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

fran17 wrote: »

See this is the whole crux of the matter regarding a homosexuals stance on religion.It's the circle one can never square with the conscience.To accept any faith or anyone's faith is to accept ones life as immoral and sinful and this thought must be suppressed at all costs.
This materialises itself by vilifying the church,it's teachings and attempting to dehumanise the people as crazy or uneducated.The stronger the abuse against religion the stronger the personal struggle is.

Erm, no Fran. My views on religion are based on a basic understanding of science, evolution, the human condition and of history.

My sexuality has nothing to do with - in the same way a fondness for oral sex (which is condemned in equal terms to gay sex, not that you'd know it from listening to a Christian) doesn't preclude most Christians from believing in their faith.

In case you hadn't noticed, Christianity requires everybody to accept their life is immoral and sinful.

It's mainly just the complete lack of any factual basis that I take issue with.

StewartGriffin wrote: »

It's called democracy, it's not perfect but it's about the best we as a species have come up with so far.

And please stop whining as if the LGBT community are treated as some downtrodden lower caste. They're not.

We're holding a referendum on same sex marriage so married gay people can have the same legal rights as married heterosexual people, it looks like it will pass very, very comfortably, we're not abolishing slavery here.

lol. You admit in your post that gay people don't have the same rights, yet chastise me for making gay people out as being less equal as a matter of law. Ok.

And a modern liberal republican democracy should not give the majority the power to determine the rights of a minority - and at no other stage has it been in the history of the state to my mind.

So this referendum is not how our version of democracy should work in action.

fran17 wrote: »

Firstly its not an idea it the cold hard truth of the matter.There is no religion which either condones or promotes homosexual activity.
A man to lie with another man is an abomination Lev 18:22.
To approach men with desire is to behave ignorantly Quran 4:16
Many people may be members of the church as it supports them by promoting celibacy for people with same sex attractions.The sin is to act on these attractions and to do so and also claim to be a practicing Christian is both offensive to the church and completely self destructive.To promote any other misconception can be highly damaging to an individuals well being.
The contempt and vilification that the faiths are received with in this forum completely nullifies that theory without the above.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Here are four Christian religions who are pro-Gay.

Unitarian Universalist Association
United Church of Christ
Ecumenical Catholic Church
Metropolitan Community Church.

In case you were not aware of the existence of religions that do not owe their origins to a few Jewish nomads living in a Middle Eastern desert which pre-date Christianity you might be interested to learn the Mayans and the Aztecs both had specific gods of homosexuality before the Conquistadors arrived to tell them all about Jesus and slaughtered anyone who refused to believe.

Too far away - how about the Greeks? In their Pantheon Aphrodite was, among other things, the goddess of lesbianism.

Too ancient for you? How about the fact that the Dalai Lama has publicly stated his support for same-sex marriage.

Perhaps Buddhism is too exotic for you, you might prefer a more local religion like Wicca. Wiccans believe homosexuality is a healthy expression of human sexuality.

Maybe you will wish to dismiss the Dalai Lama as just one man (rather like the Pope is...) and Wicca is too decentralised to count as an actual religion due to not having any dedicated, constructed by humans, places of worship but in Taiwan - right now- there is a Taoist Temple dedicated to Tu Er Shen, a deity specifically dedicated to the love and affection between men.

But that's not really relevant to Ireland is it? Can't imagine we have many Taoists (although I do know a surprising large number of Wiccans...). We need some more 'normal', Something 'nice'. Something 'non-threatening'. Like the Vicar of Dibley... or rather the Bishop of Los Angeles. Her name is Mary Glasspool. She is an out lesbian. But that's L.A.... hardly Dibley is it. Brighton and Hove is more like it. In 2005 the Rev Debbie Gaston civil partnered with her girl friend of 16 years Elaine Gaston

Which brings us to various Anglican Communions.. openly bisexual bishop ordained in the Episcopal Church in 2003, Anglican Communion of New Zealand welcome non-celibate gay clergy, The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) love the gays - they issued a lengthy statement in 2013 saying so... The 'Mother church' of Anglicanism - The Church of England ordains gays, as does The Church of Scotland...

The Lutheran Church in Germany and Sweden not only condones homosexuality - they welcome sexually active gays into the clergy... AND since 2006 the Swedish Lutheran Church has been performing same-sex marriages...

I am not saying there is not debate or that every member of the religions named above are mad about the gays but the evidence is clear that your contention that There is no religion which either condones or promotes homosexual activity. is demonstrably false.





Have you ever considered carrying out some basic research before you post?

I have to say fair play to Fran, he really out did himself on being completely and demonstrably wrong with that one - and given his previous postings on all things gay, that's really saying something.

RobertKK wrote: »

Australian police said same sex marriage was used as a cover in one paedophile scandal.
It involved Australia, the US and Russia. It led to Russia banning adoption to a number of countries given it was a Russian child that was being taken around the world by the two men to be abused by other men.
My argument is this will blow up in the faces of the gay community in the future just like when paedophiles joined the church because it gave them a cover of respect and people were afraid to boo to a priest, people are the same now with gay people because they fear causing unintended offense.
If one cared for others they would say it, better to be hated for saying something people don't want to hear.
Because they then have no excuses when it happens.

All you need to be is a paedophile with no record, hook up with another paedophile who has no record, pretend to be gay and pretend to be lovers, have your SSM, go through the process and get access to a child.
This is what happened in Australia.
It is not fantasy, it is already a reality, but no one wants to have a public debate because it will cause offense, even though the intention is good.

Austrailia doesn't have same sex marriage.

But don't let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

I picked this up from Panti Bliss / Pantibar facebook on F/B. Unusual i thought, and read it through twice. It is unusual from what I would have expected from it's author, Breda Power. Because I downloaded it in photo-form, you may have to read it with a magnifying glass or copy it and divide them into left and right column images to read the article. The middle column in the article is about speed limits. Breda is actually "bashing" nay-sayers Fidelma Healey Eames and Bishop Dorney.

fran17 wrote: »

Now this referendum,if passed,will deny a child to both male and female influences for there growth and development,through manmade legislation.

You have mentioned the above a couple of times now Fran. Can you give an example of legislation that is not 'man made'? What is the alternative to 'man made' legislation? I am under the understanding that all legislation is man made, correct me if I am wrong? If this 'man made' legislation is so wrong, should we be refusing to comply with all current legislation that is in place due to it being 'man made'?

floggg wrote: »

1. She isn't being abused. Her reasoning and motives are being challenged. That is not abuse - its political discourse. If her reasoning and motives cannot stand up to scrutiny, then it is her reasoning and motives which are at fault - not those debating them.

"Political discourse" my arse tbh. Either that, or your idea of debating is at the opposite end of the spectrum to mine. You can debate an issue without taking it personally, and without making it personal. You're consistently and unfortunately failing to remember that you're the person who wants something from them; they don't want anything from you, and if you refuse to acknowledge their concerns, you've effectively already lost your ground. You can't expect that anyone will want to entertain your concerns if you are unwilling to entertain theirs. It may be difficult and all for you, but think about the long term gains rather than any short term benefits.

2. The fact that she may have contributed to the development of the economy or the nation doesn't give her the right to deny equality to others.

Actually, it does. She doesn't need any of that though to justify denying equality to others. All she needs is to be a citizen of this country, which entitles her to vote. How she votes however, will be dependent on how willing you are to listen to her concerns and then offer her reassurance based on her concerns. You're going to have to talk to her at some stage, and that's the position politicians find themselves in now, that they don't want to talk to these people and support marriage equality because they're afraid they'll lose their seat in the next general election.

Also what about the many negative contributions her repressive and prejudicial reasoning and way of viewing family life and sexual orientation have made to the nation and our society (as to which, see the letter referred to at No. 3 below).

Well, that really depends on who you're asking. Her many positive contributions to the nation and to our society by far and above outweigh what you see as her negative contributions, so if it were a balancing act - she comes out on top again.

3. What about the gay men and women of a similar age who have also contributed greatly to the economy and the nation? Who is she to deny them equality?

Read this letter and tell me she is entitled to deny the author equality because of her "contributions" to society - http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/at-60-and-gay-i-can-dream-letter-to-the-editor-31085474.html

I've read the letter, and I stand by what I said above. She cannot be held responsible for how one man chose to live his life and the suffering he experienced because of the life he chose for himself. She is no more responsible for any suffering he experienced in his life, than he is responsible for any suffering she experienced in her life. This man was part of a society which prohibited women from working in the public sector when they married, did he care about having that law changed? Can he be held responsible for it remaining in place until 1973? Can he be held responsible for the many laws which discriminate against women in this country?

If your answer is no, then why would you expect that this woman should be held responsible for any laws which discriminate against him?

4. Can you please evidence what this balance is, and why it is important/beneficial? Can you also let us know what it is you know that the over whelming majority of academics who have considered this issue aren't aware of?

I'm a big believer in the African proverb -

"It takes a village to raise a child"

And it's an idea that's often ignored in Western academia which tends to focus solely on the rights of the parents of the child. Their idea of "balance" is to simply focus on the particular agenda they want to push, and ignore all context beyond that, and that's how you end up with some of the funkier notions you believe. You may not like to acknowledge it, but social evolution has got us this far and the basis of that evolution has been between male and female influences in our lives, and the more balanced those influences, the more balanced view of the world a person will have.

Academics can whittle that down to statistics based on gender, sexual orientation, political views, economic factors, social and environmental factors, all manner of various labels, but at the end of the day, there is no one standard ideal measurement for how well a child is raised no matter what their background, because all those factors combine in influencing a person's world view and experiences, and cannot simply be taken as single factors without context, or you end up missing the bigger picture.

5. What exactly is it that children of same sex couples are lacking?

How long is a piece of string? Seriously. That's how open-ended and impossible that question is to answer without having more data upon which to form any sort of conclusion. No child was ever raised in a bubble in order to test that theory (I seem to recall there have been some experiments tried alright, but they were considered unethical and seriously flawed in many respects). By that same token, there is no advantage that same sex couples have in raising children over any other parenting combination you'd care to put forward, and yes floggg, that includes one parent families.

6. Sonics2k recently did an AMA on being raised by two mothers. Who are you to tell him the loving home he was raised in wasn't ideal, or lacking?

Well anyone can tell Sonics what they like, though he seems a well rounded chap with no chips on his shoulders. Clearly there was more to his upbringing than just having two mums, and from reading his AMA and listening to his interview, it's apparent that he and his parents and his family had great support from many family and friends, not simply just two mums raising a child in a bubble. I think Sonics can judge for himself though how seriously he would take anyone else's opinion when the evidence speaks for itself.

I also know of a man who raised five daughters and one boy as a widowed parent and he did a fantastic job. His children grew up in a home environment in which they felt loved and cared for and though they missed their mum, they were able to overcome the challenges as they presented themselves. This was over 20 years ago and I have great respect and admiration for that man to this day (well, I would have, I went out with one of his daughters and I still keep in regular contact with the family).

7. Same sex couples are already raising children and will continue to do so regardless of the result. The referendum doesn't legislate for this - it simply changes how the parents relationships is viewed as a matter of law.

No argument there.

8. Divorce is also a situation where we legislate for a man made scenario where children wouldn't be raised by a "mother and father figure." Do you believe divorce legislation should be repealed?

Unless I'm mistaken, divorce doesn't mean that the children wouldn't still be raised by their mother and father? I know many divorced couples who still co-parent their children and are very involved in their children's lives. I suppose depending on whatever point you want to make though, you might tend to miss, or even purposely ignore this scenario.

Surely being raised by two parents of the same sex is beneficial to being raised by one? So why prohibit the former if we allow parents to choose the latter.

You really have a thing against one parent families, don't you floggg? :pac:

No, seriously though, I know you don't, but the fact you keep hammering on about how two parents are better than one, you're ignoring context to suit your agenda and you're ignoring the fact that in doing so, you're effectively shooting down one your core voting demographics. Has it occurred to you at all that one parent families may be LGBT parents? Not all one parent families are one parent families by choice either btw (although the man I mentioned earlier has chosen not to re-marry after his wife died).

9. Why do we as a society permit sex outside of marriage if the raising of children outside of a traditional family structure is so undesirable?

We as a society neither permit nor deny sex outside of marriage to anyone above the age of consent (unless of course they lack the mental capacity to give consent), so it's not like we can stop people having sex. It's a non-sequitur to suggest though that sex outside marriage has any bearing on raising children outside marriage.

You're ignoring all sorts of prejudices again if you think that most people in Irish society see one parent families as desirable, let alone same sex parent families as desirable. It's actually easier to convince people to support marriage equality for people who are LGBT, than it is to encourage them to support the idea of same sex parent families. You should consider it a blessing that the issue of same sex parenting isn't being put to the electorate. You'd very quickly find out that people aren't so accommodating as you might be given to believe.

floggg wrote: »

You see, we don't understand concerns about gay people being harmful to children, or incapable of raising them, or our relationships being unnatural, unequal or undeserving - and to pretend we do gives them an undeserved legitimacy.

You don't understand those concerns because you're only thinking of these issues from your own perspective, and that's why you're gaining no traction with people - because you want to ignore other people's perspective, yet you think they should have to listen to yours and support you. That's really not how it works. You need them more than they need you.

Would you suggest that a black man show the KKK that he understands their concerns - or the KKK to be swayed by from their position of he told them their fears were understandable?

Yes? Otherwise how do you expect understanding and tolerance to come about if both parties choose to ignore each other? How badly do you want equality? Because if you want to argue that it's all about politics, then I suggest you look at the back scratching that went on between Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy to further both their political careers and causes.

It didn't do John Hume and Gerry Adams any harm either to sit down and talk and listen to each others concerns to try and find common ground on which to build understanding, tolerance and respect for each other. I mean, if you're going to preach it and say that other people should show you tolerance, understanding and respect, then the onus is on you to practice what you preach and show leadership, in order to gain support for your ideas.

Otherwise, you can still bury your head in the sand and ignore everything and everyone else around you, and fool yourself into thinking that strategy is going to get you anywhere.

It's not, btw.

RobertKK wrote: »

The government stated they would need to change adoption laws so if the referendum is passed, the laws would be the same for gay people who marry.
So the it is the referendum that is the catalyst for the change in adoption law and other changes that are being made.
People say people who adopt are vetted and the process is not easy.
One could argue with no changes this applies to single people who adopt, a single paedophile could go through this process, and maybe be successful in adopting a child.
But I would argue it would be similar to the church, 96% of known abuse happened outside the church, yet the media sensationalism would make one think the church was the main source for abuse.
People then would generalise with paedophile priests when talking about the church, might get angry with you if you said the vast vast majority of priests are good people. One would then get accused of making excuses for the church. This is my experience.
Let's say the same thing happens to gay people as happened to priests and a number of abuse cases appear by paedophiles who abused the system. You will get the same disgusting generalisation towards gay people as priests received and because there is a prejudice by some some towards gay people in that they have an irrational hatred. It will be history repeating and it will be innocent people that once again will get tarnished by people they equally are disgusted with.
There is not the same prejudice towards heterosexual couples or single people that would lead to the same reaction by some.
This comes from how I felt during the darkest days of the sex abuse scandals in the church, I remember sitting in my seat at church, the priest reading out a statement by the bishops. How child protection people have to be with children if alone with a priest. It felt at that time very dark, very sinister, you would be affected to the extent you would wonder even though you knew the priest was a good person.
I saw how people who hated the church used the sexual abuse as a weapon to beat the church with.
I don't want other people to go through that. Hatred of other people will not go away however anyone thinks society is progressing or will progress. There are always people who are there waiting to beat you if they believe they have something to beat you with.
In my life I try to avoid giving people the stick to use.
I think the change in the laws will unintentionally produce a stick that can be used in the future, not just here but elsewhere.
We still have people who hate people with a different skin colour, that is not going away, neither will homophobia, hatred of people who have different beliefs, looking down on people who are maybe poorer than oneself, hating people who made a success of their lives.
It is a sad world we live in that it is groups that are vulnerable that are the ones who are most taken advantage of.
That isn't going to change. I don't hate anyone, hate is like carrying around a weight, dragging one down, doing them no good when they should just be getting on with their lives and not concerning themselves with what others do.
I would be very happy with gay adoption and in the process less abortions given there are not enough children for those who want to adopt and so foreign adoption becomes an issue.
The state has a poor record when it comes to children, yet we are suppose to believe they can offer gay people the protection they deserve from people who will abuse the system.
I don't believe they can. The state is usually part of the problem and the people waiting with their sticks to beat gay people with, will be there acting all concerned, when they generalise and go over the top, like we saw some claim celibacy led to child abuse in the church. The church is an evil organisation. The generalised term of paedophile priests.
Rest assured there will be people waiting to do the same to gay people, and will be secretly happy while acting concerned when it does arise.
Some people are just waiting to beat others over something they are not responsible for.
It is fine for people to talk about rights, but it doesn't mean all it will bring is good things.
Too much reverence, respect and too willing to believe in good towards priests in the church was the perfect conditions for paedophiles.
Now people are afraid of being called homophobic, a bigot or whatever when it comes to gay people, lots if people feel they can't say stuff or it will be taken up wrong or as a hatred. Society is doing to gay people what they did to priests and that is not healthy.
I for example was wrongly accused of saying gay people were sexual abusers. This is why most people are afraid to say anything, and only anything positive is allowed.
I don't think it is healthy. If we care about people we have to discuss everything, bad stuff often happens to good people. Good people are more easily taken advantage than the person with bad intentions.
The yes side is all rosy and light. No one wants a proper debate it seems.
If we care about people we should discuss our concerns for them.

And so your solution is to fight prejudice with discrimination?

fran17 wrote: »

Well in my opinion if a grouping engage in shouting to oppose an elderly lady who has a point of view which they oppose then that is abuse.If you think not then I suggest you challenge your own motives and morals.It's no better than the shameful act committed on the printing company recently and we all know how the public viewed that situation.
Now I have zero interest in reading or viewing anymore letters or video interviews that have been fabricated by the yes campaign to tug on the publics heart strings.My concerns lie in the issue not the window dressing.
You play the same old card here that all the yes campaign do,that card is the joker card.Nobody cares if two homosexuals want to exchange rings and cut a cake and that is not what this referendum is about.It's about the redefinition of the family and the provision of adoption rights to homosexual couples.You know if you were just honest about that then we could really begin the debate...
Nobody is stupid,of course children grow up without both a mother and father influence in there lives for many reasons and they do fine in many cases.However to attempt to equate divorce,sex out of wedlock or the non traditional family to a homosexual relationship is,I won't say laughable,but a complete fallacy and you must know that.It's chalk and cheese,apples and oranges.There is no unbiased academic worth his salt that won't tell you that a child should whenever possible have both a male and female influence in there development just as nature intended.Hell Leo Varadkar even agrees with that!
Now this referendum,if passed,will deny a child to both male and female influences for there growth and development,through manmade legislation.That is why I believe everyone with a moral compass should oppose it.
You asked me alot of questions and I hope i covered most.Now tell me,why do you want to restrict a child from there natural right to a male and female influence in there lives?knowing the pain and isolation it will cause them and the permanent mental anguish it will cause?

Have you seen anybody shouting at an old woman?

Her reasoning is being challenged (hypothetical as she is), and that is the nature of public debate. Nobody has the right to an unchallenged opinion.

It's disappointing, but not surprising, that you ignored the substance of the test of my posts.

But if it's as obvious as you say suggest that either same sex parenting is detrimental or inferior, or that being raised by heterosexual parents is advantageous for some reason, then you should be able to evidence why.

What are the merits of heterosexual parents over same sex parents? What can they provide that a same sex couple can't, And why is that beneficial?

Where are these unbiased academics you speak of?

Where is the evidence of pain and mental anguish caused by being "denied" either a male or female influence.

How does it manifest itself and in what cases?

You claim these things as fact, but have you any evidence for them?

Most of the little old ladies are well able to stand up for themselves.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

You have mentioned the above a couple of times now Fran. Can you give an example of legislation that is not 'man made'? What is the alternative to 'man made' legislation? I am under the understanding that all legislation is man made, correct me if I am wrong? If this 'man made' legislation is so wrong, should we be refusing to comply with all current legislation that is in place due to it being 'man made'?

Well now your just being pedantic,and deliberately so.I hate even having to address these strawman arguments.
Of course all legislation is manmade,your completely missing the point,some would say deliberately so but not me.
Children lose the right to both male and female influences in there development for many reasons and that is a tragedy.I would strongly contest anybody who believes that a child who grew up without both a male and female role model in there lives would be happier or more well developed than a child who grew up with a male and female presence in their lives.All research comes to the conclusion that where possible a child should have both.This includes our minister for health.
This legislation,if passed,will deny a child to this basic human right.These children will be denied this right for no other reason than a manmade one and that is very very wrong.
Why do you want to deny these children that basic natural right?

fran17 wrote: »

Well now your just being pedantic,and deliberately so.I hate even having to address these strawman arguments.
Of course all legislation is manmade,your completely missing the point,some would say deliberately so but not me.
Children lose the right to both male and female influences in there development for many reasons and that is a tragedy.I would strongly contest anybody who believes that a child who grew up without both a male and female role model in there lives would be happier or more well developed than a child who grew up with a male and female presence in their lives. All research comes to the conclusion that where possible a child should have both.This includes our minister for health.

A child's well being and welfare depends on a number of other factors than just the gender or sexual orientation of the parents. I am personally aware of many adults who were raised in one parent families who are quite happy and well adjusted individuals, and I am aware of many more people who are woefully miserable as adults who grew up in heterosexual two parent families. You simply cannot guarantee anything either way.

This legislation,if passed,will deny a child to this basic human right.

It will not. There is nothing, in any legislation, current or proposed, which suggests that children will be denied the influence of both men and women in their lives. If anything, the Children and Families Bill, and the upcoming referendum on marriage equality, are beneficial to children in those circumstances, and it is you fran, who would deny them that basic human right to equal protection in society, due to your own prejudices.

If you care about children's welfare as much as you say you do, then the obvious conclusion would be to support marriage equality, as it ADDS to the protection and welfare of children, rather than the current situation which leaves a lot to be desired in terms of children's welfare.

These children will be denied this right for no other reason than a manmade one and that is very very wrong.

Children are currently being denied equal recognition and the protection of society for no other reason than the manmade laws in place already, and you're right, that is very, very wrong. You have a chance to rectify that wrong, by voting to have those manmade laws re-written to offer these children the same recognition and protection of society as every other child.

Why do you want to deny these children that basic natural right?

Have you asked yourself that same question recently?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The little old lady is a hypothetical citizen (had to trace back through the quotes to find her :pac:) -

I mean, I could give many, many more examples of people's funky ideas, but I'd be here all day. Suffice to say that people who make ill informed generalisations about people to back up their own biased perceptions are as ignorant as those same people who come out with some seriously mind bending funky notions! :pac:

True, so true.... I am biased towards the YES side because i believe that the ideal of equality should be the ideal for every citizen, instead of allowing one's religious belief instruct one on how the state should ensure only some of it's citizens may have civil marriage rights on the basis of their perceived gender while other citizens may be refused it on the same grounds.

There are too many examples of religious intolerance in our world.

I would chat more with people but I perceive that some "debaters" are more into ridiculous P/O/V's for fun or other purpose, and it's hard to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Ta for the bit about the hypothetical lady, as a random example of citizen Josey Soap. Hopefully the little old ladies etc, have the internet or TV and can see Patrick and Brighid from Louth telling how they are a practicing married Roman Catholic Christian couple, are going to vote YES in the referendum as they see it will ensure and protect the citizens right to civil marriage of any gay or lesbian grandchild/ren they may have in the future.