How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

floggg

lisar816 wrote: »

That gave me a bit of a laugh, i can guarantee this first question will be voted on eventually if gay marriage is passed, so yes, these questions should be answered firstly, and if you don't agree with 1 of them you should be voting no.

That gave me a bit of alaugh.

Gay people can already adopt on an individual basis, and gay couples will be able to adopt jointly by the time the referendum is held, and regardless of the result.

So you didn't know what you would be voting on.

upinthesky

floggg wrote: »

That gave me a bit of alaugh.

Gay people can already adopt on an individual basis, and gay couples will be able to adopt jointly by the time the referendum is held, and regardless of the result.

So you didn't know what you would be voting on.

well this is common sense really.

spikeS

Tigger wrote: »

are you 99 years old?

In Ireland, the age of consent has been 17 years of age since the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1935. Last year, ministers discussed plans to lower the age of consent from 17 to 16, but came to no decision.

Oops thought it was 16 in the mid 90's

TheBeardedLady

spikeS wrote: »

Yes I know but it's not something we should need to vote on government should just pass it, there is no need for our referendum system where uninformed people get to vote, removing it and letting the government decide from now on would best and would have done without the hassle we had with the last few referendums

That's a separate thread, I think. I don't feel right voting on the civil rights of my fellow citizens but we vote on changes to our constitution and I'd like to keep that system in place. Takes absolute power out of the hands of the government and into those of the people. I'm happy enough with that system, though in this instance, I feel deep uncomfortable voting on this.

floggg

lisar816 wrote: »

well this is common sense really.

It's common sense that you didn't know what you were talking about?

floggg

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

That's a separate thread, I think. I don't feel right voting on the civil rights of my fellow citizens but we vote on changes to our constitution and I'd like to keep that system in place. Takes absolute power out of the hands of the government and into those of the people. I'm happy enough with that system, though in this instance, I feel deep uncomfortable voting on this.

It is strongly arguable that the no referendum was needed for this change. Marriage is undefined in the constitution, and thus there is no obvious impediment to the legislature defining it to include marriage between same sex couples.

lazybones32

Deleted User wrote: »

The user did not say that they are the same. They said in the context of the family they are the same.

I think you may need to reread what was actually written...a suitable replacement was found and the user doesn't actually say whether it was male or female but I think it was female. Saying that a child would be the same had they been raised by 2 men is an outrageous statement that is impossible to prove but somehow isn't open for criticism in this topic? Would you be the man you are now, if Mom or Dad was removed from influencing you? If Dad had a boyfriend instead of Mom, do you think you'd be the same...can you see the gist?

Daith wrote: »

Is there no difference between any two men? Or two women?

Maybe delve deeper into biology and psychology at your own discretion.

MrPudding wrote: »

This is not what is being said at all... What is being said is that the difference between males and females, in the context of raising children, is less important than the environment that the child is raised in is loving and supportive.

Of course a loving environment is the ideal and I'm not criticising the poster for taking steps to ensure the welfare of his family. My criticism was for saying that male and female input is the same - which it is not. Saying that his kids would've turned out fine if they were raised by two men is an assumption with nothing to back it up. His children would be different to what they are now - for better or worse.

MrPudding wrote: »

There is an enormous amount of literature on this subject. And we are talking well respected, peer reviewed journals, books by experts in their fields and governing bodies of professionals that work in child development, psychology and related fields.


Happy to point you in the direction of some related reading if you are interested...

I've read some of them before...well, skim-read. My particular fav was an Australian one which concluded that children do better with 2 Mothers ( lesbian couple) but I couldn't find whether the children were adopted, their ages or their gender.

MrPudding wrote: »

Well, it really is about denying someone a right. By telling a section of the population that they are not entitled to access to a particular institution, and the access is denied on the basis of their sexuality is discrimination. The sole purpose of this referendum is to remove that discrimination, because there is no good reason for it to be in place.

MrP

What Right is specifically denied? I've yet to hear of anyone being denied a Social Service in the Republic because of their sexuality, have you? The sole purpose you provide is somewhat different from the reasons stated by marriageequality.ie but I expect different tunes to be played...

Ave Sodalis

lazybones32 wrote: »

His children would be different to what they are now - for better or worse.

This is a non-argument really though. The children would be different to what they are now if they were raised by a different hetrosexual couple. There are too many factors that determine how people turn out, which is why even twins aren't the same despite being obviously raised by the same parents at the same time. Being raised by a homosexual couple will have no more baring on how the children will turn out than chosing to have children play outside for half an hour a day, or letting them run around outside whenever they have free time.

aloyisious

@Lisar816: The Govt announced last week that there will be no referendum (at least for this year) on lowering the voting age. The only two will be the Marriage equality (same sex marriage) and Reduction of the age qualification of presidential election candidates to 21 referendums.

reprise

MrPudding wrote: »

This is not what is being said at all... What is being said is that the difference between males and females, in the context of raising children, is less important than the environment that the child is raised in is loving and supportive.

There is an enormous amount of literature on this subject. And we are talking well respected, peer reviewed journals, books by experts in their fields and governing bodies of professionals that work in child development, psychology and related fields.


Happy to point you in the direction of some related reading if you are interested...

I'm interested. What have you got?

Annasopra

Flem31 wrote: »

When the SSM Referendum is passed in a few months, does anyone know what happens to Civil Partnership ?

No. We dont. Nobody knows.

In the UK they kept it in place.

Annasopra

floggg wrote: »

From what I know, there will be no automatic conversion of existing civil partnerships, though anybody who is in a civil partnership can have it converted to a wedding by the registrar on payment of a fee.

I don't know whether the ability to enter into CPs will be retained, but I really can't see why it would be.

Have you seen proposals on this? Im not aware of any.

Frigga_92

lisar816 wrote: »

I will be voting No, only because i know it will not stop here, i already see they are bringing in a referendum to lower the age of voting to 16, then what? try and lower the age of sex to 16.

Also then there is the adopting children debate, i have 3 children and i personally would not want my children adopted by gay parents, i'm not saying they wouldn't love the child, but it's just how i feel and i can't change that, if gay marriage is brought in there will be a lot more couples living together, the thoughts of hearing two gay men having sex in the house next door makes me cringe, sorry NO.

So you are planning to vote no because other totally unrelated referendums about voting age may happen down the line? That makes no sense.

Why would your children be adopted by gay parents?
Do you think gay people don't know how to love and care for children the same way as hetero people?

Why do you have a problem with a lot more couples living together? Why should people who love each other not live together if they want to?

Do you have the same problem with 2 lesbians having sex in the house next door? Do you need to be able to hear them having sex or just be aware that they are having sex to feel uncomfortable?

Ozymandius2011

Some people have the daft idea that if a child is raised by a gay couple they will grow up to become gay. But as Gerry Adams correctly pointed out a few days ago "You don't become gay - You are born gay".

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Some people have the daft idea that if a child is raised by a gay couple they will grow up to become gay. But as Gerry Adams correctly pointed out a few days ago "You don't become gay - You are born gay".

I simply point out he existance of homosexuality in itself kinda disputs that argument.

MrPudding

lazybones32 wrote: »

Of course a loving environment is the ideal and I'm not criticising the poster for taking steps to ensure the welfare of his family. My criticism was for saying that male and female input is the same - which it is not. Saying that his kids would've turned out fine if they were raised by two men is an assumption with nothing to back it up. His children would be different to what they are now - for better or worse.

But it isn't really an assumption, and there is plenty to back it up...

lazybones32 wrote: »

I've read some of them before...well, skim-read. My particular fav was an Australian one which concluded that children do better with 2 Mothers ( lesbian couple) but I couldn't find whether the children were adopted, their ages or their gender.

With the greatest respect, should you not, perhaps, try to educate yourself on the subject rather than declaring that there is no evidence?

lazybones32 wrote: »

What Right is specifically denied? I've yet to hear of anyone being denied a Social Service in the Republic because of their sexuality, have you? The sole purpose you provide is somewhat different from the reasons stated by marriageequality.ie but I expect different tunes to be played...

The right to be married. Not sure how you missed that. I guess with all the misinformation that is being thrown around one might be forgiven for not realising that the one and only thing this referendum is about is allowing same sex couples equal access to civil marriage. Nothing more, nothing less.

reprise wrote: »

I'm interested. What have you got?

Ha. You got me. I knew LB would not ask, he has no interest in reading anything that does not confirm his viewpoint. Now I have to go and dig the references out.

This should get you started. This is a pretty good summary of the arguments deployed against ssm, and why they are lacking, as well as plenty of peer reviewed research, and I am sure oldrnwiser won't mind me using his post as a shortcut. The Lamb book is very good, and relevant to this exact subject.

In addition, you could look at the Californian Proposition 8 cases. In those cases you will find a very thorough dismantling of the anti-ssm arguments and the 'research' used to try to support them. Interestingly, if you look at the argument people like the Iona crowd use, and the research they reference, it has all been rebutted and destroyed in these and other case. They know this, yet they still trot it out knowing, presumably, that most people won't know it has been debunked. Very dishonest.

MrP

reprise

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Some people have the daft idea that if a child is raised by a gay couple they will grow up to become gay. But as Gerry Adams correctly pointed out a few days ago "You don't become gay - You are born gay".

I can almost imagine him pulling a pint as he says it.

What is it about the lunatic left that makes them such experts on homosexuality?

shruikan2553

reprise wrote: »

I can almost imagine him pulling a pint as he says it.

What is it about the lunatic left that makes them such experts on homosexuality?

Probably from the same place as the right.

MrPudding

reprise wrote: »

I can almost imagine him pulling a pint as he says it.

What is it about the lunatic left that makes them such experts on homosexuality?

One need not be a lunatic or left wing to have some knowledge on a subject. Additionally, one does not need to be an expert to know the prevailing scientific thinking on a particular subject, just willing to read.

MrP

reprise

MrPudding wrote: »

One need not be a lunatic or left wing to have some knowledge on a subject. Additionally, one does not need to be an expert to know the prevailing scientific thinking on a particular subject, just willing to read.

MrP

Is what he said right?

reprise

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Probably from the same place as the right.

The right don't drag out of every politically correct bandwagon.

shruikan2553

reprise wrote: »

The right don't drag out of every politically correct bandwagon.

The anti PC bandwagon tends to arrive before the PC bandwagon gets loaded up.

Not really sure what PC has to do with it though.

reprise

shruikan2553 wrote: »

The anti PC bandwagon tends to arrive before the PC bandwagon gets loaded up.

How dya figure that one out?

shruikan2553

reprise wrote: »

How dya figure that one out?

Well you did say

The right don't drag out of every politically correct bandwagon.

Because for some reason it is relevant

darced

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin

reprise wrote: »

Is what he said right?

Yeah I think so. I knew I fancied boys when I was eight or nine. I didn't decide to fancy boys, I just did. I can look at beautiful, sexy women now and while acknowledging how stunning they are they don't sexually excite me. A good looking man though, now that's a whole other story.

Some people believe who you fancy is a matter of choice. Well I'd challenge them to try and change their sexuality for a day or two and see how easy it is.

eviltwin

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah cause that's clearly the natural follow on from SSM isn't it?

reprise

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Well you did say



Because for some reason it is relevant

PopePalpatine

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I feel stupider for reading this post.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Dunno wheer to start correcting this one.

aloyisious

reprise wrote: »

Is what he said right?

The camera never lies.......

Micky Dolenz

Haven't read the thread so forgive me if i repeat stuff.

Personally, for me, this has nothing to do with what God you believe you in, this is a civil rights issue and should be treated as such.

I'm all for civil rights regardless of if I pray or not.

Nodin

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Do us a favour and link to those discussions, if you'd be as good.

TheBeardedLady

It's PC to believe, based on science and all evidence thus far, that a child is born gay. I see.

reprise

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

It's PC to believe, based on science and all evidence thus far, that a child is born gay. I see.

Since when?

mudda3

I would vote yes

haveringchick

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

It's PC to believe, based on science and all evidence thus far, that a child is born gay. I see.

It's not PC. Or maybe it is. Do you believe that people make a choice to be gay then? Why on earth would anyone be bothered to do that then? What advantages in life does being gay give anyone?

lazybones32

lazybones32 wrote: »

I think you may need to reread what was actually written

After you - because it was you not me that misrepresented what the other person wrote.

lazybones32 wrote: »

..a suitable replacement was found and the user doesn't actually say whether it was male or female but I think it was female.

EXACTLY! Now you are getting it. The user did not mention the sex of the replacement parent because the point was - clearly - that the sex of the other parent simply was irrelevant. My guess is that the user specifically decided not to mention it to make that exact point.

lazybones32 wrote: »

Saying that a child would be the same had they been raised by 2 men is an outrageous statement that is impossible to prove but somehow isn't open for criticism in this topic?

Of course it is open to critique. The problem is you are not coherently doing so. You are simply throwing declarations around like it is "outrageous". But you are not explaining how and/or why. So what actually is your point?

lazybones32 wrote: »

Would you be the man you are now, if Mom or Dad was removed from influencing you? If Dad had a boyfriend instead of Mom, do you think you'd be the same...can you see the gist?

Nope not seeing your gist at all. If you replaced ANY parent with ANY parent you will likely change the resulting person. The sex is irrelevant. If you replaced either or both of my parents with other people, same sex, opposite sex, or whatever - I would likely be a different person today.

You are utterly failing to demonstrate how sex comes into this at all. Maybe delve deeper into biology and psychology at your own discretion.

lazybones32 wrote: »

My criticism was for saying that male and female input is the same - which it is not.

My criticism is that you are not saying what these differences are - or how they are relevant to the upbringing of a child. You are merely waving a sign saying "different" and failing to qualify or apply that statement in any useful way.

lazybones32 wrote: »

His children would be different to what they are now - for better or worse.

His children would be different by virtue of the fact they had different parents than the ones they did have. Thats all. You are not coherently constructing an argument as to why they would be different specifically because it was two men. That part you appear to be simply making up out of your own head.

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

It's PC to believe, based on science and all evidence thus far, that a child is born gay. I see.

Not sure what PC has to do with it. It is a call based on a mixture of the evidence - and what gay people are actually telling us of their own feelings and experience.

Ctrl Alt Delete

Aren't boards.Ie pols on referundums usually way off the mark In terms outcome

Annasopra

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Where? Provide links.

TheBeardedLady

haveringchick wrote: »

It's not PC. Or maybe it is. Do you believe that people make a choice to be gay then? Why on earth would anyone be bothered to do that then? What advantages in life does being gay give anyone?

You missed my sarcasm. Thought I conveyed it well.

TheBeardedLady

reprise wrote: »

The right don't drag out of every politically correct bandwagon.

Reprise you said yourself that someone stating that a gay person is born that way is jumping on the "PC bandwagon". Gerry Adams' comment was based on evidence as opposed a hunch or religious beliefs. I have no idea what political correctness has got to do with this.

MrPudding

reprise wrote: »

Is what he said right?

It certainly seems that way... Assuming you are heterosexual, do you have to choose to find members of the opposite sex attractive? Whilst that is very simplistic, it is some indication that sexuality is something that most people have no control over.

There is a lot of scientific material out there eon this subject, and a lot of it is accessible and understandable by the layman.

Again, if you are interested in educating yourself about the subject there is plenty of material for you to read.

MrP

Sofiztikated

I have missed a bit of the thread, because, lets be honest, there is a lot of waffle from everyone.

To the ones arguing you need a man and a woman to raise a child, I ask a couple of questions.

1. What if it's a really effeminate man and a woman raising a child?

2. What if it's a really butch woman and a man raising a child?

3. What if it's a butch woman and an effeminate man?

4. What if it's 2 women, but one has a strong paternal figure, such as her father?

5. Of these 2 couple that raise children, who can you say might be the better parents - Kanye West and Kim Kardashian or Neil Patrick Harris and David Burtka? Why?

6. If a man and woman solely practice anal sex, do they have any less right to get married than a couple that practice vaginal intercourse?

TheBeardedLady

Deleted User wrote: »

Not sure what PC has to do with it. It is a call based on a mixture of the evidence - and what gay people are actually telling us of their own feelings and experience.

It has fook all to do with political correctness. My comment was sarcastic. I need to use this fella more often :pac:

reprise

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

It has fook all to do with political correctness. My comment was sarcastic. I need to use this fella more often :pac:

So do I, I find Gerry Adams expertise on homosexuality quite sickening given his willful ignorance on rape and pedophilia.

TheBeardedLady

Ah right.

floggg

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Have you seen proposals on this? Im not aware of any.

Heard it on the grapevine. Makes sense as an approach though.

floggg

reprise wrote: »

I can almost imagine him pulling a pint as he says it.

What is it about the lunatic left that makes them such experts on homosexuality?

What is it about the rabid raving right* that makes them such experts on homosexuality?

Particularly the straight ones who claim to know better about it than anybody else, actual homosexuals included.

*alliteration is fun. Petty insults aimed at anybody of a different political viewpoint is stupid though.

floggg

reprise wrote: »

Is what he said right?

Yes. It is for me and for any another gay person I know.

Do you disagree with him? If so, why?

And what makes your opinion any more valid than Gerry Adams or anybody else's?