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

aloyisious wrote: »

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.

Exactly! Pretty much sums up my views on it too tbh. I mean, I'm a religious person, but that informs my view that all people should be entitled to equal treatment and respect and as I said to fran the other day -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You are distorting the truth with that statement, and it is your tactics are counter-productive to people who are religious as you make us all look like ignorant, hate-filled bigots who obsess about being as offensive as possible to other people, instead of people who hope to promote tolerance and understanding among everyone in society, to withhold judgement and instead offer assistance to anyone.

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

I'd have a slightly different spin on that tbh, and suggest that there are far too many examples of intolerance in our world, and religion is just an excuse used by some people to justify their intolerance.

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.

It's fairly easy to spot at this stage who's genuinely interested in discussion, and who's just here for a wind-up. I won't name names but I'd imagine most people have the measure of others already. It'd be nice if they'd stop moving the goalposts though and clutching to anything to justify their predjudices.

Ta for the bit about the hypothetical lady, as a random example of citizen Josey Soap.

No bother, I know plenty of Josey Soaps who will also be voting yes in this referendum as they too have had to hide who they are a lot longer than some of the young people who will be voting no simply out of spite.

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.

sorry, this is a completely far fetched accusation , which has no basis in fact. today a lesbian couple can end up taking care of a child, even if a gay couple cant .

We have thousands and thousands of children denied good parents in this country , male female or both. This referendum will do nothing to change ( or correct ) that issue.

If I were you I wouldn't use that " moral compass" of yours to guide you anywhere.

golfball37 wrote: »

Can you be against SSM and not be homophobic?

in my view No, you cant. and the attempts to construct side arguments and bring nonsense into the debate is an attempt to create a smokescreen for people that are actually , if truth be known , homophobic

golfball37 wrote: »

Can you be against SSM and not be homophobic?

I don't really see how... "Oh, I like gay people, I think they're great. I just don't think they should have the same rights I do". I can't really see a non-homophobic reason for that.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Who is this little old lady and why do people assume she will vote no?

The oldest little old lady in my family is 95 and she is voting yes - as are the 80 year old, the 78 year old and the 76 year old little old ladies ...

An den dey'll all be goin' mad for marryin' each other de four o' dem and adoptin' poor defenceless babbies! 'Tis a shlippery shlope Joe! A shlippery schlope, I tell ye!

:mad:

endacl wrote: »

An den dey'll all be goin' mad for marryin' each other de four o' dem and adoptin' poor defenceless babbies! 'Tis a shlippery shlope Joe! A shlippery schlope, I tell ye!

:mad:

Chassis, I tell you Chassis, next they'll be letting married women open a bank account

golfball37 wrote: »

Can you be against SSM and not be homophobic?

Yes! There is a tiny group of gay people opposed to SSM on the grounds that it diminishes homosexuality as a distinct identity.

These are the people whose self-worth is heavily dependent on being part of a minority and so see things like SSM as damaging to their personal identity by "normalising" homosexuality and diminishing its value as a badge that can be worn.

I guess that too is bigotry, just in the opposite direction.

There is another tiny group opposed to it, but on the basis that they oppose state-sanctioned marriage completely and believe SSM is going in the wrong direction - instead all legal marriage should be abolished.
But I suppose you could say that these people are pro-equality, even if they're not pro-SSM.

bruschi wrote: »

Roberts assertion that he will vote no because it will lead to paedophiles having a route to adopt and abuse is quite frankly, absurd in the extreme. Its one of the strangest reasons I have ever seen to voting no.

The ridiculous assertion of the paedophiles taking advantage of priesthood too, and it was these bad paedophiles, and not actual priests that gave the church the bad name. I'm not sure if it is delusional or just ignoring facts. And I say this as someone who comes from a parish of one of the worst Catholic priest abusers in the country, who destroyed lives of my neighbours, many of whom have had family members commit suicide or leave the country because of this priest, but yet Robert thinks that it was a case of paedophiles exploiting the church and they werent really priests?

I also have no bones against the church. I'm not overly religious, but I'm not atheist or totally against the church. Pretty much ambivalent to it to be honest, I dont care enough one way or the other. Our parish had a stigma for years because of a scum bag person. But I dont judge the other really great priests that were here because of him. I dont think that the church should fold because of the few bad eggs, even if as Robert says they were paedophiles taking advantage.

So why would you deny thousands of people a right to marry, because of a really, really tiny amount of people who may try take advantage of the SSM situation to create a paedophile ring. Even writing that sounds utterly ridiculous.

I wondered too about the case that was being used as the example, and found the details here. This is a good article by a journalist who interviewed them as part of a story she did on the troubles gay people have. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-10/gorman-second-thoughts/4809582

Also, the turn about that this referendum is having about children is also utterly mad in the extreme too. Are we voting on whether gay people can adopt? I dint think so. So why is that being debated in this?

So just for confirmation then are you saying that that horrific abuse was perpetrated by a priest who became a paedophile OR a paedophile who became a priest?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

"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.

Unfortuantely it is personal for me. It is my rights they are voting on, and it is my relationship they are judging.

In any event, what is it you would have me do? I listen to any argument against marriage equality, analyse their susbtance, and attempt to deconstruct them using facts, evidence and logic.

That is not bullying or abuse (particularly where a person has volunteered their opinion and attempted to influence a public debate).

What I won't do is pretend there is validity or merit to their position, or that there misconceptions and prejudices are reasonable positions.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

She has a single vote in this referendum - no more than I or anybody else. What she may or may not have done in her life gives her no more rights than anybody else, nor does it justify or validate her prejudices or beliefs.

That doesn't appear to have been what Fran was alluding to though. The inference I took from his post was that her "contributions" to the country gave her vote or her position more weight or legitimacy than anybody elses.


As I have said, I will listen and address her concerns, but I won't pretend that they are reasonable positions to hold. I would treat her with respect, but that doesn't mean I will respect her arguments. I would be polite and measured when discussing it with her - as I have been in the many posters who have posted genuine concerns and who were receptive to contrary arguments.

The problem with this thread is that the most active no posters don't want to engage in debate or accept any contrary arguments - which is not conducive to a dispassionate or measured debate.

I would add that I don't judge anybody for holding certain prejudices, particularly those of a certain generation - only those who stubbornly cling to them in the face of all logic and evidence which shows they are baseless.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

We have no way of knowing whether this hypothetical woman's contributions to society are positive or negative as a whole. All we know of her from Fran's description is she clings rigidly to traditional family values - and we know the great harm that sort of mindset did to so many.

It is possible to believe in family values whilst also being inclusive and respectful of other family structures. So we cannot say she, or her generation has ownership of the positive aspects of family life. But the should claim ownership of the wrongs that resulted from a refusal to embrace diversity of family structures.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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?

Again, as a hypothetical woman we cannot say what role she played in the prejudices he experienced - though we do know that many of those prejudices were due to adherence to tradition for traditions sake.

I wasn't however seeking to hold her personally responsible for anything he experienced - simply offering him as a counter-point to the hypothetical woman Fran put forward as being more entitled to her position than the rest of us.

If her contributions and experiences have given her voice added weight, why not his?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

I'm not really sure what you are saying here. I am saying that the gender of your parents isn't important, and has proven to be the case.

Obviously children will be influenced by the whole village, and be influenced by role models of both genders.

But it is evidently false (from the ever increasing research on the subject) to say that this balance can only be provided by parents or that the gender of your parents has anything to do with your development or outcome.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Nobody ever said same sex parents are more beneficial or advantageous over heterosexual parents - simply that there is no material difference between the two. As I said, there is ample research which shows this is the case.

And there are enough same sex parents in the world today for any differences to be identified if there was any.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

No issue with this.

The phrase "who are you tell X..." isn't meant to question whether he has the physical or legal capacity to tell X anything. Its to question why anybody would pay attention to them if and when they do.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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).

There are many fine single parents, and I respect single parents so much. Parenting is a tough job to do at the best of times, but without support its tougher still. And yet so many single parents do just as a good a job as any couple.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Generally on divorce one parent will leave the family home and be less directly involved. Depending on the divorce/custody arrangements they can have little to no direct involvement.

While it will depend on the circumstances in each case, divorce is therefore an example of where legislation can result in children being raised otherwise than by a mother and father - and in sometimes not only does our divorce legislation facilitate this, it enforces the separation through sole custody arrangements etc.

I was therefore trying to show how it was disingenuous to argue against marriage equality on the (false) premise of a denial of rights to be raised by a mother and father without also being opposed to divorce.

if being raised by a mother and father is so fundamental to children's welfare, why did we facilitate the break of families?

Now personally I fully support divorce, and see a one parent family as preferable to a dysfunctional "traditional" family.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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).

I have nothing in general against single parents as noted above. I do believe that, in general, two parent families tend to be better, if even just for the division of labour. Being a single parent must be exhausting - and I am sure they would appreciate a dig out.

But that is only a generalisation. Some children would be infinitely better off if one parent was removed from their lives, and some single parents do a better job alone then many couples do together.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

We did actually seek to regulate peoples sexual behavior for many centuries. We stopped, because we felt it was a personal matter for people to determine their own sexual relations and family structures.

And I am fully aware of people's prejudices - i just think they should be challenged.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.





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.

Again, I have no issue listening to arguments, and respecting the person making them. I take issue with being asked to respect their argument.

I very much doubt that you would have told Rosa Parks she should have understood why she wasn't allowed a seat on the front of the bus, or that she should have tried to ask kindly for the seat rather than taking a defiant, and confrontational stand.

If you would say such a thing, you would find few today who would look kindly on your argument.

Equally, I doubt asking MLK to understand why people might consider him to be of a sub-human species undeserving of equality.

MLK, John Hume, Gandhi et all did all engage in dialogue, non-violent protests and engaged respectfully as best they could - but they never conceded the righteousness of their positions, nor did they accept the legitimacy of their opponents positions. They respected the person, but not the argument - in the same equality advocates today should.

BoatMad wrote: »

in my view No, you cant. and the attempts to construct side arguments and bring nonsense into the debate is an attempt to create a smokescreen for people that are actually , if truth be known , homophobic

kylith wrote: »

I don't really see how... "Oh, I like gay people, I think they're great. I just don't think they should have the same rights I do". I can't really see a non-homophobic reason for that.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I think the issue is some people, on seeing the word 'homophobic' assume that the intent is to make them out to be some intolerant bigot. When in reality people are just pointing out that they have an unreasonable prejudice against homosexuals, which is blatantly the case if said person wants to deny them equal rights.

I'm not homophobic but believe marriage should be exclusively between a man and a woman. I've no problem with CP's. I know a gay man who agrees with me and he's not homophobic either.
In fact its very narrow minded to assume the black and white position of not in favour = homophobic.
I think an approach like this in the campaign will stop a lot of people voting yes.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Single people are currently able to adopt Fran! You should be campaigning to ban that since you believe that it is denying children a 'basic human right'. Also if children who are not living with both a male and female parent are being denied a human right, I assume that you advocate for children to be taken off unmarried, single mothers and that divorce should be illegal? Or is it just gay parents you have an issue with?

I was not being pedantic. I was questioning your regular use of the phrase 'man made legislation' which struck me a quite odd as there is clearly no other type of legislation other than man made. Thank you for clarifying that you are aware of this.

I'm here to clarify any point you need clarification on Kiwi,just ask.
So your argument is that having legislation enacted which will create a same sex union/family and will categorically deny a child the right to a mother and father in his/her life is on a par with an unmarried mother/father or a divorce?That's your stance.