Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

darkpagandeath wrote: »

But they are still getting Touchy about it having the same status.

Well feckin' boo hoo for them then.

theboy1 wrote: »

Gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt IMO.

They should be afforded the right to marry absolutely, but It would be unfair on the child to have to cope with the stigma.

The thing is though, that's not even an issue here. The law allowing gay couples to adopt has already been approved and brought in. Adoption has nothing to do with this referendum.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Well I don't think that would fly if it was directed at the other players in this.

OK, let me put it this way. They got touchy about women being able to continue to work after marriage. They got touchy about people in miserable, loveless marriages being able to divorce. They got touchy about contraception becoming available. Some of them probably even got touchy about marital rape being recognised as a crime. They got over it. Their touchyness doesn't get to stand in the way of equality.

theboy1 wrote: »

So they are allowed to adopt children but they are not allowed get married? That's ridiculous.

Yep. You won't get any argument from me on that one

theboy1 wrote: »

Gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt IMO.

They should be afforded the right to marry absolutely, but It would be unfair on the child to have to cope with the stigma.

While I can understand that line of thinking (I'm gay and I'd be seriously concerned about a child being bullied), is it not better to tackle the stigma? Rather than be defeatist about it?

The reality is that there already are single gay/bi parents. In my school, one lads mother divorced her husband and dated another woman. People generally decided not to bring it up tbh... mostly because divorce is extremely personal.

A primary concern of the legislation is what happens if a single mother (example) has a child, the man dies or does a runner and she ultimately settles down with another woman, and raise the baby together. The child views both women as parents but the law recognises only one. The biological mother dies, and the partner has no legal right to the child she co-raised, and the traumatised child is put into care.
If it was a straight couple, the partner could adopt.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Traditionally In Ireland it has been Only a Religious ceremony.

Actually, throughout much of Medieval Ireland, Civil (Brehon) Marriages were favoured over religious marriage, including Trial Marriages which could be absolved after one year without social stigma. The Church didn't like it but many Clan's (and peasants under them) had enough power to resist, although there were more devout Chieftains who endorsed traditional Christian marriages too.

Since the Brehon Laws survived until the 17th Century, it's clear that Irish traditions were not as "Traditional" as we're led to believe.:)

indy_man wrote: »

If you get to watch all this are you still 100% sure redefining marriage in our constitution is the correct thing to do? It would be best if you watched it before slamming it, if you don't watch it at all probably best not comment.

Yes, I'm still sure that marriage equality is 100% the right thing to do and I'm not sure having watched Quinn's entire speech how anyone can think that it contains ANY valid counter arguments.

It's difficult to describe the number of different ways in which Quinn's argument breaks down, but let's give it a go.

Firstly, Quinn describes marriage (as the constitution does) as the foundation on which the family is based. He then goes on to argue that somehow, a same-sex couple which gets married can't have a family. This is because the only family he sees is one in which the children are the biological offspring of both parents. However, this view is a) out of touch with reality and b) not in keeping with the spirit of the constitution. According to research conducted by the ESRI in 2011, one in three families are not the traditional family described by Quinn in the video and one in four children under 21 do not live in a traditional family.
Also, while same-sex couples cannot reproduce children on their own without intervention, they can and do still produce children using AHR, surrogacy or adoption. This means that same-sex married couples can still raise a family. One way or another a future generation is being produced. It's just that the way in which these children are born do not fit into Quinn's narrow view of the world.

Secondly, when Quinn talks about marriage and children he is also wrong but for a very different reason. Firstly, we can see from birth statistics that an increasing number of children are being born to parents who are not married:



In 2012, 35% of children were born to parents who are not married. So even without marriage families are springing up around the country.
Furthermore, Quinn speaks about children as if raising children are an essential part of marriage. If that is the case, will he be campaigning to revoke the marriage licenses of the 261,652 couples who are married but do not have children as revealed by the last Census.
A heterosexual couple who do not want to or cannot produce children are not restricted from getting married, so why should a gay couple be so restricted.

Quinn then goes on to contradict his own point by mentioning that marriage has only two requirements, consent and consummation. First off, he's wrong, marriage actually has quite a four requirements: consent, capacity, notice and consummation. However, the relevant point here is consummation which Quinn speaks about at length. There are, however, a couple of points about consummation which undermine his argument.
Firstly, consummation is the ability to have sex. So this is something shared by straight and gay couples.
Secondly, it is impotency and not infertility which constitutes non-consummation for the purposes of declaring a marriage void. The law in this respect does not view marriage as an institution for producing children, but rather for the sexual union of two people.
Thirdly, while Quinn points out that Britain and France are beginning to scrap consummation as a requirement since the introduction of marriage equality, he fails to point out that other jurisdictions who haven't introduced same-sex marriage have also scrapped the concept of consummation, like Australia, for example.

Quinn then goes on to present a scaremongering version of the future where children who are adopted will no longer be preferably placed with a married heterosexual couple and that IVF will no longer be restricted to a married heterosexual couple and so on. This makes it sound as if equality for gay couples in adoption, fostering, IVF etc. would be bad for children which is demonstrably untrue. We know from over 40 years of research on the issue that there is no difference in the outcome of a child who is raised by a gay couple compared to a straight couple. If you would like to read all the research for yourself, I have documented it here:

Marriage Equality 2015 - Parenting research

He then goes on to compound this flawed argument by pointing to an opinion poll that his institute conducted which found that a majority of people would prefer a heterosexual married couple. Argumentum ad populum anyone?

As much as Quinn then hammers the point about the necessity of both a mother and father, the research (above) has shown that there is nothing specific to any gender which makes for a good parent. As one researcher summarised the position:

"First, fathers and mothers influence their children in similar rather than dissimilar ways.

Stated differently, students of socialization have consistently found that parental warmth, nurturance and closeness are associated with positive child outcomes regardless of whether the parent involved is a mother or father.

Secondly, as research has unfolded, psychologists have been forced to conclude that the characteristics of individual fathers - such as their masculinity, intellect, and even their warmth - are much less important, formatively speaking, than are the characteristics of the relationships they have established with their children.


Marital harmony is a consistent correlate of child adjustment, whereas marital conflict is a consistent and reliable correlate of child maladjustment."

One final point about adoption is the storm-in-a-teacup nature of adoption in relation to the marriage equality argument. The adoption figures above show that just 49 adoption orders were granted in 2012. Out of these just 16 were granted to couples where there was no pre-existing relationship with the child.

Quinn then goes on to speak about AHR and how children are being deliberately denied a mother or father. He then presumes to speak for these children and goes on about how angry they are about being denied their rights. However, it would seem that Quinn hasn't actually met any of these children as the ones who have come forward publicly have said entirely the opposite. If you want a firsthand view of a child's experience in this situation may I suggest that you read Sonics2k's fantastic AMA.
In making this point, Quinn also talks about a future where these children and the tens of thousands of them out there are looking for their donor parents. Tens of thousands, really? Even in large scale surveys such as those in the United States same-sex couple families only account for approximately 1.5% of all family types. In Ireland in the 2011 census there were just 4042 same-sex couples registered. Where are these tens of thousands of donor conceived children coming from?

Quinn's arguments are logically flawed, factually untrue and are simply an attempt to scare people and paint this dystopian vision of society of what will happen if marriage equality is introduced. Then again, so did people like him before contraception and divorce were introduced. We're still here and we'll continue to be after marriage equality is passed.

I found the bit about 'consumation' highly amusing for some reason. David wants to ensure that marriages can still be annulled if they are not 'consumated'. Sounds like something from the 16th century, a time that David would have been happier living in I think!

I couldn't bear to watch a second of Quinn or read his weekly rants in the Indo, which are always an attack on some section of society, or pitiful whinging that the media is not as right wing as he his Despite the fact that he gets a huge amount of coverage for a small pressure group. Luckily he doesn't have any clout with government.

Don't buy this line about the no side being silenced seem to have a lot of media coverage. Recall when the ref was announced there was some blogger guy on tv three nights in a row complaining his voice wasn't being heard!
Iona have more access to the media than any group of similar size. Thing is they don't actually have a good argument so instead play the victim and complain about being "silenced" though only one side has threatened to go to court for comments made.

20Cent wrote: »

Don't buy this line about the no side being silenced seem to have a lot of media coverage. Recall when the ref was announced there was some blogger guy on tv three nights in a row complaining his voice wasn't being heard!
Iona have more access to the media than any group of similar size. Thing is they don't actually have a good argument so instead play the victim and complain about being "silenced" though only one side has threatened to go to court for comments made.

Iona have more access I suspect because they're the 'go to crowd for the no side' whenever RTE need a comment, and nobody else is prepared to stick their head above the parapet.
On line is really the only place you tend to see the no side creep out, protected by the anonymity it affords then, and you don't get a lot discussion or political discourse from trolling homophobes. But then the internet can be a nasty place and not the best forum for debate.

I was actually debating SSM with a co-worker over coffee who quietly told me that she intends on voting no and who said that it was refreshing to have an open debate about it, because she felt as if no voters could only really talk to those they can unequivocally trust, she wouldn't even talk about it with her sister who's a fervent yes voter.
Whether you buy it or not, if someone publically voices a negative opinion on SSM, the truth is that they can expect more then a robust debate. They can expect to be the subject of a pervasive on line hate campaign, they might loose their job or be blacklisted from a variety of institutions. She said that telling somebody you're a no voter is like telling somebody that you're a communist in the 1950's.
I think I actually made a lot of points in favour that in the end she agreed with, which is a positive approach, rather then simply bullying people into silence and I've met a few yes campaigners that are more then a little perturbed by the actions of some on their side.