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

Anita Blow · 07-05-2015 08:14PM

Think it's interesting that the NUIG/UNESCO Family & Child Research Centre has strongly criticised the No campaign's deceptive use of children to deflect from the core issue of the referendum.

The forthcoming same-sex marriage referendum relates to adults’ human right to marry whom they chose regardless of sexual orientation. Divisive negative issues raised in relation to children and their welfare are being used to deflect from the core question in the referendum

The position of the Unesco Child and Family Research Centre at NUIG and its patron is that the most essential factor for a child or adolescent is that they have a loving, consistent and caring parent or parents who cater for their physical, intellectual, emotional, and social needs.

The centre’s position is the achievement of young people’s rights requires that their hopes and wishes for their future be realised regardless of their sexual orientation, and inclusive of their rights to marry

So we now have 14 of the most prominent children's charities, Amnesty International, Irish Psychological Association, UNESCO and the national child & family research centre all stating categorically that children's rights will not be undermined by this referendum and the issues raised by the No campaign are unrelated and deceptive. Meanwhile, the no side counts John Waters and Kathy Sinnott among its proponents, who were the only 2 figures to actively oppose the the referendum on children's rights in 2013.
I just do not see how someone who claims that the wellbeing of children is their main reason for voting no could take all that information in to account and still stand by their vote. It is just blind ignorance in my opinion.

aloyisious · 07-05-2015 08:23PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Did someone say some people were bullying other people?

https://twitter.com/theapplefarmer/status/596257807541923840

Love the angelic little girl on the XMas stamp, probably the irony not noticed by the sender/

marienbad · 07-05-2015 08:35PM

Adding the same ****stirring posters to my ignore list until this vote is over has improved my life no end , imagine if more did the same how uncluttered and refocused the thread might become !:)

endacl · 07-05-2015 08:41PM

marienbad wrote: »

Adding the same ****stirring posters to my ignore list until this vote is over has improved my life no end , imagine if more did the same how uncluttered and refocused the thread might become !:)

It'd dry up! Or become page after page of people talking sense for no apparent reason....

aloyisious · 07-05-2015 08:44PM

SpaceTime wrote: »

I haven't seen a single poster about the scourge of youthful presidents that could be inflicted upon our country!

We are having two referenda ... A lot of people don't realise this.

It's redefining the whole concept of a president and may cause all sorts of problems with presidents having babies and demanding suragacy while in office.

Also did I mention Irish Water!!??

Irish Water??? Is that because of the harm to babies from lead in the water. Will no one think of the babies?

marienbad · 07-05-2015 08:46PM

endacl wrote: »

It'd dry up! Or become page after page of people talking sense for no apparent reason....

Or maybe uncommitted voters would get to read reasoned posts without getting dragged into every unrelated highway and byway

gravehold · 07-05-2015 08:49PM

aloyisious wrote: »

Irish Water??? Is that because of the harm to babies from lead in the water. Will no one think of the babies?

It the fluoride thst makes the babies gay also autism when the fluoride mixes with vacations. Don't you know anything

gravehold · 07-05-2015 09:02PM

marienbad wrote: »

Or maybe uncommitted voters would get to read reasoned posts without getting dragged into every unrelated highway and byway

If all the yes voters are hiding the no people, fence sitters coming into the thread will only see their post with nothing to say they are wrong so in he end it helps the no side.

aloyisious · 07-05-2015 09:10PM

gravehold wrote: »

It the fluoride thst makes the babies gay also autism when the fluoride mixes with vacations. Don't you know anything

Jack D Ripper was right, drink whisky instead of water, it's not poisoned.

KingBrian2 · 07-05-2015 09:34PM

Pose to yourself is a child being reared by Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson worse off than being reared by Romeo and Juliet. Marriage should of course be for heterosexual and homosexual couples. This referendum is merely providing rights to those that have been ignored for decades.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 07-05-2015 09:41PM

floggg wrote: »

As long as we accept that two straight people who can or will never have kids are still fully married, and attempt to point to the incapability of two men to procreate falls flat on its face.

It's relevance is obvious.

You are essentially saying perfectly healthy gay men can be equated to a straight couple with a physical impairment. If you can't see why that's self-evident nonsense, I can't help you.

But even through your bias, you should be able to comprehend that a straight couple who intend to have no children may still end up having some. You have repeatedly ignored this point, showing you are simply unwilling to come to terms with reality that SSM doesn't actually need the same legal framework as straight marriage.

Reasonable people will appreciate the difference between a right that may or may not be exercised, and a right that's just irrelevant.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'll alert the Attorney General and the Law Society, who both missed what your incisive legal brain has spotted.

In the context where the Irish wording was suddenly changed because an English journalist said "hang on, this is just wrong, isn't it?", I can't understand your faith in the amount of technical expertise that's been put into this.

As to the Law Society paper, it's quite a poor publication. No real analysis at all.

gravehold · 07-05-2015 09:46PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It's relevance is obvious.

You are essentially saying perfectly healthy gay men can be equated to a straight couple with a physical impairment. If you can't see why that's self-evident nonsense, I can't help you.

But even through your bias, you should be able to comprehend that a straight couple who intend to have no children may still end up having some. You have repeatedly ignored this point, showing you are simply unwilling to come to terms with reality that SSM doesn't actually need the same legal framework as straight marriage.

Reasonable people will appreciate the difference between a right that may or may not be exercised, and a right that's just irrelevant.In the context where the Irish wording was suddenly changed because an English journalist said "hang on, this is just wrong, isn't it?", I can't understand your faith in the amount of technical expertise that's been put into this.

As to the Law Society paper, it's quite a poor publication. No real analysis at all.

Gay couples can have a natural baby together already anyway. Having or not having kids doesn't matter in the marraige

smash · 07-05-2015 09:46PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

you should be able to comprehend that a straight couple who intend to have no children may still end up having some. You have repeatedly ignored this point, showing you are simply unwilling to come to terms with reality that SSM doesn't actually need the same legal framework as straight marriage.

Reasonable people will appreciate the difference between a right that may or may not be exercised, and a right that's just irrelevant.

non sense. We're talking about a right to marry. Marriage does not equate to having children. There's no legitimate reason why they should not be granted the right to marry.

Jimoslimos · 07-05-2015 09:54PM

A few points I wanted to make (before the inevitable 10k shutdown)

I won't be voting (out of the country), but if I was I would vote Yes. There hasn't been a single sensible counter-argument from the No side worth mentioning.

However...this doesn't mean that I have been completely satisfied with the nature of the referendum (and I'm not taking about poster removal sillyness).

Firstly I had hoped that the referendum might raise some questions on why exactly the State should play any role in recognising peoples relationships and why exactly these are deemed to be of special significance. I know that sounds a tad libertarian and I do hate myself for it. I guess if the referendum was to reduce all current heterosexual marriages to civil partnerships then you might not see the same support. People only want equality as long as they themselves don't have to lose out.

The term "marriage equality" is a misnomer IMO. Marriage and by extension "The Family" as defined by the constitution, has special privileges associated with it. Currently two people of opposite sex can get married to avail of all of these privileges (as opposed to some for civil partnership) and the referendum is proposing to open it up any two persons of either sex. In fact the proposed clause;

Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.

actually specifies that marriage is between two persons - whereas before there was no such distinction in the Constitution. It might seem trivial but to date nobody has given a good answer as to why polygamous relationships are less deserving of the same special constitutional recognition. "Cuz marriage is between a man and a woman two people dumbo" sounds very similar to the argument against SSM

Lastly it is a bit disingenuous to claim that the referendum has absolutely nothing to do with children when indeed one of the (only) major changes (listed on the marriage equality website) relates to the "shared (CP) vs family (married) home" and the implications for dependent children.

None of these points would sway my vote, but I am disappointed that any criticism of an imperfect system (none is perfect anyway) is immediately seen as a personal attack on their position. It almost seems like many in the Yes camp are afraid of rocking the boat for fear of alienating undecideds.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 07-05-2015 09:56PM

smash wrote: »

There's no legitimate reason why they should not be granted the right to marry.

It's the other way round.

What are the features of the legal framework for marriage that are actually relevant to same sex couples? Why is it needed? And I don't mean some vague thing about equality. Or the spam list of 160 largely inconsequential differences.

The point I'm making couldn't be plainer, and each time it's made Yes posters just deflect.

gravehold wrote: »

Gay couples can have a natural baby together already anyway.

How? Obviously those Italian Gynaecologists are pushing back the frontiers of knowledge. How are natural babies being created out of two male or two female gametes?

gravehold · 07-05-2015 09:59PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It's the other way round.

What are the features of the legal framework for marriage that are actually relevant to same sex couples? Why is it needed? And I don't mean some vague thing about equality. Or the spam list of 160 largely inconsequential differences.

The point I'm making couldn't be plainer, and each time it's made Yes posters just deflect.How? Obviously those Italian Gynaecologists are pushing back the frontiers of knowledge. How are natural babies being created out of two male or two female gametes?

Gay trans man and cis man can have a baby naturally and trans female and cis female can too, it happens a lot more then people realise.

And these gay couples raise the kids fine

smash · 07-05-2015 10:01PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It's the other way round.

What are the features of the legal framework for marriage that are actually relevant to same sex couples? Why is it needed? And I don't mean some vague thing about equality. Or the spam list of 160 largely inconsequential differences.

The point I'm making couldn't be plainer, and each time it's made Yes posters just deflect.

What exactly are you afraid of? Why do you not want gay people to have a right to marriage?

I don't want to hear about children because it's irrelevant as it's not a requirement or privilege of marriage.

cursai · 07-05-2015 10:03PM

Someone made the argument to me earlier that we should create a new new category for same sex marriages. Or amend the the civil partnerships act. Is their a reason why we don't. Why does it have to be 'marraige'. Maybe because it's the cultural perception of a married couple. Would it not make things easier. Any input welcomed.

KingBrian2 · 07-05-2015 10:04PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It's the other way round.

What are the features of the legal framework for marriage that are actually relevant to same sex couples? Why is it needed? And I don't mean some vague thing about equality. Or the spam list of 160 largely inconsequential differences.

The point I'm making couldn't be plainer, and each time it's made Yes posters just deflect.How? Obviously those Italian Gynaecologists are pushing back the frontiers of knowledge. How are natural babies being created out of two male or two female gametes?

The only argument I can discern coming from the no side is that homosexual couples are unfit as parents. I would have thought people had copped on that is not necessarily true.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 07-05-2015 10:08PM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

<...>Firstly I had hoped that the referendum might raise some questions on why exactly the State should play any role in recognising peoples relationships and why exactly these are deemed to be of special significance.

<...> It might seem trivial but to date nobody has given a good answer as to why polygamous relationships are less deserving of the same special constitutional recognition. <..>

Hats off to you, and those two points particularly resonate with me.

Building on that, if we were looking for another alternative, there's a case to be made for decoupling the concept of family from the concept of marriage.

Another issue that might actually have value for people is considering tenants rights. IIRC, the concept of a family home really just relates to homes that are owner occupied. We can sort of see that owner occupiers have pretty secure tenure, even if they've mortgage arrears. Renters don't have the same security.

You know, real issues that actually impact on people's lives in a noticeable way.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 07-05-2015 10:12PM

gravehold wrote: »

Gay trans man and cis man can have a baby naturally and trans female and cis female can too, it happens a lot more then people realise.

Ah, I see how you've moved the goalposts.

Would Gay trans man and cis man have a problem in getting married in those circumstances, just out of prurient interest?

smash wrote: »

What exactly are you afraid of? Why do you not want gay people to have a right to marriage?

I don't want to hear about children because it's irrelevant as it's not a requirement or privilege of marriage.

Well, you've deemed the presumption of paternity to be irrelevant, I haven't. My issues are simply what I'm stating. If you invested more interest in those points, and less in questioning my motives, I might have more interest in what you had to say.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The only argument I can discern coming from the no side is that homosexual couples are unfit as parents. I would have thought people had copped on that is not necessarily true.

I haven't said that at all, but the incapacity of many Yes voters to move beyond slogan thinking is notable.

gravehold · 07-05-2015 10:17PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Ah, I see how you've moved the goalposts.

Would Gay trans man and cis man have a problem in getting married in those circumstances, just out of prurient interest?

Yes they couldn't get married as a gay couple.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 07-05-2015 10:30PM

gravehold wrote: »

Yes they couldn't get married as a gay couple.

Indeed, I'd follow that they'd invalidate their capacity to marry if they sought to formally change gender. But am I right that our system requires a doctor to certify that gender has changed?

I suppose I'm wondering if someone who retains the sexual capacity of gender A would be deemed to have transitioned to gender B?

If its not a personal question. (I don't know how many times in this debate I've quoted from Monty Python.)

gravehold · 07-05-2015 10:37PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Indeed, I'd follow that they'd invalidate their capacity to marry if they sought to formally change gender. But am I right that our system requires a doctor to certify that gender has changed?

I suppose I'm wondering if someone who retains the sexual capacity of gender A would be deemed to have transitioned to gender B?

If its not a personal question. (I don't know how many times in this debate I've quoted from Monty Python.)

Yes pre-op trans women can get a female passport and forms and trans men are the same from a doctor while keeping their sexual reproductive systems all you need is proof of living in your correct gender for a period of years and a psychologist to confirm GID, soon you can change your birth cert without altering your birth sexual organs also

You can be a trans man and woman also without taking hormones also, physical transition doesn't make you your real gender.

smash · 07-05-2015 10:40PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, you've deemed the presumption of paternity to be irrelevant, I haven't.

In relation to this debate about marriage equality, paternity is irrelevant.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

My issues are simply what I'm stating. If you invested more interest in those points, and less in questioning my motives, I might have more interest in what you had to say.

That marriage will be redefined? It won't, that's been stated over and over but you deny it. And even if it actually was being redefined, what exactly is the problem? I fail to see one. It will not affect anyone in a negative way. So if there is a problem then enlighten me...

One eyed Jack · 07-05-2015 10:50PM

cursai wrote: »

Someone made the argument to me earlier that we should create a new new category for same sex marriages. Or amend the the civil partnerships act. Is their a reason why we don't. Why does it have to be 'marraige'. Maybe because it's the cultural perception of a married couple. Would it not make things easier. Any input welcomed.

It wouldn't really, because it would still be 'discrimination by another name' so to speak. We have never referred to marriage as 'opposite sex marriage', no more than if this referendum were to pass would we refer to 'same sex marriage' and 'opposite sex marriage' as two different types of civil marriage.

The term would simply be 'civil marriage' and access to the institution of civil marriage as recognised by the State as the union of two people without distinction as to their sex.

To achieve that we simply remove one discriminatory criteria via a constitutional amendment, as opposed to having to draw up further legislation that would have no constitutional protection.

The aim of the referendum is to determine whether or not people who are LGBT should have the same access to the institution of civil marriage as people who identify as heterosexual. That's really the idea and the context of marriage equality - equal opportunity and access to the institution of civil marriage as recognised by the State.

Smiley92a · 07-05-2015 10:52PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It's the other way round.

What are the features of the legal framework for marriage that are actually relevant to same sex couples? Why is it needed? And I don't mean some vague thing about equality. Or the spam list of 160 largely inconsequential differences.

The point I'm making couldn't be plainer, and each time it's made Yes posters just deflect.

I imagine it's quite easy to find no reason to vote yes when you dismiss every single one you're given as 'largely inconsequential'. You've followed this thread closely for some time and heard all the arguments. You claim that there are no valid arguments for a yes vote. Not that you disagree with them, but that they don't exist.

You are obviously at pains to appear reasonable and fair-minded, but I'm afraid I must say I am of the opinion that you are not. That you're not going to be convinced, and that you were never going to be. That it is disingenuous of you to have behaved as if you were. That everything you have written here has been to convince yourself and others of your reasonableness and not your argument.

Just my opinion, of course. And isn't it great we're all entitled to our opinions, no matter how unfounded, presumptious or insulting they are? Soon we get to go to a polling booth and make our opinions on gay marriage law. And every single person in the country from John Waters all the way up to actual constitutional lawyers gets an equal say. Won't that just be grand?

gravehold · 07-05-2015 10:53PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It wouldn't really, because it would still be 'discrimination by another name' so to speak. We have never referred to marriage as 'opposite sex marriage', no more than if this referendum were to pass would we refer to 'same sex marriage' and 'opposite sex marriage' as two different types of civil marriage.

The term would simply be 'civil marriage' and access to the institution of civil marriage as recognised by the State as the union of two people without distinction as to their sex.

To achieve that we simply remove one discriminatory criteria via a constitutional amendment, as opposed to having to draw up further legislation that would have no constitutional protection.

The aim of the referendum is to determine whether or not people who are LGBT should have the same access to the institution of civil marriage as people who identify as heterosexual. That's really the idea and the context of marriage equality - equal opportunity and access to the institution of civil marriage as recognised by the State.

Why not remove civil marraige and just have CP for all that way marriage can just be a religious thing for the straights

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 07-05-2015 10:53PM

smash wrote: »

In relation to this debate about marriage equality, paternity is irrelevant.

Again, irrelevant to you, but it's one of the matters that I've raised and received only deflections in response.

smash wrote: »

That marriage will be redefined? It won't, that's been stated over and over but you deny it. And even if it actually was being redefined, what exactly is the problem? I fail to see one. It will not affect anyone in a negative way. So if there is a problem then enlighten me...

Firstly, I'm not really a "marriage will be redefined" advocate. I'm more a "what does this actually mean, given that the gender-based language in Article 41 remains" kind of guy. Bear in mind, I'm expecting that folk like you should be able to answer that question if you really understand the proposal you are advocating.

Maybe there's no problem with marriage being redefined. But if it is, I'd really like to know. I'd like to know what I'm being asked to sign up for.

That's why I ask about the couple of features I can spot in the legal framework for marriage that just don't apply to SSM. That's why I poke a finger through the 160 differences, and ask why it's so important to allow a Court to grant an exclusion order to enable a 16 year old to solemnise a same sex marriage, when truly no-one should be solemnising a marriage at 16.

What actual problem, I mean real problem, not symbolic status stuff, is this meant to solve?

Can I say, the same question applies to the other referendum on 22nd. WTF is so important about reducing the age of the Presidential candidates? What actual problem is this meant to solve?

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 07-05-2015 10:56PM

Smiley92a wrote: »

You claim that there are no valid arguments for a yes vote. Not that you disagree with them, but that they don't exist.

Yeah, can I point out that your exact statement is more typically made by Yes Voters, who apparently haven't seen any valid no arguments.

In any event, best of luck of the 22nd. I'll be voting the same way as John Waters.

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

Comments