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

paleoperson · 15-05-2015 12:16AM

osarusan wrote: »

The "psychological associations" beliefs are based on loads of documented and verified evidence.

What are your beliefs based on?

They include all of the evidence of the psychological associations and more.

The biological basis of mother and father, personal experience, and writings about paternal and maternal figures over the years.

Kiwi in IE · 15-05-2015 12:16AM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

That's a tricky one, Kiwi. You see, if they genuinely in their hearts believe gay marriage is a bad thing, then to abstain is the wrong thing to do.

The much used quote often attributed, (possibly wrongly,) to Edmund Burke is relevant here: "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing."

If you honestly believe it is an evil thing, then it is your moral and correct duty to vote no.

I wouldn't even know what to say to someone with those views. How can you have a rational conversation with someone who thinks that love is 'evil'?

Not a NSA agent · 15-05-2015 12:18AM

paleoperson wrote: »

Listen, I don't know how old you are or whatever but everything we're talking about is based on belief. The "psychological associations" have whatever beliefs they have, you have your beliefs, I have mine. Everything in politics or decision-making is based on a belief. Sometimes people don't share the same belief, that's part of politics. Even if you believe your belief is 100% definitely right it's still a belief.

To know a belief is 100% right then you need something to back it up. At that point it becomes more than just a belief, it becomes a fact.

I noticed a lack of backing for your belief. If we are to claim that other should be discriminated against (like people convicted of crimes) then we need to have good reason to do it, more than just simply a belief.

Maximus Alexander · 15-05-2015 12:33AM

paleoperson wrote: »

They include all of the evidence of the psychological associations and
more.

The biological basis of mother and father, personal experience,
and writings about paternal and maternal figures over the years.

F*ck all tbh.

fyp

Sheldons Brain · 15-05-2015 12:35AM

floggg wrote: »

See, in order for you to argue that their preference for a mother father environment is not discriminatory, you would need to be able to establish that mother father environments are better, or offer some advantage over same sex environments.

The unfortunate thing for you is, you won't be able to. There is no such evidence. As was just confirmed on tonight's primetime.

Well tonight's Prime Time did refer to some studies, many were inconclusive and four showed disadvantage for children brought up in Gay relationships. Now personally I think these studies do not have a proper sample to establish anything, but if you are making claims about them then the evidence is somewhat in favour of the No side. But then you probably had the blinkers on during that bit.

sunshine and showers wrote:

I would honestly like to apologise sincerely to the entire LGBT community of Ireland. We are essentially forcing them to knock on the doors of the people of Ireland and ask permission to marry the person they love.

This is the kind of pointless emotive language that characterises this campaign. No person needs permission to love and pursue a relationship with anyone else, gay people cannot call this marriage because marriage is for men and women, there is no reason for anyone to apologise for that. You can't call soccer rugby because you don't carry the ball.

Maximus Alexander · 15-05-2015 12:39AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

This is the kind of pointless emotive language that characterises this campaign. No person needs permission to love and pursue a relationship with anyone else, gay people cannot call this marriage because marriage is for men and women,

You seem to think you've made a point here, but all you've done is literally state what the referendum seeks to change.

osarusan · 15-05-2015 12:39AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

gay people cannot call this marriage because marriage is for men and women.

Hopefully that is all about to change, right?

sunshine and showers · 15-05-2015 12:42AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

This is the kind of pointless emotive language that characterises this campaign. No person needs permission to love and pursue a relationship with anyone else, gay people cannot call this marriage because marriage is for men and women, there is no reason for anyone to apologise for that. You can't call soccer rugby because you don't carry the ball.

If you are entitled to the way you feel, then so am I.

Kiwi in IE · 15-05-2015 12:45AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

No person needs permission to love and pursue a relationship with anyone else, gay people cannot call this marriage because marriage is for men and women

'Gay people cannot call it marriage'? What will you do when it IS marriage? Refuse to acknowledge it? Because it will happen.

osarusan · 15-05-2015 12:46AM

paleoperson wrote: »

They include all of the evidence of the psychological associations and more.

But less than 20 minutes before this post you said you didn't give a s**t what the psychological associations had to say.

AtomicHorror · 15-05-2015 12:47AM

paleoperson wrote: »

Yes I believe a man and a woman are better suited than two men or two women. It's not in any way prejudice as I understand the term.

Of course it's prejudice. Let's say there was some evidence to suggest mixed-sex parents produced better outcomes by some measure. To discriminate against same-sex parents on that basis is wrong, because it generalises about individuals. If there are any same-sex parents who are better than any mixed-sex parents, even if that number is small, then the generalisation results in that minority being treated unfairly. Using statistics for this kind of decision making, when the subject is complex and also has a huge degree of variability and uncertainty, is the very definition of prejudice. Forming an opinion and making a decision without gathering the specific facts (i.e. the likely or known performance of the couple in question).

To make matters worse, it is not statistical evidence on which you've based your claim, but some vaguely-define belief. That's prejudice in giant ****ing neon letters.

paleoperson wrote: »

Everything in politics or decision-making is based on a belief.

Not in evidence-based policymaking, which admittedly the Irish government has always sucked at. However, they're right (perhaps by accident) in this case. The evidence does not support the claim that there is a meaningful difference in outcomes between mixed-sex and single-sex parenting. There's no basis in evidence to discriminate, and if there was it would have to be hugely damning, for the reason I explained above.

paleoperson wrote: »

They include all of the evidence of the psychological associations and more.

The biological basis of mother and father

Already demonstrated to be irrelevant.

paleoperson wrote: »

personal experience

Anecdotes are the weakest for of evidence by far.

paleoperson wrote: »

writings about paternal and maternal figures over the years.

Cite the writings. The studies don't agree.

Sheldons Brain · 15-05-2015 12:47AM

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

You seem to think you've made a point here, but all you've done is literally state what the referendum seeks to change.

Perhaps, but there is a conscious and misleading effort here to give the impression that the conduct of relationships are materially impeded and this is not the case, nor should it be.

osarusan · 15-05-2015 12:52AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Perhaps, but there is a conscious and misleading effort here to give the impression that the conduct of relationships are materially impeded and this is not the case, nor should it be.

I think you need to read the post in question again. There is no effort or attempt of any kind to give the impression that the conduct of relationships is materially impeded.

EDIT: unless you mean that same-sex relationships are being materially impeded by the fact that they can't get civilly married, which is hardly a misleading statement to make.

AtomicHorror · 15-05-2015 12:57AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Well tonight's Prime Time did refer to some studies, many were inconclusive and four showed disadvantage for children brought up in Gay relationships. Now personally I think these studies do not have a proper sample to establish anything, but if you are making claims about them then the evidence is somewhat in favour of the No side. But then you probably had the blinkers on during that bit.

It might have come across that way in the debate, but that's not the consensus in the scientific community at all. Quite the opposite. Those four negative studies are held in rather poor regard. The "neutral" results as you put it, are not neutral. They show no difference, which is the hypothesis supported. That's a positive result. Nobody's claiming gay parents are better.

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

This is the kind of pointless emotive language that characterises this campaign. No person needs permission to love and pursue a relationship with anyone else, gay people cannot call this marriage because marriage is for men and women, there is no reason for anyone to apologise for that. You can't call soccer rugby because you don't carry the ball.

That's just silly semantics and one bad analogy. Marriage is not defined by who is in it. It is itself a definition of how some people are connected to one another.

paleoperson · 15-05-2015 01:04AM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Of course it's prejudice. Let's say there was some evidence to suggest mixed-sex parents produced better outcomes by some measure. To discriminate against same-sex parents on that basis is wrong, because it generalises about individuals. If there are any same-sex parents who are better than any mixed-sex parents, even if that number is small, then the generalisation results in that minority being treated unfairly. Using statistics for this kind of decision making, when the subject is complex and also has a huge degree of variability and uncertainty, is the very definition of prejudice. Forming an opinion and making a decision without gathering the specific facts (i.e. the likely or known performance of the couple in question).

To make matters worse, it is not statistical evidence on which you've based your claim, but some vaguely-define belief. That's prejudice in giant ****ing neon letters.

You appear to be suggesting that we should use statistics as some kind of foolproof evidence, yet in the exact same part of the post you've stated that if the statistics supported the ideal man-woman scenario that even one exception to it would make it discriminatory and therefore inadmissible.

I'm tired of all this nonsense tbh, come back when you grow a brain.

Smiley92a · 15-05-2015 01:05AM

Didn't see the debate myself. Please don't tell me they brought up Mark Regenerus, that oul charlatan.

galljga1 · 15-05-2015 01:07AM

paleoperson wrote: »

You appear to be suggesting that we should use statistics as some kind of foolproof evidence, yet in the exact same part of the post you've stated that if you didn't like the statistics that even one exception to it would make discriminatory and therefore inadmissible.

I'm tired of all this nonsense tbh, come back when you grow a brain.

O.K. maybe that brain could be given to you.

ProfessorPlum · 15-05-2015 03:05AM

gandalf wrote: »

Here are some of the facts about this upcoming vote.

frostyjacks wrote: »

Something tells me this is ever so slightly leaning towards one side over the other.

Yes, you're quite right. The facts do seem to favour a yes vote.

paleoperson wrote: »

I don't give two ****s about what "the likes of psychological associations" have to say. I'm saying it should be possible to distinguish between the two parents.

I think younger people are on average able to be parents better than older people 50+, that doesn't mean people 50+ can't raise great children, it just means that if two people in their mid-30s are desperate to adopt children that age can be taken into account. Same with wealth. Nobody says poor people can't have children, but sometimes circumstances can make it harder for them.

The adoption board assesses people's suitability as adoptive parents. Either they are deemed suitable, and given a licence to adopt, or they are not. They don't choose between one parent or couple and another, so saying that wealthier people or straight people or whatever are better (*not necessarily true - for illustrative purposes only) is irrelevant.
In any case, the outcome of this referendum will change none of that, so it's irrelevant on both counts.

efb · 15-05-2015 04:27AM

http://m.independent.ie/opinion/comment/it-is-time-to-fillet-the-shoal-of-red-herrings-being-thrown-about-by-the-no-campaign-31224097.html

Alan Shatter in today's Indo

Ozymandius2011 · 15-05-2015 04:40AM

efb wrote: »

http://m.independent.ie/opinion/comment/it-is-time-to-fillet-the-shoal-of-red-herrings-being-thrown-about-by-the-no-campaign-31224097.html

Alan Shatter in today's Indo

I seldom read the Indo now because the comments page is moderated on a pre-clearance basis and they only seem to allow the Religious Right to post in the majority of cases. Some of the stuff you'd read in the comments page is like Iona literature if not Youth Defence.

ollkiller · 15-05-2015 04:59AM

I remember a few months back myself and a mate had a conversation about this referendum. He remarked how the no side wasn't very vocal and i said just you wait. They'll muddy the water and make it all about children when the referendum had nothing to do with children. I had hoped to be proved wrong but alas it has come to pass.

Growing up in this country in the 80's underneath the thumb of the catholic church with it's love of control and power was a sight to behold. The last few years when it's lost it's grip has been wonderful. People can think for themselves and be different. It would be a shame to give in to hate and to go backwards.

I'm voting yes for the simple reason i have two cousins who are gay and they would like to get married in the future (not to each other lol) and i feel they should have that right and the protection that marriage gives under the law and the other obvious reason that it won't affect me in ANY way whatsoever. Who is anyone to deny two people who love each other getting married. If your hetrosexual and voting no ask yourself this. How would you feel if you weren't allowed to marry your partner and only gay people were?

frostyjacks · 15-05-2015 06:30AM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Yes, you're quite right. The facts do seem to favour a yes vote.

The adoption board assesses people's suitability as adoptive parents. Either they are deemed suitable, and given a licence to adopt, or they are not. They don't choose between one parent or couple and another, so saying that wealthier people or straight people or whatever are better (*not necessarily true - for illustrative purposes only) is irrelevant.
In any case, the outcome of this referendum will change none of that, so it's irrelevant on both counts.

My point was that if you gave this flyer out to people on the street they would look at the "Yes Equality" headline and just assume it was propaganda; they wouldn't distinguish it from anything the no camp would hand out, even if it was a load of waffle.

I'm reminded of that saying in journalism, "Never let the facts get in the way of a good story", that seems to be what the no campaign are running with. There seemed to be a bit of a vacuum from the referendum commission that they've managed to fill with their propaganda. Kevin Cross has been on the radio a lot recently clarifying the issues, but the horse has bolted from that stable.

When it comes to elections, I think a lot of people don't care about facts, they just go with ideas and principles.

Ozymandius2011 · 15-05-2015 06:48AM

Some recordings from the current US Supreme Court hearing on whether to legalise gay marriage nationwide which may be pertinant to our debate.

Zen65 · 15-05-2015 07:22AM

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/ursula-halligan-referendum-pointed-me-towards-telling-the-truth-about-myself-1.2212960

Nice article by Ursula Halligan of TV3 fame.

Zen65 · 15-05-2015 07:23AM

Clinical psychologist confirms what we already suspected: orientation of the parents does not matter

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/studies-prove-no-differences-in-children-raised-by-gay-or-heterosexual-couples-1.2213132?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

road_high · 15-05-2015 07:55AM

Zen65 wrote: »

Clinical psychologist confirms what we already suspected: orientation of the parents does not matter

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/studies-prove-no-differences-in-children-raised-by-gay-or-heterosexual-couples-1.2213132?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Now watch the No mob seize on the Nazi Germany comparison in "horror"!

Merry Prankster · 15-05-2015 08:08AM

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I seldom read the Indo now because the comments page is moderated on a pre-clearance basis and they only seem to allow the Religious Right to post in the majority of cases. Some of the stuff you'd read in the comments page is like Iona literature if not Youth Defence.

I've found this too, what is with the moderators at the Indo? They seem to block perfectly fine comments. They need to put less resources into moderation and more into copy editing.

Merry Prankster · 15-05-2015 08:12AM

ollkiller wrote: »

Growing up in this country in the 80's underneath the thumb of the catholic church with it's love of control and power was a sight to behold.

Growing up as an 'illegitimate' child during this time, I remember the sense of shame I was made to feel. It's ridiculous that an institution predicated on silly mythological tales had such an influence on the values of our society.

homerjay2005 · 15-05-2015 08:24AM

gandalf wrote: »

Here are some of the facts about this upcoming vote.

Would you have a link to the list of rights that this referendum Would change?

For instance, what right now is preventing gay families from being a family?! I didn't think marraige is the be all and end all of being a family so I'd like to know this aspect- there 1000's of families in this country where the parents are not married and some never will be .

I'm asking this as somebody who sees no reason to vote no but always as somebody who doesn't quite understand what the Yes side are looking for, so would like somebody to explain please!

floggg · 15-05-2015 08:30AM

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Oh I know it is called that, but I just like to be really clear sometimes. Civil marriage is the issue, so I say it is.

Especially after canvassing earlier and having an old lady recount to me how the priest told her he'd be sued for refusing to marry gay couples if this passed. :rolleyes:

I'm pretty sure there's a pretty clear condemnation of lying in the bible.

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

Comments