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

gravehold wrote: »

Isn't their a peer reviewed study showing gay parents are bad, you cannot messure a if a straight or gay family or single parent one will be as good as each other cause there is two many variables, each staight parent family will be different for the other.

The argument being made by the no side is a generalisation, the responses in evidence terms are statistical- which is evidence-based generalisation and very much an appropriate response as it directly addresses the claim in the same terms it has been made.

Ken Murphy, the Director General of the Law Society, said, “At its April meeting the Council of the Law Society considered a position paper on the ‘Marriage Equality Referendum’ from the Society’s Human Rights Committee. The Council decided, by 22 votes to 9, that this was an issue of equality and human rights on which the Society should take a public position. Given that the decision to support a ‘yes’ position was so overwhelming in the discussions at Council, no further vote was needed.”

“The current referendum clearly concerns the vindication of fundamental personal rights under the Constitution – that is, the right to equality of same-sex couples in the context of legal marriage and their fundamental civil right to marry. There is no legal justification for denying equality to same-sex couples in relation to the civil institution of marriage.”

http://www.lawsociety.ie/News/Media/Press-Releases/The-Law-Society-of-Ireland-calls-for-equality-supports-the-Marriage-Referendum/

gravehold wrote: »

they are peer reviewed so as valid as any other study posted, problem is all these studies have a review bias as a families worth dues to sexual preferences is not meseruable

That is why meta-studies exist.

They combine all the studies and see what pops out.

No discernible difference is what overwhelmingly popped out.

What does this have to do with the Referendum by the way?

gravehold wrote: »

they are peer reviewed so as valid as any other study posted, problem is all these studies have a review bias as a families worth dues to sexual preferences is not meseruable

No, peer review doesn't guarantee anything. Studies don't carry equal weight to each other. Some studies are better and more credible than others.

gravehold wrote: »

All these studies are injecting their opioional bias onto the results.

Give an example. Here's a few ways in which bias could be displayed in such studies:

1. Inappropriate outcome measures selected
2. Misreporting of the data ("fraud")
3. Selective reporting of the data ("cherry picking")
4. Selective use of inappropriate statistical analysis ("fraud", "cherry picking" or "incompetence")
5. Discussion commentary that doesn't agree with results

One example would do.

gravehold wrote: »

Flogg brought it up ask him

No frostyjack brought it up as another attempt by the no side to misrepresnt what the referndum is about, Flogg simply replied to it

gravehold wrote: »

they are peer reviewed so as valid as any other study posted, problem is all these studies have a review bias as a families worth dues to sexual preferences is not meseruable

Someone provided a wikipedia reporting on how there is no difference between same-sex/opposite sex parents with links to over 160 primary sources. Can you provide any number of sources to back up your claim?
Can you explain why the American Academy of Pediatrics, American/Canadian/Australian/Irish Psychological Societies all report no empirical evidence to assert the claim that outcomes are any worse with same-sex parents? Or why UNICEF specifically called out the No campaign for deliberately lying and misrepresenting their research?

Do you genuinely think that you know something that all of these societies and thousands of distinguished researchers in their field don't know and have gotten wrong all these years? Or do you think it's more likely that you want them to be wrong and so are willingly ignoring the wealth of evidence and body of professional opinion in favour of SSM?

gravehold wrote: »

they are peer reviewed so as valid as any other study posted, problem is all these studies have a review bias as a families worth dues to sexual preferences is not meseruable

OK, there are a few points to be made here.

First of all, peer review does not mean that a study is automatically valid or correct, but merely that the reviewer thought that it was suitable for publication. Quite often, peer review can be shown to be flawed such as Andrew Wakefield's paper on MMR and autism making it through peer review.

Secondly, within the specific context of LGBT parenting, peer review can be overwhelmed when you're conducting biased unethical research.
For example, Mark Regnerus, the most oft-cited study by no campaigners received a $35,000 grant from the Witherspoon Institute, a right-wing anti-SSM organisation to conduct his study. Furthermore James Wright, the editor of the journal where Regnerus published his studies has ties to both the Witherspoon Institute and another anti-SSM organisation the NOM.
Another example of this is the Sullins study, again cited by no campaigners which was published by a journal known for its predatory publishing. Predatory publishing is where authors can pay to have their study published regardless of peer review.

Finally, it doesn't matter what an individual study, good or bad, finds. It matters what all the studies, when taken together as a single body of research conclude. This is what scientific consensus is about.

floggg wrote: »

1. It becomes very difficult to refute arguments about the existing purpose of marriage unless you actually discuss marriage as it is today. That includes infertile, fertile and voluntarily childless couples.

If we don't refute those arguments, we are allowing the No side to invent their own facts unchallenged, and it's difficult to win a debate if you allow the other side to do so.

You also allow them to pervert the institution we want access to for their own nefarious needs.

So the suggestion that we should conduct the yes side without actually refuting their nonsense arguments isn't realistic.

Here's the thing, and I thought I'd been pretty clear about this -

This referendum is about Civil Marriage, so the Archbishop and whoever else can waffle on about the meaning of marriage as it pertains to their particular religion. I genuinely don't see much point in entertaining arguments that have nothing to do with the issue of Civil Marriage.

Do you honestly believe the electorate are that stupid that they aren't able to tell the difference between a religious marriage and civil marriage?

Why would you waste your energy "debating" with someone who's opinion has no bearing upon Civil Marriage?

Are you doing it because you want access to religious marriage?

No, I think Fergus was explicitly clear in that regard, so I'm still as bemused as to why he chose to entertain an opinion from someone who was speaking on behalf of an organisation which has nothing to do with Civil Marriage.

2. Many of the most important black leaders have come out very strongly in favour of marriage equality - particualrly in the US, but also in South Africa with the likes of Desmond Tutu and their very early introduction of marriage equality.

To dismiss the entire black community as homophobic is grossly misinformed.

We have also had the likes of Jesse Jackson, Caretta Scott King and Bayard Rustin express the view that the movement for lgbt equality is a continuation of the same ideals they fought for.

Good thing I didn't do that then, and just because a couple of people in high profile positions who claim they speak on behalf of members of that group, support marriage equality, does not mean that the majority within that group agree with their opinions. You just have to look at the RCC in Ireland to know that much. A couple of high profile members of the Hierarchy does not represent the opinions of all of it's members, hell, not even close really!

3. Fergus Finlay doesn't refute these arguments for your sake or mine, since our minds are already made up.

He does so for those that are undecided or that might be swayed by those arguments.

I don't believe there is anyone can be "undecided" on this issue. I also believe that there's no amount of arguments will actually change anyone's opinion. I didn't find Fergus' arguments for Civil Marriage equality particularly convincing tbh, but that's just me.

You are the one that has repeatedly stated we should engage with the no side.

Have I? I think you're either willfully misrepresenting me, or you're genuinely mixing me up with someone else. I have repeatedly stated that the yes campaign should focus on solidifying soft support for marriage equality and that there is no point in engaging with someone who is voting no. I consider it a complete waste of time. My own mother is voting no. In my bollix would I bother entertaining her. I know I'd simply be wasting my time. I have repeatedly stated too on numerous occasions that I have no interest in any political posturing or "debates" on the issue as IMO it shouldn't even be up for "debate". I see a distinct difference between "winning" a debate, and trying to ensure that the referendum on marriage equality is passed.

But apparently we must somehow persuade them while ignoring all of the arguments put forward by the no side - which means we just change their mind without actually challenging their views.

I have also consistently maintained that I think it is better simply to inform people, and let them make up their own minds, it's a hell of a lot less of a head melt than getting dragged down into a mud flinging match in an attempt to "debate" with people who's minds are not for changing.

frostyjacks wrote: »

If it can't be proved or disproved, what right do people have to call the No side liars?

Stating or presenting something as fact when it is not, does tends to cause such a reaction.

Now were all entitled to our own opinions, even I have my own opinions about things in life some of them popular and some of them not so popular, however I would not present my opinion as a fact, that would be misleading.

sup_dude wrote: »

Firstly, you just completely ignored the last few pages. Secondly, the lie is that the referendum is about children. It is not about children. It is about marriage. Hence, the lie.

I'd actually argue completely the opposite.

Marriage, the word and the meaning of it is 100% about children.
It's possibily the greatest reason to vote yes, as the rights of children in many laws are linked to the word "married" and their parents being married. Kids of "same sex unions" are being discriminated against by not being the child of a "marraige".

So, the rights of gay people are actually not going to be increased all that much by the vote, but kids of gay people will be much better off.
(now, a referendum to change the constitution is not the ideal way to do this, but heck, it's what's on the table so that's what's being voted on)