Full rights for the LGBT community.

DarkyHughes

aloyisious wrote: »

@Darky, don't know if you heard the speeches at the march yesterday (sound's like you did) the bit about the south being a republic was mentioned with ref the present state of equality here, showing it up as being an incomplete republic.

Well I agree it is an incomplete Republic & while it's heading in the right direction on a lot of individual issues it's still well of what the people who came up with the notion of what a Irish Republic should be.

aloyisious

Irish Times Social Affairs report: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/garda-station-to-fly-flag-in-support-of-gay-parade-1.1908921 - Limerick's Pride festival. Henry St Garda station to fly rainbow flag in support of gay parade.

A move by one of the State’s biggest Garda divisions to fly a rainbow flag outside its divisional headquarters has been described as a significant symbol of support for the gay community in Ireland. Henry Street Garda station in Limerick will become the first in the Republic to fly the rainbow flag when it raises it in support of those parading in this year’s Limerick Pride festival.

The festival is already under way this week promoting “Equality, Love, Diversity and Celebration”. The annual Pride parade will take place in the city on Saturday and pass Henry Street Garda station on its route. Festival organiser Dave Cuddihy said the show of support from Limerick gardaí was significant. “The Garda station in Henry Street are going to be the first Garda station in the country to fly a Pride flag on Saturday as the parade passes the route,” he said. “It’s basically a symbol by them to show that the guards are there for us if we need them to support any incidents of homophobic crime. They are basically just reaching out and it’s a huge step forward for the guards in Ireland as well that this symbol is going to be put out there.”

Chief Supt Dave Sheahan described flying the flag as a means of “showing our recognition and support for LGBT people as they pass by Henry Street Garda station and, in particular, we are sending a message to report any homophobic, violent, threatening and/or abusive behaviour”.

Earlier this year an organisation representing the transgender community in Ireland called on the Government to introduce hate crime legislation. This followed the publication of the Stad: Stop Transphobia and Discrimination Report for 2013, which documented 32 hate incidents, of which 15 were designated hate crimes. Eighty-eight per cent of respondents experienced verbal abuse or insults, 28 per cent threats of violence, 19 per cent physical violence and 6 per cent sexual harassment. Some respondents had been fired from their jobs.

At the launch of a report by the Transgender Equality Network Ireland (Teni), chief executive Broden Giambrone said: “We need our lawmakers and legal institutions to understand the realities of trans-peoples’ lives and we need our police services to respect and protect us. “This must include changes in policy and law and delivery of training to the gardaí and PSNI,” Mr Giambrone added. “We are optimistic that this report will hold a mirror up to Irish society and show us we must be better.”

aloyisious

NYC St Pat's Day Parade to allow gay group in parade next year. It seem's NBC, the Co that provides TV coverage of the event, plus other sponsors like Ford Motor Co, said they would pull out of involvement unless there would be a change. NBC look's like it will be allowed have a group of it's lgbt staff behind a banner identifying itself as gay on next year's parade. The refusal of the City's mayor to participate, and the reference to the city's provision of services to the parade being reviewed may have had an effect. It's also reported that RC Cardinal Dolan will be the Parade Grand Marshall, and questions are being asked as to how he will react to the news he would lead a parade with a gay group in it. Info on RTE Radio 1 news from Niall O'Dowd in NYC.


Edit... It seem's that Cardinal Dolan was in favour of Gay marchers being allowed on last year's parade. Maybe the committee heard his statement. Para next to 3rd Photo in this link... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCMQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fworld%2Fus%2Fnew-york-st-patrick-s-day-parade-lifts-ban-on-gay-marchers-1.1916487&ei=iVEIVJGkIOfb7Aa_nIEw&usg=AFQjCNEe287rrv6iefnHzcZYBUaXvWBSBA

aloyisious

Your right to vote, get on the register. Next year not only will you be likely be asked to vote on Civil Marriage Equality, you will likely be asked to vote on lowering the voting age by one (1) year to seventeen (17). Your vote will be very important on both counts. It's about you providing enfranchisement for your younger brothers, sisters, cousins etc in your family. Extra voters with a more open mind on the position of lgbt people (YOU) and your rights in our society can only be good for you.

If you're straight and not queer, your vote will still be of equal importance to your younger brother, sister, cousin etc in your family. Get on the register and cast your vote. Disenfranchising yourself removes a right to vote from others. Give them the right (gay or straight) to a say in their own futures.

steveblack

I dont think the marriage referendum will pass.
We are told 10% of people are gay ,put that against the 30% of the OAP population who always vote.
The OAP vote will be conservative.
Its going to be a uphill struggle, voter turn out keeps dropping in every demographic except the OAP vote.

Nodin

steveblack wrote: »

I dont think the marriage referendum will pass.
We are told 10% of people are gay ,put that against the 30% of the OAP population who always vote.
The OAP vote will be conservative.
Its going to be a uphill struggle, voter turn out keeps dropping in every demographic except the OAP vote.

Unless I and a few others I know have been in denial a long time, it won't be just gay people voting for gay marriage.

Corkfeen

Nodin wrote: »

Unless I and a few others I know have been in denial a long time, it won't be just gay people voting for gay marriage.

Plus I suspect we'll see an unusually high youth vote. It's a paticularly large issue amongst my age group with most supporting it. Some of OAP generation have adapted in view point on matter but probably not excessively.Suspect it will pass though.

steveblack

Corkfeen wrote: »

Plus I suspect we'll see an unusually high youth vote. It's a paticularly large issue amongst my age group with most supporting it. Some of OAP generation have adapted in view point on matter but probably not excessively.Suspect it will pass though.

Nodin wrote: »

Unless I and a few others I know have been in denial a long time, it won't be just gay people voting for gay marriage.

Birds of a feather flock together, stands to reason the socal circles you operate in would have the same view.

The public really dont care one way or another, it dont really effect them so history shows us they wont be bothered to vote.

A low turn out will favour a no vote

iwantmydinner

steveblack wrote: »

Birds of a feather flock together, stands to reason the socal circles you operate in would have the same view.

The public really dont care one way or another, it dont really effect them so history shows us they wont be bothered to vote.

A low turn out will favour a no vote

I'm not sure your assertion that "the public" doesn't care holds up. Like, at all. Certainly anyone I've spoken to about it has an opinion.

marienbad

steveblack wrote: »

Birds of a feather flock together, stands to reason the socal circles you operate in would have the same view.

The public really dont care one way or another, it dont really effect them so history shows us they wont be bothered to vote.

A low turn out will favour a no vote

That would indicate it will be a yes vote does it not, as in if only the gay crowd and the rest of their flocks care about it only they will bother to vote.

How will you vote if you don't mind my asking ?

steveblack

marienbad wrote: »

That would indicate it will be a yes vote does it not, as in if only the gay crowd and the rest of their flocks care about it only they will bother to vote.

How will you vote if you don't mind my asking ?

Thats my point, i dont thing the majority care either way, will i or others be bothered to go vote.
To the Gay community it a huge thing, everyone else mehhh Dont affect me why vote.

NuMarvel

steveblack wrote: »

Thats my point, i dont thing the majority care either way, will i or others be bothered to go vote.
To the Gay community it a huge thing, everyone else mehhh Dont affect me why vote.

Not just to the gay community. Their friends and family will think it's a big deal as well. Possibly even neighbours and co-workers too.

But at the same time, you're right in highlighting that a yes vote shouldn't be taken for granted. Even though polls show very strong support for this, it's still up to us to make sure that translates to Yes votes on the ballot paper.

comongethappy

steveblack wrote: »

Thats my point, i dont thing the majority care either way, will i or others be bothered to go vote.
To the Gay community it a huge thing, everyone else mehhh Dont affect me why vote.

It probably won't be a general election turnout.
But a 60%-65% turnout is reasonable to expect.

The majority of people I know will vote & vote 'Yes',though apathy & considering it a done deal on the day may change that.

aloyisious

NuMarvel wrote: »

Not just to the gay community. Their friends and family will think it's a big deal as well. Possibly even neighbours and co-workers too.

But at the same time, you're right in highlighting that a yes vote shouldn't be taken for granted. Even though polls show very strong support for this, it's still up to us to make sure that translates to Yes votes on the ballot paper.

Plus if the O/P doesn't think a change to the law on civil marriage will affect them and/or their's, and are not really interested in it, that at least they abstain rather then vote against others gaining a right.

aloyisious

steveblack wrote: »

Thats my point, i dont thing the majority care either way, will i or others be bothered to go vote.
To the Gay community it a huge thing, everyone else mehhh Dont affect me why vote.

That's discounting the fact that that 10% are members of families who are all voters. This includes aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces & nephews members of the majority.

Donegal will vote no. It always does!

:pac:

aloyisious

Oh, there are a lot of citizens out there who still think that Marriage and C/P are on a par to each other right's-wise, that the issue of equality was sorted out when the C/P law was brought in for gay couples. I've just responded to an O/P who asked that question on facebook, explaining that there are differences, incl adoption and the legal guardianship of a child being given to one of the partners only.

Annasopra

steveblack wrote: »

I dont think the marriage referendum will pass.
We are told 10% of people are gay ,put that against the 30% of the OAP population who always vote.
The OAP vote will be conservative.
Its going to be a uphill struggle, voter turn out keeps dropping in every demographic except the OAP vote.

I wouldnt assume all older voters are conservative and will vote no.

marienbad

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I wouldnt assume all older voters are conservative and will vote no.

You can be certain of it. I and all of my friends will be voting yes and the average age is around 65. And they come from all backgrounds.

It is not the 80's any longer when divorce barely passed , all those yes votes then were mainly people that are over 55 now ,while the no votes were the older generation of that time . The tide is inexorably moving in our favour but lets not be complacent.

K-9

marienbad wrote: »

You can be certain of it. I and all of my friends will be voting yes and the average age is around 65. And they come from all backgrounds.

It is not the 80's any longer when divorce barely passed , all those yes votes then were mainly people that are over 55 now ,while the no votes were the older generation of that time . The tide is inexorably moving in our favour but lets not be complacent.

A lot of the FG just society generation are over 65 so I think it's a massive and unfair assumption to presume they'll vote en bloc no. Plus, as you say, with divorce and other issues, Ireland is much more mature and understanding than it was even 20 years ago.

marienbad

K-9 wrote: »

A lot of the FG just society generation are over 65 so I think it's a massive and unfair assumption to presume they'll vote en bloc no. Plus, as you say, with divorce and other issues, Ireland is much more mature and understanding than it was even 20 years ago.

Funnily enough though I am shocked at the number of young people I meet that are strongly opposed to it ,sometimes bitterly so, a lot of them 3rd level which is even more surprising. And they all intend to vote ! So no thinking the race is won now.

conorh91

The whole campaign is going to be more showboating than campaigning.

You're going to get a huge amount of professional campaigners doing their Dr Martin Luther King bit on Prime Time, and a few nutjobs, a handful of obscure Fianna Fail Senators, and Dana stuttering their way through a retort.

The result is already inevitable.

But I suppose we have to go through 6 months or so of emotional indignation and red-faced rants nevertheless. What's that Churchill quote about democracy, again?

nuac

steveblack wrote: »

I dont think the marriage referendum will pass.
We are told 10% of people are gay ,put that against the 30% of the OAP population who always vote.
The OAP vote will be conservative.
Its going to be a uphill struggle, voter turn out keeps dropping in every demographic except the OAP vote.

Any basis for that figure?

I think the figure is smaller than that.

aloyisious

Today's Examiner: http://www.irishexaminer.com/examviral/real-life/god-loves-gays-billboard-unveiled-in-westboro-baptist-church-hometown-285553.html

zielarz

It will be interesting to see how much catholic Ireland really is.

saidinmilamber

zielarz wrote: »

It will be interesting to see how much catholic Ireland really is.

Shur Catholic doesn't automatically mean homophobic either any more. Many Catholics seem to take "judging thy neighbour" more serious than a chapter of the bible that tells you to stone people to death for hooking up with guys, eating shellfish, and wearing mixed fabrics.

Personally, I think the main way to win the vote will be to ensure that this is the largest voting turnout in Irish history. Get it checked that you can vote where you live!

zielarz

saidinmilamber wrote: »

Shur Catholic doesn't automatically mean homophobic either any more. Many Catholics seem to take "judging thy neighbour" more serious than a chapter of the bible that tells you to stone people to death for hooking up with guys, eating shellfish, and wearing mixed fabrics.

Personally, I think the main way to win the vote will be to ensure that this is the largest voting turnout in Irish history. Get it checked that you can vote where you live!

Sin is still a sin, even if we don't stone people. In my opinion yes vote means being non-Catholic. Believer cannot treat marriage and homosexual relationship the same.

Annasopra

zielarz wrote: »

In my opinion yes vote means being non-Catholic. Believer cannot treat marriage and homosexual relationship the same.

Fair enough. Thats your opinion but the reality is many many Catholics will support this.

I suspect even prominent catholics such as Mary McAleese will support it and probably members of gcvi

http://www.gcvi.ie/

aloyisious

zielarz wrote: »

Sin is still a sin, even if we don't stone people. In my opinion yes vote means being non-Catholic. Believer cannot treat marriage and homosexual relationship the same.

OK, if you want to believe that Civil Marriage as performed before a state registrar of marriage is the same as Catholic Church Marriage, then feel free to do so. However you are wrong. The difference is that of one performed before an official of state, the other before a minister of God. Civil Marriage is an affair of state.

While you're here, you might want to look at the registrar of marriage act operating as law here. The state does NOT recognize any religious marriage performed here as valid unless that marriage has been registered with the registrar. I haven't noticed any church or religious figures going to court arguing that marriage before God is superior to marriage before a state official and that registration with the state is not necessary They are wise enough to know there is a clear separation between Civil and Church marriage.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Firishbarrister.com%2Fmarriage.html&ei=U28RVNjuHY7H7Aaw_4D4CA&usg=AFQjCNFAH7mw8EA3QYpiBeRvIbhgIVImMw

Muahahaha

zielarz wrote: »

It will be interesting to see how much catholic Ireland really is.

Yeah I think the referendum should be a good bellweather of the religious vote in Ireland today.

I hope I'm wrong but I can forsee this referendum being rejected. I wouldnt take any comfort in the polling numbers right now, if anything what has happened in Scotland in the last few weeks just goes to show how referendum polling numbers tend to converge once the debate gets underway. So from here on in the Yes side will be on the back foot and are likely to see a decrease in their current polling numbers once the debate kicks off. If anything it will be the No side who will be able to point to growing polling numbers, while the Yes side is likely to see their numbers drop from the current levels.

The other problem I forsee is who exactly is going to run the Yes campaign in the areas where it probably most needs to be run, rural Ireland. I can see the LGBT lobby making a political error here- in the cities there'll be no doubt that a Yes campaign is going on and I expect it to be very visible and colourful. But if that is where they put their resources then it could be a fundamental error, after all the cities are not where large numbers will vote No. I get the impression that the LGBT lobby are not organised sufficiently outside of the main cities to mount a credible campaign on a nationwide scale. I also get the feeling that many organisers of the campaign may be Dublin-centric themselves and be of the belief they can get the referendum passed by simply making appearances on radio, TV3, RTE, etc. Running alongside this is I can't see FF or FG campaigning for a Yes vote in any serious or credible fashion. Enda Kenny will speak of his support for gay marriage but I cant see the FG party throwing €100k away on posters to actually campaign for it, especially when they need the money for a general election in 2016. So while I can see FF/FG backing gay marriage nationally I reckon the reality on the ground in rural areas is that they will pay the issue lip service, afriad of upsetting any religiously inclined voters of theirs. Its actually likely the local priest will have more to say on the issue to locals than the local FF/FG politicians will have. The Labour party are very weak at the moment so while I do expect them to campaign for a Yes vote they dont have much money to back it and nor do they have much credibility with the Irish public either. In fact I'd say Labour as a name is almost toxic right now and the LGBT looby would be well advised to stay clear of them during the referendum.


Another factor in this referendum has to be the Church. Having lost the 1995 Divorce referendum and more recently having conceded ground in the last years abortion debates and the legislation that followed I'm thinking the Church and its lobby will throw the kitchen sink at this one. I also think we are going to see allegations and perhaps hard evidence of outside funding arriving from Christian fundamentalists in the US to back a No vote. We have already seen the vast funding that was available to groups like Youth Defence during the recent abortion debates, I expect we'll see even more American money flood in to fight gay marriage.

Some of these American groups have warchests in the millions of dollars and given that Ireland is the only European country Im aware of where the people rather than the parliament are being asked to legalise gay marriage that then means Christian fundmentalist groups will see Ireland as one of the few battlegrounds in the world in which they can have some influence in preventing gay marriage. For some of these people it will be their religious and moral duty to do what they can to prevent gay marriage, which means the No side can find rich sources of funding from the US. Ultra conservative Catholics from abroad will see the Irish referendum as an opportunity to be exploited, I've no doubt in my mind that there are going to be dark forces pulling strings behind the scenes on this one.

The other problems in getting it passed are that the two other questions being asked on the day are complete trivial questions on lowering the vote age and the age which you can become President. Neither of these issues are going to bring people out to vote and if anything the LGBT side needed another sizable issue on the ballot paper to get the numbers out. The problem for them now is 95% of Irish people arent gay so this issue doesnt effect us. So convincing people to leave the comfort of their homes on a March evening to go out and vote for something that they won't directly benefit from is going to be a hard sell. If it is lashing rain on the day of the referendum then I'd be really fearful of a No vote carrying the day.

marienbad

Muahahaha wrote: »

The other problems in getting it passed are that the two other questions being asked on the day are complete trivial questions on lowering the vote age and the age which you can become President. Neither of these issues are going to bring people out to vote and if anything the LGBT side needed another sizable issue on the ballot paper to get the numbers out.

Then lets hope voters don't trivialise this issue as you have just so blithely trivialised lowering the voting age and presidential age ballots.

Any measure that extends democracy is a good thing and you might be glad of those new voters in the event of your issue being rejected

Muahahaha

marienbad wrote: »

Then lets hope voters don't trivialise this issue as you have just so blithely trivialised lowering the voting age and presidential age ballots.

Any measure that extends democracy is a good thing and you might be glad of those new voters in the event of your issue being rejected

Look the questions on voting age and the age you need to run for President ARE trivial matters which came out of the Constitutional Convention so senior politicians can point to how they are 'reforming' the poitical system in the wake of the economic crash.

If the two age related referendums were held out on their own they would barely see national turnouts above the 20% mark, in other words the vast majority of people couldn't care less. Why would people even leave their houses to go vote to give 17 year olds the vote when we already know that a large percentage of 18 year olds don't bother to vote anyway. These matters are not trivial because I think they are, they're trivial because in the grander scheme of political reform people see them that way too. The Constitutional Convention was established to bring about real political reform and here we are voting weather or not to reduce the voting age to 17. How will that go anyway to improving our system so as to help prevent another repeat of what went on in this country lately ? It won't, which is why people are cynical about those referendums and see them as trivial matters in the larger scheme of things. The government of the day has tagged an important referendum onto two others where most people aren't bothered. The problem for the gay looby is that for most people they
1) Aren't going to be bothered by the age related referendums and
2) Aren't going to directly benefit themselves from the introduction of gay marriage.

So the point I'm making is the govt have slapped two trivial matters onto another issue where most people have no visible incentive to vote. It's a formula made for a low turnout which will suit the No side more and like I said if it is lashing rain on the day of the polls then I think that the Yes side could be doomed, people will not leave their houses on a dark, wet March evening to vote on issues they're not bothered with nor will directly benefit from.

aloyisious

I'm hoping that every seventeen year-old boy and girl that will be 18 years old by the 15th feb 2015 registers as soon as possible, as the electoral list is now being compiled. If you get your name registered now or ASAP, you will be eligible to vote come referendum-time.

That includes you being able to vote on lowering the voting age to 17. If that is changed, then the registration age should have to change as well, to 16. You will be enfranchising your younger brother/sister if you vote yes. The votes of 18 year-olds will be very important for equal marriage.

Students can register to vote at either their home address or the address they will be staying at while in college, one or the other, not both. So if you want to vote and are not at home at the vote, make sure to change your voting address within the next two or so weeks so you can use your vote while at college.

Muahahaha is right when it come to apathy and how people see (or don't see) how their vote counts to other people.

To those people out there reading this, your vote is important to allowing LGBT people equal access to civil marriage. Those who don't think so, just keep an eye out for the literature and speeches made AGAINST equal civil marriage and you will see how the issue is seen as important by those who will NOT be affected in any way by marriage equality being granted by your vote. We who WILL be affected by your vote on civil marriage equality ask that you vote "YES" to give us access to civil marriage.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC4QFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.citizensinformation.ie%2Fen%2Fgovernment_in_ireland%2Felections_and_referenda%2Fvoting%2Fregistering_to_vote.html&ei=4P0VVNz1HIfT7AbgsYGoDw&usg=AFQjCNHKTQmn4jEK-U929NiVychSuiT2hg. The third para is important.

marienbad

Muahahaha wrote: »

Look the questions on voting age and the age you need to run for President ARE trivial matters which came out of the Constitutional Convention so senior politicians can point to how they are 'reforming' the poitical system in the wake of the economic crash.

If the two age related referendums were held out on their own they would barely see national turnouts above the 20% mark, in other words the vast majority of people couldn't care less. Why would people even leave their houses to go vote to give 17 year olds the vote when we already know that a large percentage of 18 year olds don't bother to vote anyway. These matters are not trivial because I think they are, they're trivial because in the grander scheme of political reform people see them that way too. The Constitutional Convention was established to bring about real political reform and here we are voting weather or not to reduce the voting age to 17. How will that go anyway to improving our system so as to help prevent another repeat of what went on in this country lately ? It won't, which is why people are cynical about those referendums and see them as trivial matters in the larger scheme of things. The government of the day has tagged an important referendum onto two others where most people aren't bothered. The problem for the gay looby is that for most people they
1) Aren't going to be bothered by the age related referendums and
2) Aren't going to directly benefit themselves from the introduction of gay marriage.

So the point I'm making is the govt have slapped two trivial matters onto another issue where most people have no visible incentive to vote. It's a formula made for a low turnout which will suit the No side more and like I said if it is lashing rain on the day of the polls then I think that the Yes side could be doomed, people will not leave their houses on a dark, wet March evening to vote on issues they're not bothered with nor will directly benefit from.

You just did it again ! I repeat anything that extends democracy is a good thing.

oscarBravo

marienbad wrote: »

...anything that extends democracy is a good thing.

You'd be in favour of lowering the voting age to ten? Six? To newborns?

Democracy is like any other powerful force: it needs to be treated with caution.

aloyisious

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/09/13/kazakhstani-politician-you-can-identify-gays-with-an-easy-blood-test/

---

providing they are also wearing coloured trousers, be they male or female to lend a hint that they may have degenerate blood and require testing.

marienbad

oscarBravo wrote: »

You'd be in favour of lowering the voting age to ten? Six? To newborns?

Democracy is like any other powerful force: it needs to be treated with caution.

Usually your posts are very measured so I am somewhat surprised at this misreading .

oscarBravo

marienbad wrote: »

Usually your posts are very measured so I am somewhat surprised at this misreading .

I'm not misreading. It's a reductio ad absurdum argument.

If your argument is that lowering the voting age to 17 is incontrovertibly a good thing because it "extends democracy", then that's an equally valid argument for lowering it to 16, or to 15, or to 14, or...

Clearly you believe that argument has a lower age bound, so your "anything" has become "almost anything", which means that you can't argue for lowering the voting age on the unqualified grounds of "extending democracy".

marienbad

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not misreading. It's a reductio ad absurdum argument.

If your argument is that lowering the voting age to 17 is incontrovertibly a good thing because it "extends democracy", then that's an equally valid argument for lowering it to 16, or to 15, or to 14, or...

Clearly you believe that argument has a lower age bound, so your "anything" has become "almost anything", which means that you can't argue for lowering the voting age on the unqualified grounds of "extending democracy".

Yes you are and you know it, for the sake of brevity we don't couch our post in legalese and caveats .

My main point was the dismissing of the issue as trivial.

zielarz

aloyisious wrote: »

OK, if you want to believe that Civil Marriage as performed before a state registrar of marriage is the same as Catholic Church Marriage, then feel free to do so. However you are wrong.

I never said they are the same. I'm just saying that 'yes' vote is contrary to Catholic values. I know that many people consider themselves Catholic but this vote will show how things really are.

It's a lie that this vote only affects LGBT people. It affects everybody. It's a cultural and social change that has huge consequences for example on the children sex education, adoption laws etc.

aloyisious

zielarz wrote: »

I never said they are the same. I'm just saying that 'yes' vote is contrary to Catholic values. I know that many people consider themselves Catholic but this vote will show how things really are.

It's a lie that this vote only affects LGBT people. It affects everybody. It's a cultural and social change that has huge consequences for example on the children sex education, adoption laws etc.

Do you also think that all the Irish Citizens of non-RC Catholic belief (note the minority catholic belief here) but still of religious or other ethical belief should have a natural inclination against equality in civil marriage access between heterosexual and homosexual citizens because it will have huge consequences for example on the children sex education, adoption laws etc?

When you were being so inclusive and mentioned children, sex education and adoption, were you approaching those three from an RCC perspective or some other angle?

Re your "this vote will show how things really are" with reference to being catholic. you may/should be aware that: A. there are LGBT people here who consider themselves Roman Catholic, having sexual intercourse with their same-sex partner, still attend mass and yet believe in equal civil marriage to the extent of wanting it for themselves. and B. the RC Church refuses to allow LGBT folk (baptized into that church while youngsters) leave the church even when they no longer believe/have any faith in it and want to leave it. How do you see that proportion of RCC members fitting into your view of catholicism and the vote?

oscarBravo

marienbad wrote: »

Yes you are and you know it, for the sake of brevity we don't couch our post in legalese and caveats .

I don't expect posts to be couched in legalese and caveats; I do expect them not to be trite to the point of being self-evidently untrue.

My main point was the dismissing of the issue as trivial.

I don't know that I'd call it trivial, but I also don't know that I'd be in favour of it. If it's important to you, you should probably start thinking of some better arguments for it.

nuac

aloyisious wrote: »

Do you also think that all the Irish Citizens of non-RC Catholic belief (note the minority catholic belief here) but still of religious or other ethical belief should have a natural inclination against equality in civil marriage access between heterosexual and homosexual citizens because it will have huge consequences for example on the children sex education, adoption laws etc?

When you were being so inclusive and mentioned children, sex education and adoption, were you approaching those three from an RCC perspective or some other angle?

Re your "this vote will show how things really are" with reference to being catholic. you may/should be aware that: A. there are LGBT people here who consider themselves Roman Catholic, having sexual intercourse with their same-sex partner, still attend mass and yet believe in equal civil marriage to the extent of wanting it for themselves. and B. the RC Church refuses to allow LGBT folk (baptized into that church while youngsters) leave the church even when they no longer belie

ve/have any faith in it and want to leave it. How do you see that proportion of RCC members fitting into your view of catholicism and the vote?

How can the catholic church prevent people leaving it.?

Can they not just stop attending the church.?

In countries where some of one's income goes to the church ( Kirche-Steuer )one can opt out by filing a form that you are no longer a member.

H

marienbad

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't expect posts to be couched in legalese and caveats; I do expect them not to be trite to the point of being self-evidently untrue. I don't know that I'd call it trivial, but I also don't know that I'd be in favour of it. If it's important to you, you should probably start thinking of some better arguments for it.

With due respect this is just complexity for the sake of it. My issue is not whether lowering the voting age is good or bad , but the idea that it is trivialising the ssm motion by being on the same day. I think that was obvious to all .

NuMarvel

zielarz wrote: »

I never said they are the same. I'm just saying that 'yes' vote is contrary to Catholic values. I know that many people consider themselves Catholic but this vote will show how things really are.

Going by the Census the vast majority of people consider themselves Catholic, but I think we already know that most of those people aren't devout adherents to the Catholic faith. If they were, we'd be hearing a lot more opposition to divorce or the State's regular promotion of the use of contraception. Never mind the fact that the introduction of the abortion laws last year didn't affect the support for any of the political parties involved. Even the Church's own figures show that only half of Catholics attend Mass once a week or more.

While the concept of letting gay people marry is contrary to Catholic teaching, I don't think that's an influencing factor for most Catholics when they're making decisions on social issues.

zielarz wrote: »

It's a lie that this vote only affects LGBT people. It affects everybody. It's a cultural and social change that has huge consequences for example on the children sex education, adoption laws etc.

I'm not sure it will have as big a change on sex education or adoption laws as you may think. Presumably children are already taught about homosexuality as part of their education and that should continue regardless of the outcome of the referendum. And I think it's no harm that children are taught that some children are raised by gay people, because that already happens, and will happen regardless of the outcome of the referendum. All that changes really is kids may be taught that gay couples can marry in the same way as a man and woman, which would be the reality of the situation if the referendum passes. BTW, I'm not entirely sure what the content of the RSE course is, so there may be specific changes to be made, but in general, things should stay the same.

As for adoption laws, gay people can already adopt as single people. All marriage does is allow a gay couple a means to adopt a child jointly, and that's assuming the law isn't changed before the referendum to allow civil partners the same opportunity. Married gay couples will still have to go through the same assessments, vetting, and scrutiny as everyone else. And if a child is being raised by a couple, then it's better for the child to be jointly adopted so they have a legally recgonised relationship with both adoptive parents.

The_Captain

Muahahaha wrote: »

Look the questions on voting age and the age you need to run for President ARE trivial matters which came out of the Constitutional Convention so senior politicians can point to how they are 'reforming' the poitical system in the wake of the economic crash.

If the two age related referendums were held out on their own they would barely see national turnouts above the 20% mark, in other words the vast majority of people couldn't care less. Why would people even leave their houses to go vote to give 17 year olds the vote when we already know that a large percentage of 18 year olds don't bother to vote anyway. These matters are not trivial because I think they are, they're trivial because in the grander scheme of political reform people see them that way too. The Constitutional Convention was established to bring about real political reform and here we are voting weather or not to reduce the voting age to 17. How will that go anyway to improving our system so as to help prevent another repeat of what went on in this country lately ? It won't, which is why people are cynical about those referendums and see them as trivial matters in the larger scheme of things. The government of the day has tagged an important referendum onto two others where most people aren't bothered. The problem for the gay looby is that for most people they
1) Aren't going to be bothered by the age related referendums and
2) Aren't going to directly benefit themselves from the introduction of gay marriage.

So the point I'm making is the govt have slapped two trivial matters onto another issue where most people have no visible incentive to vote. It's a formula made for a low turnout which will suit the No side more and like I said if it is lashing rain on the day of the polls then I think that the Yes side could be doomed, people will not leave their houses on a dark, wet March evening to vote on issues they're not bothered with nor will directly benefit from.

The vast majority couldn't care less about gay marriage either. Why would people even leave their houses to go vote to give same sex couples marriage rights when we already know that a large percentage of couples don't bother to get married anyway. This matter is not trivial because I think it is, it's trivial because in the grander scheme of political reform people see it that way too. The Constitutional Convention was established to bring about real political reform and here we are voting weather or not to give marriage rights to a tiny proportion of the population.

Muahahaha

The_Captain wrote: »

The vast majority couldn't care less about gay marriage either. Why would people even leave their houses to go vote to give same sex couples marriage rights when we already know that a large percentage of couples don't bother to get married anyway. This matter is not trivial because I think it is, it's trivial because in the grander scheme of political reform people see it that way too. The Constitutional Convention was established to bring about real political reform and here we are voting weather or not to give marriage rights to a tiny proportion of the population.

Ah I wouldnt agree that a vast majority don't care about gay marriage. If you stopped people in the street and asked them they do care if gay people get the right to marry. But where the problem lies is do they care enough to get up off their arses on a cold March evening and go down to a polling booth to tick a box? That's where the problem lies in getting the referendum passed. I hope it does pass and even if its lashing rain I'll be going down to vote Yes, far be it from me to deny anyone else the right to marry so I'd see it as my duty to go down and vote. But I don't think the majority of people see it like that and other elements such as weather on the day, busy family life, etc can quickly get in the way of people actually voting.

That issue aside, I agree with you re:Constitutional Convention. The thing was set up as a response to the total destruction of our economy in 2009-10 and also as a recognition that the system was in dire need of political reform. Here we are four years on and the first product of the Convention is referendums for minorities. SSM and voting age are both noble issues that need an airing, no doubt. But the issues that this country needs to address seem to be largely ignored these days.

Annasopra

NuMarvel wrote: »

Going by the Census the vast majority of people consider themselves Catholic, but I think we already know that most of those people aren't devout adherents to the Catholic faith. If they were, we'd be hearing a lot more opposition to divorce or the State's regular promotion of the use of contraception. Never mind the fact that the introduction of the abortion laws last year didn't affect the support for any of the political parties involved. Even the Church's own figures show that only half of Catholics attend Mass once a week or more.

While the concept of letting gay people marry is contrary to Catholic teaching, I don't think that's an influencing factor for most Catholics when they're making decisions on social issues.



I'm not sure it will have as big a change on sex education or adoption laws as you may think. Presumably children are already taught about homosexuality as part of their education and that should continue regardless of the outcome of the referendum. And I think it's no harm that children are taught that some children are raised by gay people, because that already happens, and will happen regardless of the outcome of the referendum. All that changes really is kids may be taught that gay couples can marry in the same way as a man and woman, which would be the reality of the situation if the referendum passes. BTW, I'm not entirely sure what the content of the RSE course is, so there may be specific changes to be made, but in general, things should stay the same.

As for adoption laws, gay people can already adopt as single people. All marriage does is allow a gay couple a means to adopt a child jointly, and that's assuming the law isn't changed before the referendum to allow civil partners the same opportunity. Married gay couples will still have to go through the same assessments, vetting, and scrutiny as everyone else. And if a child is being raised by a couple, then it's better for the child to be jointly adopted so they have a legally recgonised relationship with both adoptive parents.

There will be changes in adoption law BEFORE the referendum.

aloyisious

original content P/M'd to interested party.

saidinmilamber

aloyisious wrote: »

Those who had actually gone that route may be surprised by the news that the Vatican believes that because it scrapped it in 2009 that their status was changed back to that of practicing R/catholics.

I don't mean to go off topic, but hold on there a second. I defected before they closed off the "exit". Are you telling me that they re-amended my baptismal records afterwards!?!? :eek: