say stable two parent families, and I can say (being in a stable, respectful relationship now) that you are somewhat right. It is easier to parent with help from another adult (parent or not). And that's the point really.

Single parent families frequently have as good support, in many cases better support from friends and extended family, as two parent families and I can't for one minute agree that two parent families are even generally better for producing well rounded, well cared for and well educated children. Certainly not to a point where it can be claimed that single parenting is less good than some notional ideal where the 2 parents, 2 jobs, 2.4 kids, the white picket fence and the dog have tipped the balance.

I wasn't trying to crticise single parents or suggest they were bad homes or anything like, so sorry if my language gave that impression.

My point is simply that, as you recognise, it's easier to parent with another parent/parent figure sharing the burden. It means you actually get to divide the load, increased parental contact time with children, more help with homework etc.

It's also better for the emotional and physical health and well being of the parents concerned (people in LTRs are known to be healthier, happier, more productive etc than single people).

Even if the other parent figure did nothing more than rub your feet every night and listen to you bitch about whatever grief your kids might happen to have caused that day, it would still help lighten your load which could surely only be of benefit to your kids as well.

Still, great parents will be great whether single or part of a team and ****ty parents can actually be ****tier when working in pairs.

Shrap · 26-01-2015 02:03PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'd sooner do what it takes to get someone over to my side of the fence than ignore their opinion in favour of duking it out with people who I know for definite are staying over the other side of the fence.

I'd sooner not have to counter anybody's views on anything. However, when those who definitely are staying on the other side of the fence are making it their business to try and confuse fence-sitters with much mud-slinging, twisting of words and conflation of other issues with this one, there's an actual duty I feel to try and straighten (no pun intended) the argument back to it's actual position.

26-01-2015 02:04PM

floggg wrote: »

I certainly wasn't trying to argue that two parent families are necessarily or automatically better than any other type of family - only that they tend to be better for the child than unstable or single parent homes.

That would be my point too - and we are simply agreeing with the same thing but saying it in different ways.

Offering stability - time - and resources - is the "ideal" for parenting. It really is as simple as that.

The methods by which you attain that - or the configuration of the people doing it (be it a single parent - any kind of couple - or any kind of community) is simply irrelevant to that ideal.

Each configuration has their own challenges - for sure - but they are not challenges that are unique to that configuration usually. On average single parents have more of a challenge to meet the demands of time and resources - but so too do many couples.

It would be an easier claim to make - or argument to make - if "single parent" was even some coherent group of people upon which to base the argument. But it is not. It is a group of people with such variety as to be functionally useless in making - or evaluating - the argument. A variety of back grounds - careers - social structures - support structures - that is so diverse as to render a straight comparison functionally nonsense in the same way as a statement like "Doing sport with your arms and legs will be healthier than just your arms".

floggg wrote: »

I don't think there is anything wrong with recognising one family model tends to produce the best results (again, emphasising the word tends) and supporting and encouraging that model where possible - as long as we also recognise and support other family models as well.

I think it is a red herring to put the focus on the family model itself - but rather to leave that out entirely. That is a top down approach - and I would more recommend a bottom up approach which is to recognise what actually constitutes a healthy upbringing of children - modularise that - and offer support for people who are failing at one of those modules - without any recourse to what parental configuration they are in.

That is to say that without reference to the parental configurations at all - we can recognise in a modular fashion the requirements of bringing up children - and what can lead to failures in those modules - and offer support for anyone failing one or more of those modules.

Shrap · 26-01-2015 02:06PM

floggg wrote: »

My point is simply that, as you recognise, it's easier to parent with another parent/parent figure sharing the burden. It means you actually get to divide the load, increased parental contact time with children, more help with homework etc.

Absolutely true, but as we all know in these times, two parents may be just as stretched as one, and juggling jobs, child-care and responsibilities in a relationship may present more difficulties for some couples than it does for a single person.

Still, great parents will be great whether single or part of a team and ****ty parents can actually be ****tier when working in pairs.

Ain't that the truth!

Oh, and thanks for the clarification.

zuber · 26-01-2015 02:08PM

reprise wrote: »

Ok, try this:

Marraige is a contract between two non-related people of opposing gender primarily focused on underpinning the family unit.

Pulling asunder that which constitutes marriage - nullifies and/or trivialises marriage.

There you go. No homophobia - no hatred - no hysteria - no Iona - no heckling and no hysteria.

well said im with you

To Elland Back · 26-01-2015 02:18PM

floggg wrote: »

It is entirely your right, but I still can't understand it.

Surely LGBT people have suffered much more serious bullying than opponents of equality for LGBT people. So surely you should be more likely to react to that bullying, no?

Why is bullying by some supporters on one side of the debate an issue for you, but not bullying by some supporters on the other side of the debate?

Look, it is my intention to vote yes because of the simple fact that it doesn't affect me at the moment, but it may affect some of my family members in the future and sure if it gives others happiness, so be it.

However, nearly every poster here who has stated that they intend to vote no (with or without giving reason), has been launched upon in very personal terms. Those who are involved in those attacks come from a perspective where the decision to pass this referendum is a no-brainer and will not accept that there are people out there who have opposing views. I do not agree with that and it may influence my decision on polling day.

One eyed Jack · 26-01-2015 02:24PM

Daith wrote: »

That's fine but don't use other people as an excuse why you can't be arsed to vote.

You may not appreciate it as a valid reason for abstaining from voting, but just like they don't care about who marries who, they're just as unlikely to care what other people think of them for abstaining from voting.

Shrap wrote: »

I'd sooner not have to counter anybody's views on anything. However, when those who definitely are staying on the other side of the fence are making it their business to try and confuse fence-sitters with much mud-slinging, twisting of words and conflation of other issues with this one, there's an actual duty I feel to try and straighten (no pun intended) the argument back to it's actual position.

Give them enough rope to hang themselves I say, let people see them for the intolerant nutbars they are. Give the Irish people credit that they're not that immature any more, that they have minds of their own and can see for themselves what these people are at, that simply doesn't tally with their experience of people who are LGBT.

floggg · 26-01-2015 02:42PM

To Elland Back wrote: »

Look, it is my intention to vote yes because of the simple fact that it doesn't affect me at the moment, but it may affect some of my family members in the future and sure if it gives others happiness, so be it.

However, nearly every poster here who has stated that they intend to vote no (with or without giving reason), has been launched upon in very personal terms. Those who are involved in those attacks come from a perspective where the decision to pass this referendum is a no-brainer and will not accept that there are people out there who have opposing views. I do not agree with that and it may influence my decision on polling day.

I haven't seen too many personal attacks - though I have seen people attack their arguments. I'm sure there are some looking back, that they aren't from the majority of posters, and I inagine many of those making such attacks are straight.

I just really don't see why I, or possibly your family members or friends, should be punished for that.

I think you should also be more sensitive to the fact that this can be an extremely emotive subject for some of us, and constantly hearing that either yourself or your friends or family are unnatural, dangerous to kids, etc of having your relationship compared to incestuous relationships etc can sometimes take its toll.

Whatever arguments there have been so far have been very spurious, and often rather absurd - and yet these are the only reasons being put forth to justify continued discrimination against us.

If some people react adversely in the face of all that, try to have some understanding what it might be like to have either your rights or your friends and families up for public debate and consider whether you would remain entirely rational throughout the debate.

And however bad you might think the tenor of the debate is, is voting to deny rights really a proportionate response?

To Elland Back · 26-01-2015 02:55PM

floggg wrote: »

I haven't seen too many personal attacks - though
And however bad you might think the tenor of the debate is, is voting to deny rights really a proportionate response?

It could be looked upon as supporting those who put forward their argument in a more reasonable manner, rather than voting against the motion. We live in a democracy where majority rules and we should accept that. I won't be told to vote a certain way in a personally abusive form

Daith · 26-01-2015 03:05PM

To Elland Back wrote: »

It could be looked upon as supporting those who put forward their argument in a more reasonable manner, rather than voting against the motion. We live in a democracy where majority rules and we should accept that. I won't be told to vote a certain way in a personally abusive form

What personal attacks?

Godge · 26-01-2015 03:15PM

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

I'll be voting no for 3 reasons.
1. I seen on another thread on this site how the homosexual posters ganged up on another poster, the end result being that she closed her account.
A cohort of people who demand to be treated equally and want tolerance seem to want to force their views on others by shouting the loudest and intimidating people..

This can be summed up as other people act like idiots so I will act like an idiot too.

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

2. I will not vote for anything this government proposes, Enda's due another wallop...

and
.

You believe a vendetta against a politician is more important than fundamental rights?

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

3. I believe that the ideal family unit is a married hetrosexual couple and their children.

(1) The referendum has nothing to do with adoption or children, that is in the legislation (Mary Hanafin is about the only politicians who agree with you on this, so I take it you will give FF a vote in the next election?)

(2) Have you told all the single mothers and single fathers?

rainbow kirby · 26-01-2015 03:42PM

I happen to be still registered to vote in Dublin South-West - tempted to book a cheap flight as soon as the referendum date is announced to place a big fat YES vote :pac:

I am bi, monogamous and marrying the (opposite sex) love of my life in May. Why should the rights be different based on the gender of my partner - it makes no sense at all!

bodice ripper · 26-01-2015 03:45PM

Still sick of being told to suck the cock of obvious no voters in an attempt to sway the unswayable. As perviously pointed out - mom said never kiss the ass that is ****ting on you.

Annasopra · 26-01-2015 04:02PM

Riverireland wrote: »

If you have 2 partners instead of 1 do you not want to marry both of them?

Just in case anyone takes that as "derailing" let me clarify that I personally think marriage is over rated as an institution. But, in the interest of equality, if it is going to be changed then why not include multiple partner marriages for bi sexuals and people of minority religions etc? I'd rather not see another costly referendum in a few years time when we still have a huge unemployment, homeless, healthcare problem to deal with. Why not just cover off everything now.

You are derailing. Its classic whataboutery derailing.

GaryDub31 · 26-01-2015 04:04PM

I will be voting yes. We are living in modern times now and I do not see why people should be denied this right. Surely the only thing that should matter is that they love each other enough to make this commitment.

floggg · 26-01-2015 04:06PM

To Elland Back wrote: »

It could be looked upon as supporting those who put forward their argument in a more reasonable manner, rather than voting against the motion. We live in a democracy where majority rules and we should accept that. I won't be told to vote a certain way in a personally abusive form

Well there have been plenty on here who support marriage who have put forward their argument in a reasonable manner - shouldn't you support them?

And again, you have never really addressed why you aren't equally opposed to the many opponents of marriage equality who have not put forward their case in any reasonable manner.

Why is it only one side's behaviour who you are scrutinising.

What's more, places like boards and twitter and facebook aren't really awreally representative of the official campaign, and tend to be forums were extreme opinions and stances tend to get most attention.

But if you look at the formal campaign being run by the Yes side, I don't think you will find a more patient, understanding and polite set of spokespeople in the country.

If you heard Colm O'Gorman for example frequently having to defend his own parenting skills from unjustified attacks, you would surely agree he deserves a medal for remaining so composed and calm. There are many others on the Yes side who put forward very passionate, but respectful and honest arguments.

They are often met by dishonest and disrespectful arguments in return.

Why would you consider punishing those Yes campaigners by voting no, which would be nothing if not a ringing endorsement of the likes of the people who distributed the "Sounds of Sodomy" flyer.

Can you give any explanation for the seemingly contradictory stance?

Annasopra · 26-01-2015 04:54PM

To Elland Back wrote: »

It could be looked upon as supporting those who put forward their argument in a more reasonable manner, rather than voting against the motion. We live in a democracy where majority rules and we should accept that. I won't be told to vote a certain way in a personally abusive form

I havent seen any personal abuse to you?

Ave Sodalis · 26-01-2015 05:28PM

To Elland Back wrote: »

It could be looked upon as supporting those who put forward their argument in a more reasonable manner, rather than voting against the motion. We live in a democracy where majority rules and we should accept that. I won't be told to vote a certain way in a personally abusive form

I think you're mixing the no side and the yes side up...

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

Comments