Marriage Equality Referendum

Leonard Hofstadter

Today's polls are very encouraging. I feel very optimistic that the Yes side will win, although I do not for a second believe it will be 70-30 as the polls suggest.

HOWEVER, it does make me worry somewhat, the yes side will only win if all those who said they vote yes actually turning out and going to the polling station. The Yes side's main voters are the younger generation, who traditionally don't vote. The only age group in the Irish Times poll where there is a majority for No are the over 65s - and by God they know how to go out and vote!

If you don't vote you might as well have voted no. You can be sure the No voters will vote, and there's probably a good 5% of people who say they're voting Yes that will vote No in the comfort of the polling booth. No room for complacency! I know that I for one want to be able to wake up this day week knowing that my country created history by being the first country in the world to legalise marriage equality by popular vote.

Fleawuss

I feel deep anger towards the bigots crawling from the woodwork on the referendum issue. Having lived a good part of my life in the shadow of criminality for being who I am it is very personal to hear religious loons calling for a no vote to return us to the status their irrational nonsense demands. There is going to be ongoing and deep personalized division in this country after Friday. A lot of lgbt people who grew up in the legal era are suddenly realizing that they are still and secretly hated for who they are by bigots who hide behind their preposterous doctrines and presumptuous theocratic bullshyte.

Annasopra

captainspeed wrote: »

Today's polls are very encouraging. I feel very optimistic that the Yes side will win, although I do not for a second believe it will be 70-30 as the polls suggest.

HOWEVER, it does make me worry somewhat, the yes side will only win if all those who said they vote yes actually turning out and going to the polling station. The Yes side's main voters are the younger generation, who traditionally don't vote. The only age group in the Irish Times poll where there is a majority for No are the over 65s - and by God they know how to go out and vote!

If you don't vote you might as well have voted no. You can be sure the No voters will vote, and there's probably a good 5% of people who say they're voting Yes that will vote No in the comfort of the polling booth. No room for complacency! I know that I for one want to be able to wake up this day week knowing that my country created history by being the first country in the world to legalise marriage equality by popular vote.

The Irish Times was really misleading

Front page said 70% yes but actually that was nonsense when you drilled into it it was 70% after excluding undecideds.

Ozymandius2011

Fleawuss wrote: »

I feel deep anger towards the bigots crawling from the woodwork on the referendum issue. Having lived a good part of my life in the shadow of criminality for being who I am it is very personal to hear religious loons calling for a no vote to return us to the status their irrational nonsense demands. There is going to be ongoing and deep personalized division in this country after Friday. A lot of lgbt people who grew up in the legal era are suddenly realizing that they are still and secretly hated for who they are by bigots who hide behind their preposterous doctrines and presumptuous theocratic bullshyte.

Well then they need to turn out.

SILVAMAN

captainspeed wrote: »

By that logic the best families are the ones with two mothers :rolleyes::rolleyes:. It's also very discriminatory against men, first time in a very long time where men are being told we're not good enough.

I am VERY disappointed by this article in the Indo, the plan was for Leo Varadkar to bat for the Yes side on Prime Time on Tuesday until Labour got their knickers in a twist over it. Just when I thought we were doing a great job, Labour decides to play politics. I've defended Labour in the past and I admire them for pushing the referendum in the first place, but I've lost a lot of respect for them over this. You'd think they'd know better having two gay TDs.

It's not about politics, it's about real people and clearly given Varadkar's life experiences he would have been a much better asset for the Yes side on Tuesday. Not only that, but Leo is liked by middle Ireland, who admire the fact that he's straight up about his opinions and doesn't just peddle whatever nonsense the Government wanted peddled. Leo would have done a much better job at winning over those who are still undecided - plenty of middle Ireland still has to be won over yet not withstanding the very good Irish Times poll. Even if it was John Lyons or Dominic Hannigan that wouldn't have been so bad, obviously they're both out and proud, and the key to the Yes side's success is the personal stories and appealing to peoples' inner decency, like overwhelming support Ursula Halligan has received for coming out yesterday. The undecided / anti-LGBT rights people need to see more 'celebrities' like this advocating a Yes vote and sharing their stories and the discrimination they've felt, and making people realise that LGBT people are no different to the rest of us, and have the same hopes and aspirations as straight people.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/referendum/varadkar-is-frozen-out-of-referendum-debate-despite-protests-from-rt-chiefs-31227217.html

Typical Labour carryon, and why among other things, they're not taken seriously.

ThinkProgress

The NO voters are making me doubt myself on voting yes.

I'm a straight male. This vote didn't really seem to matter too much for me directly or my life.... BUT I was intending to vote yes for these reasons:

A) - I think all religions are fairytale, superstitious nonsense and I always cringe at the fact the catholic church has such a backward view on gay relationships. (Yes vote is a big fat two fingers for religion and the knuckle dragging RC church.)

- What's the big deal? If SSM can make the LGBT community feel less ostracized from society and more like everyone else... that's a great thing and another victory for progress! (Think progress

C) - A human being loving another human being can NEVER be wrong. Marriage is a symbol of uniting two people in love. It's highly symbolic obviously - why else would people spend ridiculous money for one day? So why do some people think gay people should settle for less than what anyone else wants for that special moment in their life...?



However, the NO vote is starting to make me question if this vote is really just about marriage equality... or is our government trying to trick us into changing a part of the constitution that is not really broken?

I think gay couples are capable of being great parents - and there are examples of it working out perfectly well.

But I do agree with the fact that (in an ideal situation), a child should have it's biological mother and father where possible... Obviously we don't live in an ideal world, but I do think it's the ideal environment for a child to grow up in for many different reasons.

Does voting yes create a situation where children don't automatically get that right afforded to them?

Or is this just scaremongering from the NO side...? LGBT is a minority section of society (albeit a rather large minority) - Is there really any threat to the traditional male/female family? Will it be de-valued? If so, is that almost like reverse discrimination?

I guess if you argue that every child matters... which they do.... then could this amendment inadvertently damage some children's opportunity of have their biological mother/father where possible?


I don't really don't know..... my brain hurts! :-/

L1011

ThinkProgress wrote: »

However, the NO vote is starting to make me question if this vote is really just about marriage equality...

It is.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

or is our government trying to trick us into changing a part of the constitution that is not really broken?

They're not

All the arguments about children, adoption, surrogacy etc are red herrings - nothing is being changed at all. This has been confirmed by the actual independent bodies responsible (Adoption Authority), the Referendum Commission, constitutional lawyers, etc, etc.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

then could this amendment inadvertently damage some children's opportunity of have their biological mother/father where possible?

It won't. Even if it did have the impacts claimed by the No side, it wouldn't.

ThinkProgress

The NO voters are making me doubt myself on voting yes.

I'm a straight male. This vote didn't really seem to matter too much for me directly or my life.... BUT I was intending to vote yes for these reasons:

A) - I think all religions are fairytale, superstitious nonsense and I always cringe at the fact the catholic church has such a backward view on gay relationships. (Yes vote is a big fat two fingers for religion and the knuckle dragging RC church.)

- What's the big deal? If SSM can make the LGBT community feel less ostracized from society and more like everyone else... that's a great thing and another victory for progress! (Think progress

C) - A human who is attracted to and loves another human can NEVER be wrong. (so long as both are consenting adults of course) Marriage is a symbol of uniting those two people in love. It's highly symbolic obviously - why else would people spend ridiculous money for one day? So why do some people think gay people should settle for less than what anyone else wants for that special moment in their life...?



However, the NO vote is starting to make me question if this vote is really just about marriage equality... or is our government trying to trick us into changing a part of the constitution that is not really broken?

I think gay couples are capable of being great parents - and there are examples of it working out perfectly well.

But I do agree with the fact that (in an ideal situation), a child should have it's biological mother and father where possible... Obviously we don't live in an ideal world, but I do think it's the ideal environment for a child to grow up in for many different reasons.

Does voting yes create a situation where children don't automatically get that right afforded to them?

Or is this just scaremongering from the NO side...? LGBT is a minority section of society (albeit a rather large minority) - Is there really any threat to the traditional male/female family? Will it be de-valued? If so, is that almost like reverse discrimination?

I guess if you argue that every child matters... which they do.... then could this amendment inadvertently damage some children's opportunity of have their biological mother/father where possible?


I don't really don't know..... my brain hurts! :-/

ThinkProgress

Tried to edit my post... but it just posted a second time for some reason??

DunnoKiddo

When I get home, I'm a solid yes vote.

DunnoKiddo

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Tried to edit my post... but it just posted a second time for some reason??

it will do that until you get 50 posts and/or 10 days in, on boards.

J_E

ThinkProgress wrote: »

However, the NO vote is starting to make me question if this vote is really just about marriage equality... or is our government trying to trick us into changing a part of the constitution that is not really broken?

I think gay couples are capable of being great parents - and there are examples of it working out perfectly well.

But I do agree with the fact that (in an ideal situation), a child should have it's biological mother and father where possible... Obviously we don't live in an ideal world, but I do think it's the ideal environment for a child to grow up in for many different reasons.

Does voting yes create a situation where children don't automatically get that right afforded to them?

Or is this just scaremongering from the NO side...? LGBT is a minority section of society (albeit a rather large minority) - Is there really any threat to the traditional male/female family? Will it be de-valued? If so, is that almost like reverse discrimination?

I guess if you argue that every child matters... which they do.... then could this amendment inadvertently damage some children's opportunity of have their biological mother/father where possible?


I don't really don't know..... my brain hurts! :-/

You're getting caught in the lies. What about the many couples who don't want kids at all and just want protections should their loved one become sick or legal interference from family members who want to break them up? Every agency and association related to children and adoption have all agreed that certain representatives of the No side are deliberately spreading false notions and lies in order to make people nervous and scare them. See this;

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/referendum/whether-people-vote-yes-or-no-the-adoption-process-is-not-going-to-change-chair-of-adoption-agency-ahead-of-marriage-referendum-31214145.html

You see, the real point here is that the marriage referendum has no impact on child laws which have already been addressed in a separate bill. The low number of gay families here who have children will still remain with these children and continue to adopt in future. A No vote sends a clear message that these families are not valued or wanted by the general public. A Yes vote gives everyone better security, rights and dignity. Please don't fall for this deception, and make the choice that gives people the rights they deserve and need rather than deny them.

danjo-xx

ThinkProgress wrote: »

The NO voters are making me doubt myself on voting yes.

I'm a straight male. This vote didn't really seem to matter too much for me directly or my life.... BUT I was intending to vote yes for these reasons:

A) - I think all religions are fairytale, superstitious nonsense and I always cringe at the fact the catholic church has such a backward view on gay relationships. (Yes vote is a big fat two fingers for religion and the knuckle dragging RC church.)

- What's the big deal? If SSM can make the LGBT community feel less ostracized from society and more like everyone else... that's a great thing and another victory for progress! (Think progress

C) - A human who is attracted to and loves another human can NEVER be wrong. (so long as both are consenting adults of course) Marriage is a symbol of uniting those two people in love. It's highly symbolic obviously - why else would people spend ridiculous money for one day? So why do some people think gay people should settle for less than what anyone else wants for that special moment in their life...?



However, the NO vote is starting to make me question if this vote is really just about marriage equality... or is our government trying to trick us into changing a part of the constitution that is not really broken?

I think gay couples are capable of being great parents - and there are examples of it working out perfectly well.

But I do agree with the fact that (in an ideal situation), a child should have it's biological mother and father where possible... Obviously we don't live in an ideal world, but I do think it's the ideal environment for a child to grow up in for many different reasons.

Does voting yes create a situation where children don't automatically get that right afforded to them?

Or is this just scaremongering from the NO side...? LGBT is a minority section of society (albeit a rather large minority) - Is there really any threat to the traditional male/female family? Will it be de-valued? If so, is that almost like reverse discrimination?

I guess if you argue that every child matters... which they do.... then could this amendment inadvertently damage some children's opportunity of have their biological mother/father where possible?


I don't really don't know..... my brain hurts! :-/

All your fears are unfounded but that is for you to decide, the constitution says 'to cherrish all children equally' and all this referendum does is to give gay children (when they become adults) the equal right to CIVIL Marriage should they so wish.

Adoption & Surrogacy are totally different issues and not what we are voting on in this referendum but the fears about these issues have been well dealth with by the legal experts if you were watching or listening to the debates.

Leonard Hofstadter

There is absolutely NO evidence to back up the assertion that same sex parents are not capable of raising children as well as opposite sex parents (quite a remarkable achievement when you consider how much more likely the children of same sex parents are much more likely to be bullied for having an 'unnatural' or 'weird' family unit), none whatsoever.

One of the studies that claimed that same-sex parents couldn't raise children as well, didn't even use children of gay parents, the children were themselves gay and no surprise LGBT people have more issues because of the disgraceful way some people treat them because of homophobia.

The study that Tom Finnegan and David Quinn are fond of quoting (the one by Sullins) was done by none other than the Catholic University of America, so I wonder why they claimed same-sex parents weren't as good :rolleyes:. The study was never peer reviewed and is not in any reputable scientific journal, so there's obviously a serious flaw in it somewhere. The reason it is flawed is and I quote "what Sullins's paper does not show is that these children were actually raised by the same-sex couple" - basically they took all types of family unit where one of the parents was gay and then compared it to an opposite sex 'ideal' family (no divorce, seperation etc).

Here's a link to why this study is so flawed: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/using-pseudoscience-to-undermine-same-sex-parents/385604/

So, it is absolute, complete and utter rubbish for anyone to claim that same sex parents are not as good as opposite sex parents all other things being equal. If that's your reason to vote No (being worried about kids having same sex parents despite the fact that it already exists and will continue to exist regardless of what the outcome of the referendum is), well you're entitled to do so, but you are doing so on the basis of something that's not true.

Anyway, to move back to the referendum itself, Leo Varadkar rather conveniently debunked all the myths on Claire Byrne live tonight, and has moved to say that commercial surrogacy will be banned anyway (so another 'excuse' for voting No gone), but I managed to find the time to listen to the debate on The Last Word this evening, and Colm O'Gorman was outstanding, he did such a good job he ended up making Jim Walsh and Breda O'Brien agree with him on gay parenting and a whole hose of other issues.

In the words of Varadkar tonight, he basically showed that some of those opposed to Marriage Equality simply don't like LGBT people but know they can't say that outright so try to talk about everything and anything but the issue at hand.

Vojera

ThinkProgress wrote: »

But I do agree with the fact that (in an ideal situation), a child should have it's biological mother and father where possible... Obviously we don't live in an ideal world, but I do think it's the ideal environment for a child to grow up in for many different reasons.

Does voting yes create a situation where children don't automatically get that right afforded to them?

I think this point is where your worries are stemming from. Let me assure you that a yes vote won't change anything here.

If you are concerned about adoption, then be aware that gay people can already adopt as single applicants and due to the Children and Family Relationships Bill, gay couples will soon be able to apply jointly whether the referendum passes or not. There is no "right" to adopt, only a right to apply. Gay people have to go through the same rigourous process as straight people and all the adoption board care about is providing the best possible environment for the child, not the sexuality of the parents.

If you are concerned about donor assisted IVF (where a donor egg or sperm is used), then you should know that the vast majority of people using this method are straight couples with fertility issues, where the woman's eggs or the man's sperm don't seem to be able of forming a viable embryo. Voting yes isn't going to have an affect on that. Some people have a moral objection to using donor eggs and sperm and that's okay, that's their right, but the fact is that it's mostly straight couples who use this method and voting yes won't change that.

If it's surrogacy you're worried about then I agree with you that it's a legal minefield at the moment. But the laws on it are due a shake-up and the outcome of the referendum won't affect them.

The basic point of what I'm trying to say is that it's okay for you to have an ideal in your mind of what you think a family should look like. But the fact is that there are loads of families out there who don't fit that picture, whether they're single parents, gay couples where the children are the biological child of one partner, step-parents, etc. Voting yes will extend the definition of family to gay couples (and their children, if they have them) and give them constitutional protection. Voting no will leave those families without that protection. This is why the ISPCC, Barnardos and Childline, among others, have all called for a yes vote, because it will be good for children.

SpaceTime

It's scaremongering and rather nasty muddying of the waters and from your post it's quite sad to see that it appears to be working.

The amendment couldn't be simpler. This isn't like signing the Fiscal Compact Treaty which was a vast and complicated document. It's genuinely just a single line amendment to the constitution.

ALL of the political parties are on board, all of the children's rights agencies are on board and this is entirely in-step with all of Western Europe.

Bear in mind that Spain for example, which has a very similarly strongly catholic history, has had this for >10 years at this stage and Spanish society hasn't collapsed - far from it!

The nordic countries have all had this for a long time, as has Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium ... actually most of the countries that rank as the most developed and sensible places in the world have had this for quite some time now without any fuss at all.

Our nearest neighbours : the UK and France have both introduced this too. We would be left as the only country in Western Europe without same sex marriage if we don't pass it.

Our choice is simple really - Join the ranks of the most developed and socially progressive countries on earth, or join the ranks of the US bible belt and aspects of Southern and Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

ThinkProgress

Ok, I've read the replies so far... thanks everybody for not shouting at me or calling me an idiot. (although I do feel a bit stupid for ALMOST getting pulled towards the NO side)

The information has definitely cleared the grey areas up for me. Much appreciated guys!

@captainspeed - I think you might have got the wrong end of the stick. I never suggested that same-sex couples can't make great parents - in fact if you read my post, I clearly stated that they can and do.

The main reason I suggest male/female relationships as being ideal, is mostly because that dynamic is biologically harmonious for many children. It's currently the only way for a child to have BOTH their biological parents... and many children unfortunately do grow up feeling abandoned or lost without knowing where / who they come from. (Sometimes regardless of how loved they are by their adoptive parents)

I don't feel this is homophobic in any way. It's biased, for sure. But biased for logical reasons as I think it would be foolish to say all family environments are exactly the same. Even if they can produce the same results: HAPPY CHILDREN!

But obviously I'm not saying it's always the ideal scenario. And there are many children who can be given a great life by a non-biological parent or parents!

Having a child grow up in a SSM can be a great 2nd option for that child if the 1st option is not viable or available to them... that's simply all I'm saying.

With regards surrogacy... I agree it's a minefield. Smarter people than me or you will continue to debate that one - regardless of this bill.


Anyway - I'm firmly back on the YES side! I think the YES vote is overwhelmingly more beneficial than the NO vote!

And voting YES doesn't mean some grey areas can't be addressed and ironed out in the future anyway!


Thanks for the info guys - I don't want to abstain from voting because of confusion. This is important - we need to pick a side!

Vojera

^^ No problem ThinkProgress. Thanks for making the effort to get more information on your concerns and for listening to our point of view as well. We need more like you!

Mickeroo

There was a debate on Today FM on Monday evening if anyone want's to torture themselves.

Kiwi in IE

I so hope this goes through for you guys!

SILVAMAN

Sweet!

lottpaul

Final RTE "debate" on the referendum will be on the 6 o'clock tv news -- separate interviews with Enda Kenny and Archbishop Diarmuid Martin

gravehold

Enda is doing terribly, can't even answer any of the questions

Mr.Nice Guy

Did anyone catch the debate on BBC Radio Ulster today on the referendum? It featured Fidelma Healy Eames of the No side and Marcella Corcoran-Kennedy TD of the Yes side. It's up on the BBC website (starts at 8 minutes in):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05vc6x2

Anyway all hell breaks loose when Paddy Manning calls in (at the 56:30 minute mark) and starts demanding an apology from the TD. :pac:

I thought Fidelma Healy Eames did very poorly here; I was impressed with the TD. There's some interesting contributions (besides Paddy) including a Catholic priest who is voting Yes. Worth a listen.

gravehold

Now the rte debate is over, it's clear no came out way better, enda messed that one up royally

Pai Mei

Quick question, had a friend who registered for the postal vote but now can't vote that way (don't ask), so I was wondering can you still go to the polling station and vote normally even if you registered for the postal vote but didn't do it?

J_E

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Did anyone catch the debate on BBC Radio Ulster today on the referendum? It featured Fidelma Healy Eames of the No side and Marcella Corcoran-Kennedy TD of the Yes side. It's up on the BBC website (starts at 8 minutes in):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05vc6x2

Anyway all hell breaks loose when Paddy Manning calls in (at the 56:30 minute mark) and starts demanding an apology from the TD. :pac:
.

****ing hell, enough with that loser already. I have HAD it.




I mean, are you serious? This is beyond a parody. A character you'd hear in a sketch show about gay marriage or somehing.

EnergyPro

Fleawuss wrote:

I feel deep anger towards the bigots crawling from the woodwork on the referendum issue. Having lived a good part of my life in the shadow of criminality for being who I am it is very personal to hear religious loons calling for a no vote to return us to the status their irrational nonsense demands. There is going to be ongoing and deep personalized division in this country after Friday. A lot of lgbt people who grew up in the legal era are suddenly realizing that they are still and secretly hated for who they are by bigots who hide behind their preposterous doctrines and presumptuous theocratic bullshyte.

Not all of those on the no side are homophobes or biggots or in anyway hate the lgbt section of society. Far from it in fact. The overriding reason for most on the no side is the issue regarding children and their right to having a mother and father being potentially removed by a yes vote. This may not be the case, but it may be the case and until the yes side can actually assure and convince me that this is in fact the case I will not vote for a change in the constitution. If more time was spent trying to understand our concerns and remedy them, as opposed to throwing accusations of homophobia and bigotry at us then the debate may be a little more successful in getting this referendum passed.

EnergyPro

ThinkProgress wrote:

The NO voters are making me doubt myself on voting yes.

ThinkProgress wrote:

I'm a straight male. This vote didn't really seem to matter too much for me directly or my life.... BUT I was intending to vote yes for these reasons:

ThinkProgress wrote:

A) - I think all religions are fairytale, superstitious nonsense and I always cringe at the fact the catholic church has such a backward view on gay relationships. (Yes vote is a big fat two fingers for religion and the knuckle dragging RC church.)

ThinkProgress wrote:

- What's the big deal? If SSM can make the LGBT community feel less ostracized from society and more like everyone else... that's a great thing and another victory for progress! (Think progress

ThinkProgress wrote:

C) - A human being loving another human being can NEVER be wrong. Marriage is a symbol of uniting two people in love. It's highly symbolic obviously - why else would people spend ridiculous money for one day? So why do some people think gay people should settle for less than what anyone else wants for that special moment in their life...?

ThinkProgress wrote:

However, the NO vote is starting to make me question if this vote is really just about marriage equality... or is our government trying to trick us into changing a part of the constitution that is not really broken?

ThinkProgress wrote:

I think gay couples are capable of being great parents - and there are examples of it working out perfectly well.

ThinkProgress wrote:

But I do agree with the fact that (in an ideal situation), a child should have it's biological mother and father where possible... Obviously we don't live in an ideal world, but I do think it's the ideal environment for a child to grow up in for many different reasons.

ThinkProgress wrote:

Does voting yes create a situation where children don't automatically get that right afforded to them?

ThinkProgress wrote:

Or is this just scaremongering from the NO side...? LGBT is a minority section of society (albeit a rather large minority) - Is there really any threat to the traditional male/female family? Will it be de-valued? If so, is that almost like reverse discrimination?

ThinkProgress wrote:

I guess if you argue that every child matters... which they do.... then could this amendment inadvertently damage some children's opportunity of have their biological mother/father where possible?

ThinkProgress wrote:

I don't really don't know..... my brain hurts! :-/

This is my exact feeling on this issue. And until I am convinced entirely it will be a NO from me. Not because I am against SSM in terms of a couple simply getting married, it is due to my concern for children. I feel it is better to reject the amendment as it is and let us revisit it when it has been properly and adequately researched, relevant legislation in place and all concerns can be adequately dealt with.

youngblood

How much money is being spent on the no ads on YouTube? They're everywhere, ie you have to wait to skip them to see the vid your looking for?

Anyone else notice this?

Vojera

EnergyPro wrote: »

This is my exact feeling on this issue. And until I am convinced entirely it will be a NO from me. Not because I am against SSM in terms of a couple simply getting married, it is due to my concern for children. I feel it is better to reject the amendment as it is and let us revisit it when it has been properly and adequately researched, relevant legislation in place and all concerns can be adequately dealt with.

Have you read our replies to the previous poster's concerns? We have outlined comprehensively how a yes vote will actually enhance the rights of children.

elekid

EnergyPro wrote: »

Not all of those on the no side are homophobes or biggots or in anyway hate the lgbt section of society. Far from it in fact. The overriding reason for most on the no side is the issue regarding children and their right to having a mother and father being potentially removed by a yes vote. This may not be the case, but it may be the case and until the yes side can actually assure and convince me that this is in fact the case I will not vote for a change in the constitution. If more time was spent trying to understand our concerns and remedy them, as opposed to throwing accusations of homophobia and bigotry at us then the debate may be a little more successful in getting this referendum passed.

I've tried to compile some information for you here.

Childrens Rights have been dealt with seperately in the Children and Family Relationship Act.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0330/690964-child-and-family-bill/

Many childrens rights groups are supporting a Yes vote.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/children-s-rights-groups-urge-yes-vote-in-same-sex-marriage-referendum-1.2190832

Here are some interviews with the Chair of the Adoption Authority of Ireland and the Chairman of the Referendum Commision both of which touch on the subject of children and how this referendum affects them
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/referendum/whether-people-vote-yes-or-no-the-adoption-process-is-not-going-to-change-chair-of-adoption-agency-ahead-of-marriage-referendum-31214145.html

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/marriage-referendum-q-a-what-you-need-to-know-1.2212840

I hope this helps

Leonard Hofstadter

Vojera wrote: »

Have you read our replies to the previous poster's concerns? We have outlined comprehensively how a yes vote will actually enhance the rights of children.

QFT.

I repeat, there is NO evidence, none whatsoever in any reputable scientific journal which backs up the assertion that all other things being equal, gay parents are not as good as straight parents. The only 'evidence' is a study by the Catholic University of America which is not peer reviewed and has a serious methodological flaw and another study which didn't even sample children of gay parents but nonetheless concluded that gay people weren't capable of raising children!

Ozymandius2011

Also some gay couples are godparents. In that situation its the will of the natural parents for them to step in if the parents die. But Iona think they know best.

gravehold

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Also some gay couples are godparents. In that situation its the will of the natural parents for them to step in if the parents die. But Iona think they know best.

I don't think a gay couple can be god parents, only one of then chould be the god father/mother.

So yes there can be a gay godparent but not the gay couple

yankeeDreamer

I think anyone who believes that legislation changes the nature of marriage either way is mistaken,

Eventually homosexuality will be revealed as the mimetic heterosexual behavior that it is. (The opening scene of "The Kids Are Alright" is all the evidence one needs).

As soon as people deny the fatalism of porn and masterbation, the plain-faced realities and sensations of being a human being will set back in.

Do any of you have deepseated fetishes that seemed to develop intrinsicly based on initial experiences, only to later be overcome in order to view the world with a truer freedom?

If human beings can find sexual necessity in belts, shoes, ties, and stockings; What then is so extraordinary about the idea that they might develop a deviation that encompasses the most important parts of sexuality (a whole being, dna, and the full image of heterosexuality within). And this, intended to be taken in the sceptical sense regarding homosexuality, while entirely empathetic.

There's also the issue that civil rights laws have been eroding civil liberties in the U.S., in sad irony, for decades. In punishment for the population on whole they have done much good for crimes against African-Americans and women; But punishment is not a mode of being, and certainly not a mode of liberty.

What Ireland appears to be missing in regards to what nations like the U.S. "seem" (historically) to be more advanced in is liberty, not totalitarian laws of thought and conduct. (liberty being an extremely christian ideal--"turn the other cheek, etc.")

gravehold

yankeeDreamer wrote: »

Eventually homosexuality will be revealed as the mimetic heterosexual behavior that it is. (The opening scene of "The Kids Are Alright" is all the evidence one needs).

You think that movie is a good example of good gay parents? That is a whole example of why the no side don't want gay adoption/surrogacy and ivf.

Annasopra

I have no idea at all what belts and fetishes have to do with tgis discussion

komitskio

Since tomorrow Ireland will be the only country in the world, where there is gay marriage but abortions are forbidden. Homosectuals have every right to have rights, not the same about women.

gravehold

komitskio wrote: »

Since tomorrow Ireland will be the only country in the world, where there is gay marriage but abortions are forbidden. Homosectuals have every right to have rights, not the same about women.

Your very optimistic

yankeeDreamer

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I have no idea at all what belts and fetishes have to do with tgis discussion

Then you don't have anything substantive to say about the relationship that exists (even in terms of theoretical commentary) do you?

Part of what I'm implying is that all people function by way of a cultural language; As part of that cultural language you have been taught that homosexuality is an identity and not a shared human tendency in any regard (that wanting to act as woman during sex has nothing to do with wanting to dress as woman sex, and in turn has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to dress for someone in a certain way fro sex, as well as wanting them to dress a certain way for sex--the final element in the chain being the single biggest attraction of the modern television program for all human beings!). This denial has been encouraged by both sides of the debate at various stages of history. And in both instances is was an attempt to simplify complex realities in order to deny them.

In short the nature of homosexuality is central to laws regarding homosexuality; and fetishes and belts have as much to do with actual marriage as they do 'gay marriage'; the common obvious denominator being=Desire, whose fundamental motivator is imitation (see expert and renowned member of the French Academy Rene Girard on 'mimesis' for details)

[Appendix: The opening sequence of "The Kids Are Alright" has a lesbian couple watching Gay Men porn. Thier explaination being they want to express "whats inside," on the outside. I can tell you exactly "what's inside" in regards to MY direct sexuality: One hellofa gorgeous woman whom I pursue abstractly and otherwise--no differences here.]

gravehold

yankeeDreamer wrote: »

Then you don't have anything substantive to say about the relationship that exists (even in terms of theoretical commentary) do you?

Part of what I'm implying is that all people function by way of a cultural language; As part of that cultural language you have been taught that homosexuality is an identity and not a shared human tendency in any regard (that wanting to act as woman during sex has nothing to do with wanting to dress as woman sex, and in turn has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to dress for someone in a certain way fro sex, as well as wanting them to dress a certain way for sex--the final element in the chain being the single biggest attraction of the modern television program for all human beings!). This denial has been encouraged by both sides of the debate at various stages of history. And in both instances is was an attempt to simplify complex realities in order to deny them.

In short the nature of homosexuality is central to laws regarding homosexuality; and fetishes and belts have as much to do with actual marriage as they do 'gay marriage'; the common obvious denominator being=Desire, whose fundamental motivator is imitation (see expert and renowned member of the French Academy Rene Girard on 'mimesis' for details)

[Appendix: The opening sequence of "The Kids Are Alright" has a lesbian couple watching Gay Men porn. Thier explaination being they want to express "whats inside," on the outside. I can tell you exactly "what's inside" in regards to MY direct sexuality: One hellofa gorgeous woman whom I pursue abstractly and otherwise--no differences here.]

You thing gay men want to be women during sex that's why they sleep with men? I think you way off on what gay means.


Also that movie is a terrible example of a gay family, the no side would be happy if rte showed it tonight.

●You have terrible parenting
●The kids needing a mother and father and feel they are missing something cause they don't have a father
●The lesbians just need a good dicking with one of them going as far as hassing an affair with the bio dad for it
●In the end the father gets the shaft and can't see the kids.

If that how lesbian families really would be no one would want them tp have kids

yankeeDreamer

gravehold wrote: »

You thing gay men want to be women during sex that's why they sleep with men? I think you way off on what gay means.

LMAO. Listen to yourself.

gravehold

yankeeDreamer wrote: »

LMAO. Listen to yourself.

Your the one that said they want to act as women in sex, None of my gay friends ever admitted something like that except the cross dressers.

SILVAMAN

gravehold wrote: »

I don't think a gay couple can be god parents, only one of then chould be the god father/mother.

So yes there can be a gay godparent but not the gay couple

You need to get out more.

gravehold

SILVAMAN wrote: »

You need to get out more.

What chruch allows two god fathers? I have even only seen then do a single god father and god mother at the baptism.

L1011

yankeeDreamer wrote: »

Eventually homosexuality will be revealed as the mimetic heterosexual behavior that it is

Pseudoscientific nonsense...

yankeeDreamer wrote: »

(that wanting to act as woman during sex

...from someone who doesn't understand how people have sex, for starters


Trying to drag the debate to "eww, icky bum stuff" like one of the Burke clan did on radio or one of the various Catholic-group-linked people did in the Washington Post is pathetic; trying to wrap it up in layers of nonsense torn from the pages of a Tranisition Year psychology course is just surreal.

Aard

Love it when newbies come in with megaposts full of big words and little content

Entertaining, if a bit gauche.

SILVAMAN

gravehold wrote: »

What chruch allows two god fathers? I have even only seen then do a single god father and god mother at the baptism.

who gives a flying fcuk about church marriage? or baptism? or any of that big man in the sky nonsense.
I strongly suggest you start living your life.

gravehold

SILVAMAN wrote: »

who gives a flying fcuk about church marriage? or baptism? or any of that big man in the sky nonsense.
I strongly suggest you start living your life.

God parents are a religious thing