Same Sex Marriage Referendum Mega Thread - MOD WARNING IN FIRST POST

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

The bookies are rarely wrong - it looks like game over for the no side. Yes is unbackable.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It was 1/12 a week ago, so it is tightening a little.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I get it Bann, I really do, geez, yes, I do fear that I will be physically attacked, I do feel shame, and for far more than just my physical appearance I have been attacked in the past, so I get that for some people it's a completely rational fear, and it's something they constantly have to rationalise and all the rest of it. But, unlike Panti's approach, I'm not going to put responsibility for how I feel upon other people. I have to deal with it.

That's just my own perspective, and that's possibly why Panti's... message, just doesn't resonate with me personally.





Perhaps she should take make-up tips then from one of my favourite comedians then whom I had always admired as a master of his craft - Kenny Everett, aka Cupid Stunt Panti isn't ever going to be able to hold a candle to Kenny IMO. He influenced people's opinions by being able to show that there was more to a person than just their sexual orientation. I always liked the way he explained how he thinks to Sinead O' Connor when she tried to pass judgement upon him for not conforming to her idea of how people who are gay should behave, based of course upon her own prejudices. Not everyone feels like they are "oppressed" by society:

TheChizler wrote: »

What was this 'right to procreation' nonsense? Honestly couldn't follow it but I hadn't stretched before attempting mental gymnastics. It sounded a bit makey-uppey.

The danger with this pseudo legal nonsense is that people might think they're incapable of understanding some highly complex legal intricacies, when they're in fact nonsense, and vote no to be safe. My girlfriend's mother was considering voting no at the end of the show last night, coming from a yes. When asked she said she didn't know why, she was just confused.

Okay, for people who are still unsure of how to vote, or are considering voting no, let me go through the No arguments and address them. If you have any other arguments against legalising same sex marriage, let me know.

1. Children

This referendum has nothing to do with adopting children. It is already legal for same sex couples to adopt children. Voting yes isn't going to give them this right, voting no isn't going to take it away. They already have that right. The referendum is about marriage and marriage alone.

The children who WILL be affected are LGBT children. The 30,000 children who called in to Childline in 2014 alone because they feel unsafe in their homes because of their sexuality or sexual identity. The 50% of LGBT folk under 25 who consider suicide, and the 20% who have already attempted it. A yes vote tells them they are people, they are accepted, they have rights. A no vote tells them the opposite.

Also, children of same sex couples currently do not have the same protection from the state as children of married opposite sex couples, because they are not recognised by the state as a family. A yes vote will change this.

Not to mention, there are an awful lot of children's charities backing the Yes campaign - the ISPCC, Barnardos, Foróige, Youth Work Ireland, The Children's Rights Alliance, Headstrong, the National Youth Council of Ireland, etc. The people who know children best and are dedicated to their safety are telling you that a yes vote is the best outcome for the children of Ireland. So people insisting that this is not the case are just plain wrong.

2. "Changing the definition of marriage"

This isn't happening. Marriage isn't changing. The rights of married couples is staying exactly the same. The procedure is the same. Everything about it is remaining the same. The only thing we are voting on is whether or not to include all consenting adult citizens in the group that is legally allowed to get married, instead of narrowing it down to a select number of people. Marriage will remain the same, who is allowed to get married will change.

3. Religion

The referendum pertains to civil marriage, not religious marriage. Religious marriage will not be touched by this. Religious institutions will not be forced to perform marriage ceremonies for anyone they do not see fit to be married, and if they disagree with same sex couples being married then they do not have to marry them. Civil marriage is separate to religious marriage. Civil marriage is open to people of all religions (and no religions). Changing who can partake in a civil marriage will not affect religious marriage. Religion should not factor into this debate at all.

4. Civil partnerships

Yes, civil partnerships exist. But no, they are not the same as civil marriage. There are a lot of differences between the two. For instances, being recognised as a family, having your home recognised as a family home, state protection, next of kin rights when one of a couple is hospitalised, etc. There have been many documents released lately detailing the differences between the two and it's blatantly clear that they are far from the same thing. I saw a No campaign flyer that said civil partnership should be enough because you still get to say I do - but you do not have the same rights, you are not equal to a married couple.

5. Surrogacy

The No campaign are talking a lot about how same sex marriage will give same sex couples the right to "make babies to order", but that is simply not correct. Currently surrogacy is not legal in Ireland. This referendum is not going to change that. The word "surrogacy" does not appear in the wording of this referendum at all, nor is there any reference to children or adoption. The Irish government have said they are going to make some kind of regulations around surrogacy in the future, but it has nothing to do with this referendum and is not dependent on it. In the UK, you don't even have to be married to apply for surrogacy, so it's quite likely that if/when they do bring in legislation, same sex couples will qualify for it whether they are married or not. But whatever the case may be, we can't predict now what the government will choose to legislate then, and it should have no impact on this referendum.

Also "making babies to order" is a ridiculous way to put it anyway. The worry is that male couples will get designer babies or something, but generally speaking even if they were going through surrogacy, the biological father of the child would be one of the men in the couple, not some chosen model. And often the biological mother is a female relative of the other father, so it's as close to being both of their child biologically as it can be. Not some combination of genes they've ordered off the internet.

And even then, surrogacy costs a lot of money and will only really be open to couples who are very well off. So it's not really an issue for the general public.

6. "There already is equality"

I have heard the argument multiple times now that equality already exists because gay people can still marry people of the opposite sex, but that's far from equality. Being told you should be glad you're equal because you have the right to marry this array of people you have no interest in and no attraction to while you are still denied the right to marry someone you might have loved and shared your life with for years or decades already is downright insulting. If you don't think so, try putting yourself in their shoes and think about how this would make you feel. This is not equality.

7. Change

A lot of people think same sex marriage should not be allowed because they don't want things to change from "how they've always been".

It used to be that "how it's always been" meant protestants and catholics couldn't get married, that different races couldn't get married, that homosexuality was punishable by law, that women couldn't vote, etc. "How it's always been" does not equal good or right.

Change is good, change is progressive, change is what helps us improve as a society. Don't hold back the country because you personally do not like change. Even if you find it hard to think of marriage as something for people other than those who already have that privilege, remember that that's how people felt before it was open to everyone it is now. And now you wouldn't be able to imagine couples of different races or religions being banned from marrying each other. Hopefully in ten years time we can say the same about same sex couples.

8. "I don't want to get married"

You don't have to. A yes vote does not mean that all same sex couples have to get married, just as all opposite sex couples do not have to get married currently. If you have no interest in marriage yourself, that is perfectly fine. But it shouldn't mean taking away the rights of other people who do want to get married. Whether it affects you directly or not, if you care about the rights of other people in this country, you should vote yes.

The fact of the matter is the No campaign are continuously making up reasons to vote no because they have no legitimate argument outside of "We are homophobic" and it looks bad to say that. And the sad thing is that it's working. A lot of people are supporting the No campaign because they genuinely believe this referendum is about children or religion or something else. And if the record is not set straight, and people don't bother to go out and vote yes, it will be a no vote. And that wont be good for anyone in the long run.

‪#‎MarRef‬ ‪#‎YesEquality‬

K4t wrote: »

Soft spoken Eileen King from Mothers and Fathers Don't Matter? Her point about tradition and how marriage has always been a man and a woman is plain prejudice. She does not want her marriage to be lessened by same sex marriage, nor does she want her marriage to be associated with same sex ones. I genuinely wonder if she thinks her husband (or future husband) is going to suddenly turn into a woman should same sex marriage be introduced.