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

http://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/related/348b4f/homosexual_marriage_in_ireland_up_for_vote

gravehold wrote: »

He transformed a broken germany after ww1 sanctions crippled it, once he went full dictatorship and stopped democracy it all went down hill fast. Still not as bad as stalin though.

I'm pretty well informed on what Hitler did and how he did it thanks.

Apparently you have no issues with how he did it. I do.

Mao was even worse - shall we bring him into this too?

You are trying to excuse blatant discrimination being enshrined in a Constitution by saying well 'majority/deomcracy' and it would be worse if it was done by a dictator. Guess what - if you are the one being discriminated against that it makes feck all difference who is holding the metaphorical stick cos you are still getting hit by the s*itty end.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I pretty well informed on what Hitler did and how he did it thanks.

Apparently you have no issues with how he did it. I do.

He didn't say that and let's keep this on topic or next you will be comparing gays to paedos and making hand written sign to put up on your house hahaha



Has anybody seen the properganda posters comparing gay couples to convicted paedos?

WTF

frostyjacks wrote: »

Because one is a same sex couple, and they believe marriage is for a man and woman.

That's a rather tautological ideology. It is what it is, obviously.

But the church, MAFM and the Iona Institute, in seeking to justify why they hold that this should continue to be the case, all make the specious argument that marriage is about natural procreation. Fergus Finlay points out that the church has been happily marrying people for years who had no chance of naturally procreating, and with no hint of concern that this was violating God's plan. It seems that in fact there is only one special case where the procreation issue matters - when the couple are the same sex.

The "NO" camp won't just come out and say it though.

MAFM is apparently comprised of people who have sat dormant for years never raising a whisper to speak up for the rights of mothers or fathers. They did not speak up when it was possible to exclude the father's name from a birth certificate, thus denying him his rights to be a father and the child's right to have a father. They have not used their media access to encourage men who get their partners pregnant to 'do the right thing' and stay to support the child. Maybe they did and I never noticed? Have they lobbied governments previously to introduce laws to compel women to name the father on birth certificates, so that the child could know who their real father was?

I have never heard them advocate for the rights of any child until they sprung up in 2014 to oppose the referendum on same sex marriage. If this referendum is passed, will they continue to press for the rights of children to have both a mother and father, or will they just disappear because at the end of the day the only real agenda they seem to follow is to try oppose SSM? Time will tell, and history may judge whether this was a group whose aim was to secure a better future for our children, or just a bunch of zealots who wanted to keep the LGBT communities out of "our" privileged clubs?

Zen65 wrote: »

That's a rather tautological ideology. It is what it is, obviously.

But the church, MAFM and the Iona Institute, in seeking to justify why they hold that this should continue to be the case, all make the specious argument that marriage is about natural procreation. Fergus Finlay points out that the church has been happily marrying people for years who had no chance of naturally procreating, and with no hint of concern that this was violating God's plan. It seems that in fact there is only one special case where the procreation issue matters - when the couple are the same sex.

I don't disagree with the rest of your post Zen, but just to clarify the point in bold there. The view of infertile couples access to marriage within the RCC is not that they violate God's plan at all.

I'm not defending the RCC stance on marriage equality, I'm simply pointing out that equating couples where one or both individuals may be infertile, with couples where both individuals aren't infertile and are quite capable of reproduction, is an insulting comparison to be trying to make, notwithstanding the fact that it is a false equivalence.

Procreation or the inability to procreate isn't the issue. It's the fact that the couple are of the same sex is the issue.

Time will tell, and history may judge whether this was a group whose aim was to secure a better future for our children, or just a bunch of zealots who wanted to keep the LGBT communities out of "our" privileged clubs?

Whatever about referendum pop-up groups and the length of time they will continue to exist before disbanding after the referendum, I think you'll be a while waiting for the RCC to disseminate.

Zen65 wrote: »

(My emphasis)

I agree with you Jack of course, that was my point, and Fergus Finlay's point in the article I referenced (perhaps you did not see the statement by Archbishop Martin, or read the article by Fergus Finlay?) - it has nothing to do with procreation but the pretence now is that it has. The talk of "God's plan" for children by reps from RCC and associated fan groups seems only to be an issue when SSM is to be opposed. Of course I am not contending that infertile couples are going against such a plan. . . as an atheist I believe in neither a god nor a plan.

I read the Archbishop's statement alright, peddling pretty much the same nonsense they were in a pamphlet they distributed a few weeks back, and I read Fergus's statement that you linked to, and tbh, I can't for the life of me understand why Fergus even chose to bother entertaining the Archbishop's statement as he gives it validation it simply doesn't deserve. There was an easier way to deal with such nonsense and that is to remain completely indifferent to it, as I did myself -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Apparently it's only yourself so far has tried to mislead the public into thinking that the Church is not actively campaigning against marriage equality. It's ok though, even the dogs on the street are well aware of the Church's stance on the issue of marriage equality. The trump card the RCC Hierarchy has had up to now is that they could play the martyr, but now they're going to have to come out and acknowledge that they far from preaching tolerance, they want to spread intolerance among their followers. I was one of those followers who is in the fortunate position that my parish priest is also a very tolerant guy, so when I told him where he could stick the pamphlet, well, he understands my reasoning.

I just think that the use of infertile couples within the RCC as a comparative, is insensitive considering also the RCC's stance on AHR. I mentioned it earlier in another thread that same-sex couples should be able to make arguments on their own merits, and I was never a fan of pointing fingers and saying "but what about them" kind of thing, especially when the people you're pointing fingers at to bolster your argument have their own cross to bear (metaphorically speaking).

It just never sat right with me as it's as dehumanising as the people whom you (not you personally) claim are dehumanising you (they are, but the worst thing a person can do in that situation is point at someone else and say "why aren't you equally dehumanising them?" so to speak).

And to be clear, even as an atheist I have no particular desire to see the RCC dissipate. I hold the view that they could in fact be an influence for the good, but to do so they would need to pay more attention to the teachings of Jesus Christ, and pay less attention to the other nonsense they have adopted into their religious dogma. They should also revise their thinking about women, because they have that all wrong. Organisations like MAFM, on the other hand, who have offered nothing in support of either mothers or fathers up to now, and seem to have popped up in order to protect us from gay marriage, really should slink back into the night when all this is over and consider ways in which they could be more useful to society.

Completely agree with all of the above. I have long held the belief that the RCC should have no influence in matters of the State. I absolutely detest the Hierarchy's interference in political matters which concern ALL the citizens of the State, many of whom like yourself and many of my friends are not members of the RCC and over whom the RCC should have no influence.

Unfortunately, as I've also previously maintained - the political will just isn't there to cut the cord. The political will isn't there because people are too afraid even still of what their neighbours think of them.

It's an ingrained cultural attitude in Ireland that hasn't dissipated even with the abandonment of the RCC. People still hold dear to their traditions and prejudices and if this referendum has taught us anything, it's that people's prejudices haven't gone away - they were just better hidden.

I'll be voting yes for sure but an surprised at how many people actually are - just wonder if the popularity in the street will be reflected on polling day.
I think turnout will be quite low - spoiled votes will be high and the final count will be closer than people expect - hopefully it's an easy victory for the 'yes' but I wouldn't be counting my chickens just yet!
The large 'yes' in the polls may make a number of people not bother to vote which is the risk.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't disagree with the rest of your post Zen, but just to clarify the point in bold there. The view of infertile couples access to marriage within the RCC is not that they violate God's plan at all.

Ah, but God made gay people gay, so they're obviously not violating his plan either, so there's no problem with them getting married.

I saw a notice in yesterdays Irish Indo' re Electors with Physical IIlness or Physical Disability. If their usual local polling station is not suitable for access by them on the 22nd May, they have until the 15th May to apply in writing to their local Returning Officer in their constituency for a change of polling station to one suitable for them. The item was on page seven (7) of the Indo'. The notice is from the Dept of Environment, Community and Local Govt, so check the Indo' or contact that Dept for a list of R/Officers and their official addresses. There are seventeen (17) R/Officers in total.

Susandublin wrote: »

I'll be voting yes for sure but an surprised at how many people actually are - just wonder if the popularity in the street will be reflected on polling day.
I think turnout will be quite low - spoiled votes will be high and the final count will be closer than people expect - hopefully it's an easy victory for the 'yes' but I wouldn't be counting my chickens just yet!
The large 'yes' in the polls may make a number of people not bother to vote which is the risk.

I think that point has been reinforced so much over the last month or so that the risk of many voters not turning out due to complacency is limited now.