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

mickstupp · 14-05-2015 04:05PM

Montgolfier wrote: »

I'm not interested in change of marriage I'm interested in keeping it as is for future generations to know what is natural for our species to procreate.

I'm loathe to state the obvious... but you do know procreation can occur without marriage, yeah? The natural part there, procreation, has nothing whatsoever to do with the human-imposed part, marriage. They're unrelated. As is 'oh but the children' to a discussion of marriage equality.

aloyisious · 14-05-2015 04:05PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I was amazed when I moved here first to find out just how conservative this country is and how powerful that conservative element of society are. Throughout the past five years we have been here I have refused to believe that the majority of Irish society are actually like that, and instead told myself that it is just a small, poisonous minority with a disproportionate media presence. However the Iona institute would not survive in my home country, I am certain of that. They would be considered crazy religious extremists and the very, very vast majority of the public and politicians, and all of the mainstream media, would simply not entertain them. They would be viewed as extremist fringe lunatics. There are obviously people who are prejudice, homophobic and religious fundamentalists, but I really just don't remember hearing about them or from them at any stage. It amazes me how they manage to portray themselves and their poisonous, divisive opinions as 'normal' or mainstream, when they are just not. Their behaviour and tactics are a Hare's breath away from being overtly incitement of hatred.

I am really hoping that on the 22nd that Ireland will prove that these groups do not represent the thinking of the majority. This is massively petty compared to the impact a no vote will have on LGBT people, but I dread having to explain a no vote to family and friends back home, who will inevitably ask how I can tolerate living in a country that is so socially backward, like they did when they heard about Savita and other related cases that have gained international attention recently. This referendum is Ireland's chance to show that it is finally ready to join the first world on social issues.

If Equal Marriage is voted in now, it's still within a reasonable timeframe to enable the country to look even progressive on the issue. Unlike other social issues such as divorce, contraception etc where the history is simply embarrassing, and don't even start me on abortion.

Of course LGBT people should have equal rights, the fact that it is even considered a reasonable question to be asking of society is completely ridiculous in my opinion. This referendum and issue in general makes me furious and I'm straight, I can't begin to imagine how you guys most affected must feel. If the country votes no, I'm not saying that I will leave, because there are a lot of factors involved in that, but I really will be questioning, and OH and I will be discussing whether this is a culture we want our son to grow up in.

If there is a no vote, I will know with absolute certainty, that we made a terrible mistake moving here and having our son grow up in Ireland.

There's one thing else that a yes vote might cause: an eventual change in the same situation here on this island (Ireland) just a hundred + miles away over the border. same island, different difference. Maybe, probably that is where Iona are training their resources on next.

MrWalsh · 14-05-2015 04:06PM

Montgolfier wrote: »

I'm not interested in change of marriage I'm interested in keeping it as is for future generations to know what is natural for our species to procreate. I don't want to dilute the terms of marriage.
It's important to know that if you vote to allow gay marriage where do you stop.

Eh, whaa?

You know that heterosexual marriage is still going to be allowed right?

Its not enforced same sex marriage.

If society changes and polygamy becomes popular then we have a referendum on that.

Bannasidhe · 14-05-2015 04:06PM

Montgolfier wrote: »

I'm not interested in change of marriage I'm interested in keeping it as is for future generations to know what is natural for our species to procreate. I don't want to dilute the terms of marriage.
It's important to know that if you vote to allow gay marriage where do you stop.
The no campaign seem to have very little to say.

As a species we managed to procreate for thousands of years without marriage - which by the way is a human construct and therefore literally 'unnatural'.

Dilute how exactly? What will be changed to the actual terms?

That last comment - you're having a laugh there right?

aloyisious · 14-05-2015 04:11PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Im a bit baffled by this. I understand that we cannot change the constitution without a referendum but surely in cases where the constitution has been found to be actively discriminatory it should just be fixed without having to ask for a vote?

I feel it is a deeply flawed process that the country could vote to KEEP discrimination in the constitution and that be an acceptable legal position.

It's just that it's the only way thought safe, otherwise the courts set up under licence by the Govt from the constitution, would be able to supplant it. Ditto for the Gov't, it's under licence from the Constitution too. It can only word referendii, can't force them into existence.

Bannasidhe · 14-05-2015 04:11PM

Adoption Rights Alliance has issued a strongly worded call for a Yes vote.

Press Release, 14th May 2015 – for immediate release

Adoption Rights Alliance Calls for Yes Vote in Marriage Equality Referendum

Adoption Rights Alliance (ARA), which advocates for equal human and civil rights for those affected by Ireland's closed, secret, forced adoption system, is stating its unequivocal support for a Yes vote in the upcoming marriage equality referendum.

We in ARA campaign for child-centred, ethical practices in adoption and assisted human reproduction (AHR) and in our view, the rights of children have been hijacked by those calling for a No vote in the referendum. We are outraged at certain individuals and groups who attempt to pit one minority group against another in citing adoption issues as a matter for concern in this referendum.

Firstly, this constitutional amendment is about marriage and has nothing to do with children. Moreover, children’s rights in adoption and AHR are best protected through adequate legislation and regulation in those areas. We also wish to assure those who profess to defend us that the sexuality of our adoptive parents is immaterial compared to the fact that adopted people have no automatic right to their birth certificates and files. Finally, these individuals also appear to forget that there are many members of the adoption community who also happen to be lesbian or gay.

http://www.adoptionrightsalliance.com/ARA%20Marriage%20Equality%20PR_14-05-15.htm

aloyisious · 14-05-2015 04:17PM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

He was responding to point made by a poster that every No vote is a vote for Iona and a personal insult to Gay people.

Therefore of the vote passes by a huge majority but 40,000 people vote no, by that posters flawed logic, that's still 40,000 "fellow countrymen" who hate you guys.

Naw, even we know it's only a percentage of the "No" voters who hate us because we're Gay or Lesbian, or Bi, or Trans. Get over it.

Duggy747 · 14-05-2015 04:23PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

ARA wrote:

Firstly, this constitutional amendment is about marriage and has nothing to do with children.

You just know people are going to ignore that and carry on with the children angle, even if it comes from Adoption Rights Alliance themselves.

AtomicHorror · 14-05-2015 04:23PM

Montgolfier wrote: »

I'm not interested in change of marriage I'm interested in keeping it as is for future generations to know what is natural for our species to procreate.

Are they likely to forget? Right now it's fundamental. If they do forget some day, doesn't that mean it has become irrelevant?

Montgolfier wrote: »

I don't want to dilute the terms of marriage.

If I let gay people into my house, have I diluted the meaning of "house"?

Montgolfier wrote: »

It's important to know that if you vote to allow gay marriage where do you stop.

That sentence does not make sense. It is important to know that if condition A is met, then question. Weird.

Anyway, you ask "where do you stop" as if it's some slippery slope towards us all marrying our cats. Where it stops is where we all collectively agree to stop by long and apparently very painful discussion. Not so much a slippery slope downwards as a torturous ****ing incline.

Montgolfier wrote: »

The no campaign seem to have very little to say.

There's not much to be said in favour of a no vote.

Tenz · 14-05-2015 04:24PM

floggg wrote: »

While I get what you are saying, I don't think you really understand the nature and effect of inequalities. Its an attack on your dignity and sense of worth as much as anything else.

As I said, while we have Civil Partnership which largely covers most of the rights and obligations concerned, it's a relationship status that comes with an asterisk. Almost equal but not quite.

What we are trying to remove is the asterisk over same sex relationships as much as anything else - which while perhaps insignificant to those not affected by it, does do great harm to our sense of dignity and acceptance.

Think about it - if the asterisk wasn't a big deal, why would the opponents of equality insist on retaining it? The want it kept because they know it marks us out as different and unequal. We do too.

That's why we want it removed.

And I hope you do get that asterix removed. You have a right to feel treated equally.
I just hope you don't end up regretting pushing for too much too soon.

Unfortunately, also, I think even if the referendum passes, some irreparable damage has been done by forcing largely 'neutral/don't care' people into a 'no' camp, and then labelling them neanderthals and homophobes. People will be slow to forget that.

aloyisious · 14-05-2015 04:25PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

I do see homosexuals as equal, I just don't think they should be allowed to marry each other. Ireland is one of the most tolerant places in the world for homosexuals now, it's not like the bad old days.

Ask Paddy Manning does he think that, or does he still keep looking over his shoulder every now and again for gay-bashers? I know that a lot of gays still do in our cities, towns and villages because it is still happening. Just because there are laws against it, ain't making it stop. BTW, you're probably only imagining about the current 26 counties situation.

aloyisious · 14-05-2015 04:27PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Nope

You think that Iona would reject it, on that basis?

floggg · 14-05-2015 04:27PM

Montgolfier wrote: »

I'm not interested in change of marriage I'm interested in keeping it as is for future generations to know what is natural for our species to procreate. I don't want to dilute the terms of marriage.
It's important to know that if you vote to allow gay marriage where do you stop.
The no campaign seem to have very little to say.

I'm glad you're Dropping the facade and admitting you are just a No votyo, instead of raising sham arguments.

You do know though that you don't need marriage to make human beings procreate, yes?

Just look at the number of children being born out of wedlock.

And you do know that marriage equality isn't going to make straight people less inclined to marry. If the fact that gays can't do it was the only reason somebody had to marry, they shouldn't marry in the first place.

So a No vote doesn't achieve anything other than the status quo for the sake of it. It won't strengthen it - in fact it weaknesses it by making unnecessarily divisive.

And if anything a no vote just increases the visibility and of non-marital relationships - which diminishes the prominence of marriage.

Personally, I see the fact that so many people are willing to campaign and struggle to be allowed marry as greatly strengthening the institution. It confirms the value we place in it as a society.

And look at the great food you can do. You can affirm the equal dignity and respect for same sex relationships. You can send a message to young lgbt people that They are loved and accepted.

I really struggled to come to terms with my sexuality when u was younger, for fear of not being accepted. I can't tell you the good it would have done me to know then I could marry on equal terms.

I also can't begin to describe the hurt I would have felt knowing the country opposed it too.

So while a No vote won't achieve anything positive, a Yes vote truly will. I would really urge you to reconsider your position.

aloyisious · 14-05-2015 04:31PM

Roger_007 wrote: »

I'm not going to support putting stuff in the constitution that shouldn't be there.

Erm (tongue in cheek) I think Iona has the same viewpoint on divorce

Merry Prankster · 14-05-2015 04:35PM

Montgolfier wrote: »

I'm not interested in change of marriage I'm interested in keeping it as is for future generations to know what is natural for our species to procreate.

There's nothing 'natural' about marriage; it is merely a convention, and conventions are not immutable - they evolve along with society.

P.S. I don't think allowing gays to marry is going to confuse future generations about the science behind procreation, although the church is generally quite adept at obfuscating science. Also, I love how heterosexuality is seen as 'natural', whereas homosexuality isn't, despite the fact that it occurs in nature.

ixoy · 14-05-2015 04:36PM

Tenz wrote: »

Unfortunately, also, I think even if the referendum passes, some irreparable damage has been done by forcing largely 'neutral/don't care' people into a 'no' camp, and then labelling them neanderthals and homophobes.

? How was anyone neutral forced into a No camp? They're hardly neutral in that instance.

MrWalsh · 14-05-2015 04:38PM

Tenz wrote: »

Unfortunately, also, I think even if the referendum passes, some irreparable damage has been done by forcing largely 'neutral/don't care' people into a 'no' camp, and then labelling them neanderthals and homophobes. People will be slow to forget that.

People who are in the no camp already are homophobes - there is no damage done. Hopefully itll get them thinking about why their views are seen as unacceptable by a large proportion of people. Who knows, a bit of self reflection and some of them may even realise that we should all be treated equally after all.

aloyisious · 14-05-2015 04:44PM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Didn't ask him anything. What would I ask him? I was just talking. Why do you feel a need to attack me?

Why do i get the scent of a cleverly laid trap to ensnare and accuse some-one of abuse here?

Tenz · 14-05-2015 04:44PM

ixoy wrote: »

? How was anyone neutral forced into a No camp? They're hardly neutral in that instance.

Because people, especially old people, feel they should vote. Some had family members who fought in the war of independence, almost all had neighbours who did.

ixoy · 14-05-2015 04:46PM

Tenz wrote: »

Because people, especially old people, feel they should vote. Some had family members who fought in the war of independence, almost all had neighbours who did.

So they were going to vote anyway? That means they always had an opinion on the matter.

floggg · 14-05-2015 04:46PM

Tenz wrote: »

And I hope you do get that asterix removed. You have a right to feel treated equally.
I just hope you don't end up regretting pushing for too much too soon.

Unfortunately, also, I think even if the referendum passes, some irreparable damage has been done by forcing largely 'neutral/don't care' people into a 'no' camp, and then labelling them neanderthals and homophobes. People will be slow to forget that.

They only people who have been called honophobes are those who have expressed homophobic views. Indeed, I can only think of one notable instance of the H word being used, which resulted in a payout by RTE. And that was an apt description.

If people have been forced to pick sides, it hasn't been the Yes campaigns fault. We have simply asked for equal treatment - it is how people have responded to that request which has lead to people taking sides.

I also fully reject the inference that it would be better to bide our until people were more inclined to "give" us our equality.

As I said, inequality is something which affects your dignity as a person - and waiting patiently and politely until people are willing to give you does great harm to your dignity.

Even if I we lose the referendum I would rather we stand up for ourselves and suffer a set back then never stand up at all.

I also think the great benefit of this campaign is that it has mobilised the lgbt community and out allies in a way never seen before. Win or lose, we have been awoken as a community and I think we will March on until we achieve equality.

So many of us have been forced to find our voice, and we are no longer afraid to use it.

Tenz · 14-05-2015 04:47PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

People who are in the no camp already are homophobes - there is no damage done. Hopefully itll get them thinking about why their views are seen as unacceptable by a large proportion of people. Who knows, a bit of self reflection and some of them may even realise that we should all be treated equally after all.

You know, you would do the yes side far more favours, by at least trying to understand the opposing side, instead of just slinging 'homophone' at them. You are in danger of coming across as far more intolerant than many of the no voters I've spoken to.

Tenz · 14-05-2015 04:48PM

ixoy wrote: »

So they were going to vote anyway? That means they always had an opinion on the matter.

No. They didn't have an opinion. They never gave it any thought I expect. Then the referendum came along, and iona , and .....

aloyisious · 14-05-2015 04:48PM

Tenz wrote: »

Probably been asked on here already, but would really appreciate someone answering this.

If all the legislative differences between civil partnership and marriage were ammended (i.e. making 'marriage' and 'civil partnership' different only in their gender makeup, but equal in all other respects), would you still campaign for another referendum to introduce SSM. If yes, why?

Yes I would campaign. Because the Govt's can change what's in legislation, and courts can rule that what any Govt has brought in as uncostitutional. Nothing brought in as legislation is secure, making anything it mean's or intends secure for any citizen.

Dravokivich · 14-05-2015 04:52PM

I'm straight, I've got no interest in marriage whatsoever. So is this referendum for me? No not really. But should a referendum be about the person ticking the box for yes/no?

I see it more along the lines of what the state is going to outline with what it'll provide and how it recognises it's citizens.

I perceive a no vote as not giving a set of the citizens recognition for who they are. In a country that allows people to have the freedom of expression (through our UN ties and their declaration of Human Rights) which would relate a lot to how we identify ourselves, I cannot justly say no and prevent something someone who wants to express of themselves or whoever else wishes to express it with them in any way. With this instance being though marriage. Especially when this is only currently denied on the basis of sexuality, which goes against the declaration of Human Rights we are signed up to.

I feel we should not treat each other differently regardless of our personal interests if we are to truly strive to be an equal society.

So is this about me? No.

Is this about how I feel on marriage? No.

Is this about how I feel on sexuality, be it Gay/Bi/Str/ AN.Other? No.

Is this about how I feel on Religion/Spiritualisaton/Secularism? No.

What is it about?

...Us as a people. Recognising each other. For that my vote is yes.

Not a NSA agent · 14-05-2015 04:54PM

Tenz wrote: »

And I hope you do get that asterix removed. You have a right to feel treated equally.
I just hope you don't end up regretting pushing for too much too soon.

Unfortunately, also, I think even if the referendum passes, some irreparable damage has been done by forcing largely 'neutral/don't care' people into a 'no' camp, and then labelling them neanderthals and homophobes. People will be slow to forget that.

People will stop caring after the 22nd. Everyone who thinks gay people will damage children if they raise them wont mention it again. They'll go about their lives as they always have.

StewartGriffin · 14-05-2015 04:56PM

Peist2007 wrote: »

Here's an attack: you're a sad man.

Peist, I can honestly tell you I am a very happy man. I attribute this to having a good old sense of humour, an ability to laugh at life, something you sadly lack. No amount of referenda will grant you equality on that I'm afraid.

ixoy · 14-05-2015 04:59PM

Tenz wrote: »

No. They didn't have an opinion. They never gave it any thought I expect. Then the referendum came along, and iona , and .....

And Iona. There you go. The No campaign is what pushed them to the No side, not the Yes side. Instead you could say that they used the actions of a portion of the Yes side to justify staying there.

Merry Prankster · 14-05-2015 05:06PM

Dravokivich wrote: »

Is this about how I feel on sexuality, be it Gay/Bi/Str/ AN.Other? No.

Although the vote is about SSM, people's feelings about unconventional sexuality is the central issue determing their voting preference. Those who have no issue with homosexuality will vote yes; those who have issues with it will vote no. Arguments concerning the welfare of children are a red herring.

traprunner · 14-05-2015 05:09PM

Merry Prankster wrote: »

Although the vote is about SSM, people's feelings about unconventional sexuality is the central issue determing their voting preference.

We are holier than though. The ancient Romans and Greeks and all other nations never had gay sex. So the No side would have you believe.

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

Comments