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

seenitall

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I can't be the only one who thinks these threads are nothing more than alot of people hoping.... begging... waiting for another user to come and say "I am voting no because XYZ" - Then for everyone to pounce on that poster at once

Like isn't this the 4th or 5th thread with a poll within the last year in After Hours.

I'd say that poster, and others of similar opinions to his, are having a grand old time on this thread, and other related threads. There is not much pouncing required.

Tasden

spikeS wrote: »

Single parents can be just as good if not better then a couple, it's pretty hateful to say single parents make worse parents

I think it was just in terms of practicalities and such. Two incomes, two pairs of hands, two people to love the child...

I think that everyone would agree that two loving and capable parents is the ideal, and most of us would agree that the gender of those parents is irrelevant

spikeS

Deleted User wrote: »

Lucky I never said any such thing then - is it not. And you might want to read my other posts on this very thread on the subject of single parents before you jump to any other conclusions.

You said two parents are better then one, this is not true and plenty of single parents do a great job raising their kids

Tasden

Tasden wrote: »

I think that everyone would agree that two loving and capable parents is the ideal, and most of us would agree that the gender of those parents is irrelevant

I must say though - I do get quite a laugh out of the people against homosexual marriage who bring up the "Two parents are better than one" argument which is at best irrelevant.

What freaks them out then is that I tell them about my situation where there is actually three parents - and point out that they are clearly arguing that my case is even more ideal again.

Depending on their prejudices - this can quite often sent them off into all kinds of contortions of spluttering and back peddling Puts a smile on my face at least.

floggg

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I might be a rare example I dont know LOL. But in my eyes I see gay people as no different (I dont even see the need of pride per se). Volunteered couple of times actually for Pride (last one I volunteered at was when some numptys cuffed themselves to a bus or two).

But it still doesn't change my personally ingrained opinion about my thoughts / beliefs on the institutes of marriage and children.

But just like I respect gays , you have to show equal respect to my opinion (regardless of whether you think its right or wrong).

As a point of clarification, we have to respect your right to an opinion and express it. An opinion has to earn respect though.

eviltwin

spikeS wrote: »

You said two parents are better then one, this is not true and plenty of single parents do a great job raising their kids

It's a lot easier mentally and physically to share parenting. It's a full time job and if you don't have someone to share the responsibility it can take its toll. Any single parent I know is doing great but it's easier the more support you have.

spikeS

Tasden wrote: »

I think it was just in terms of practicalities and such. Two incomes, two pairs of hands, two people to love the child...

I think that everyone would agree that two loving and capable parents is the ideal, and most of us would agree that the gender of those parents is irrelevant

If we are going to that extreme, would two different gender outlooks not also outweigh a single gender outlook upbringing.

I don't think it's right to say single parents are the worst, no parenting is an ideal

COYVB

spikeS wrote: »

I don't think it's right to say single parents are the worst

Nobody said that

Ave Sodalis

spikeS wrote: »

You said two parents are better then one, this is not true and plenty of single parents do a great job raising their kids

It is alot easier when there is two parents to raise a child and you can talk to just about any single parent, they'd be delighted if they got a helping hand raising the children when it's off the right person. This is coming from a child of a single mother. My childhood would have been alot worse if my father and mother actually got married, but would have been alot easier if my mother found someone at an earlier stage that she wanted to spend the rest of her life with. She's a better mother than a lot of parents together, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't have been easier if she had a partner.

Tasden

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I must say though - I do get quite a laugh out of the people against homosexual marriage who bring up the "Two parents are better than one" argument which is at best irrelevant.

What freaks them out then is that I tell them about my situation where there is actually three parents - and point out that they are clearly arguing that my case is even more ideal again.

Depending on their prejudices - this can quite often sent them off into all kinds of contortions of spluttering and back peddling Puts a smile on my face at least.

Well as a single parent struggling to juggle it all atm, myself and my child would welcome two more people to help! :pac:

Ctrl Alt Delete

eviltwin wrote: »

No not really. What is it about your friends that you don't think they will make suitable parents?

Nothing outside of same concerns I'd have for some hetero couples I have already stated earlier that parents being gay isn't going to negatively affect children

Ave Sodalis

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Nothing outside of same concerns I'd have for some hetero couples I have already stated earlier that parents being gay isn't going to negatively affect children

Then why deny them marriage?

spikeS

spikeS wrote: »

You said two parents are better then one, this is not true and plenty of single parents do a great job raising their kids

As I said - you would do well to read back on my other posts on the subject before jumping to any more wrong conclusions about what I mean by this. You are not disagreeing with me at all.

My position on the matter is clear. We know what the ideal for a childs upbringing are. And we know that _any_ configuration of parents are equally capable of attaining everything on that list. Be it a single parent - a pair of parents of any sex - or multiple parents like in my situation - or whatever.

But we can acknowledge this perfectly cogent fact while not balking at pointing out that in general the more parents there are - the more likely they are to be capable of meeting the demands on time and resources. It is in that way - and that way only that I would suggest any one configuration is "better" than another.

But as I pointed out myself - and you do too - that does not mean this is a fact about single parents as a whole. I have a single parent in my family for example who due to his career and priorities actually has more time and money available for his children than two of my friends who are married on call doctors - and they have hardly any time for their kids and it is sad to see.

In short - a generalisation about a group as a whole - is not a commentary on the attributes of any one member of that set. And as I pointed out the argument is a non argument because if 2 parents in this way were to be better than 1 - then 3 is better than 2 - and 4 is better than 3 - and so on. Which shows you how irrelevant the point is to begin with.

jobbridge4life

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Nothing outside of same concerns I'd have for some hetero couples I have already stated earlier that parents being gay isn't going to negatively affect children

So now you are contradicting your own (and only) stated reason for voting no.

Sofiztikated

There are 2 couples that want to get married. Currently one couple cannot. what is equal about that?

Forget the labels, gay, straight, whatever. why can one couple get married, and the other not?

CTRL ALT DELETE, could you please answer this question, and the few questions I posted a few posts back?

Tasden

spikeS wrote: »

If we are going to that extreme, would two different gender outlooks not also outweigh a single gender outlook upbringing.

I don't think it's right to say single parents are the worst, no parenting is an ideal

I never said single parents are the worst. I am one. And a damn good one but I'm not blind to the fact that having another person to help raise my child would give myself and my child a better life.

spikeS

Deleted User wrote: »

As I said - you would do well to read back on my other posts on the subject before jumping to any more wrong conclusions about what I mean by this. You are not disagreeing with me at all.

My position on the matter is clear. We know what the ideal for a childs upbringing are. And we know that _any_ configuration of parents are equally capable of attaining everything on that list. Be it a single parent - a pair of parents of any sex - or multiple parents like in my situation - or whatever.

But we can acknowledge this perfectly cogent fact while not balking at pointing out that in general the more parents there are - the more likely they are to be capable of meeting the demands on time and resources. It is in that way - and that way only that I would suggest any one configuration is "better" than another.

But as I pointed out myself - and you do too - that does not mean this is a fact about single parents as a whole. I have a single parent in my family for example who due to his career and priorities actually has more time and money available for his children than two of my friends who are married on call doctors - and they have hardly any time for their kids and it is sad to see.

In short - a generalisation about a group as a whole - is not a commentary on the attributes of any one member of that set. And as I pointed out the argument is a non argument because if 2 parents in this way were to be better than 1 - then 3 is better than 2 - and 4 is better than 3 - and so on. Which shows you how irrelevant the point is to begin with.

So polygamous couples make the best parents?

eviltwin

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Nothing outside of same concerns I'd have for some hetero couples I have already stated earlier that parents being gay isn't going to negatively affect children

Your contradicting yourself now

Ctrl Alt Delete

sup_dude wrote: »

I think it's more like people talking about their choices and then some people coming up with silly reasons to vote no and expecting others to grovel in order to change their vote

Personally I don't know expect anyone to try change my opinion to be fair this is one these referendums where there will be a very small amount of don't knows.

Your either firmly in yes or not camp and I'd dare say few from either would be swayed

Ave Sodalis

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Personally I don't know expect anyone to try change my opinion to be fair this is one these referendums where there will be a very small amount of don't knows.

Your either firmly in yes or not camp and I'd dare say few from either would be swayed

Except for people voting on ignorance and then being told otherwise.

spikeS

spikeS wrote: »

If we are going to that extreme, would two different gender outlooks not also outweigh a single gender outlook upbringing.

It would - if "gender outlook" actually meant something. However I am not sure it does - which kind of would negate the argument itself if anyone were to make it.

Tasden wrote: »

Well as a single parent struggling to juggle it all atm, myself and my child would welcome two more people to help! :pac:

I came across an interesting phenomenon when doing a talk on subjects like this in the UK. A group of women I met after the talk had essentially started a "commune" house. That is to say that rather than the 4 of them living as single mothers - with all the difficulties and costs that entails - they moved in together into a big place which - due to the economies of scale - actually was quite affordable.

And also due to scaling - their task of parenting became easier too. 4 parents looking after 4 children together turned out to be monumentally easier than doing so separately. To the point 2 of them improved their hours at work and got more money - while another 2 of them managed to return to and complete college.

Was ever so happy for them - brought a tear to the eye seeing such solidarity with such a nice result.

Havent really met anyone doing the same thing in Ireland yet. But made a lot of sense to me.

Ave Sodalis

spikeS wrote: »

So polygamous couples make the best parents?

Ah spike, what are you trying to say? No, they may or they may not, depending on the person. However, the more people raising the child, the easier it is.

COYVB

spikeS wrote: »

So polygamous couples make the best parents?

Hint: Couple means 2

spikeS

spikeS wrote: »

So polygamous couples make the best parents?

If you say so. I certainly did not. Not even sure what a polygamous couple even is.

What I did say was that anyone who is making the argument that 2 parents is better than 1 for resource reasons alone - would therefore be by definition making the point above.

jobbridge4life

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Personally I don't know expect anyone to try change my opinion to be fair this is one these referendums where there will be a very small amount of don't knows.

Your either firmly in yes or not camp and I'd dare say few from either would be swayed

Your opinion makes no sense. It is illogical and seems to contradict your own beliefs.

eviltwin

spikeS wrote: »

So polygamous couples make the best parents?

I think his point is the more help the better. Could be the other parent, a grandparent, good friend etc.

Ctrl Alt Delete

Sofiztikated wrote: »

There are 2 couples that want to get married. Currently one couple cannot. what is equal about that?

Forget the labels, gay, straight, whatever. why can one couple get married, and the other not?

CTRL ALT DELETE, could you please answer this question, and the few questions I posted a few posts back?

It's not equal 100% its not however in relation to your 2nd point you cannot forget the labels it's the very reason for the referendum in the first place.

Alot of questions / points being fired at me I'm not trying to avoid any.

Ctrl Alt Delete

eviltwin wrote: »

Your contradicting yourself now

No I believe I've been very consitant in stating being gay would have no negative affects on a child.

Tasden

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It would - if "gender outlook" actually meant something. However I am not sure it does - which kind of would negate the argument itself if anyone were to make it.



I came across an interesting phenomenon when doing a talk on subjects like this in the UK. A group of women I met after the talk had essentially started a "commune" house. That is to say that rather than the 4 of them living as single mothers - with all the difficulties and costs that entails - they moved in together into a big place which - due to the economies of scale - actually was quite affordable.

And also due to scaling - their task of parenting became easier too. 4 parents looking after 4 children together turned out to be monumentally easier than doing so separately. To the point 2 of them improved their hours at work and got more money - while another 2 of them managed to return to and complete college.

Was ever so happy for them - brought a tear to the eye seeing such solidarity with such a nice result.

Havent really met anyone doing the same thing in Ireland yet. But made a lot of sense to me.

A few of my friends in similar circumstances were looking into a house share like that but the issue was with finding a location that suited. Most of us and our kids would be very close to our extended family for example so moving too far from them would be a big adjustment. Trying to find somewhere close to everybody's family, kid's schools, work, college etc, it wasn't going to work together for our group unfortunately. I think its common in the uk actually. Great idea though.

jobbridge4life

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

No I believe I've been very consitant in stating being gay would have no negative affects on a child.

You haven't you mentioned that the reason you were going to vote no was children. You reasoning was fulsomely dealt with by several posters.

Ctrl Alt Delete

sup_dude wrote: »

Except for people voting on ignorance and then being told otherwise.

Well your perfectly free to define me as ignorant all you want I still dont think there will be many in the yes or no camp who will sway to the other side.

Ave Sodalis

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Alot of questions / points being fired at me I'm not trying to avoid any.

They all essentially asking why are you opposed without a valid reason?

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

No I believe I've been very consitant in stating being gay would have no negative affects on a child.

Then why, according to you, should gay people not marry?

eviltwin

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

No I believe I've been very consitant in stating being gay would have no negative affects on a child.

So why are you using the children issue as your reason to vote No?

COYVB

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

No I believe I've been very consitant in stating being gay would have no negative affects on a child.

But you still don't want them allowed to have kids, or marry?

Ave Sodalis

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Well your perfectly free to define me as ignorant all you want I still dont think there will be many in the yes or no camp who will sway to the other side.

You were ignorant. You didn't know that the abortion issue was completely seperate to this referendum

Ctrl Alt Delete

jobbridge4life wrote: »

You haven't you mentioned that the reason you were going to vote no was children. You reasoning was fulsomely dealt with by several posters.

Because I believe a child should be raised by a mother and father and I believe a marriage should be husband and wife.

Ctrl Alt Delete

sup_dude wrote: »

You were ignorant. You didn't know that the abortion issue was completely seperate to this referendum

I never mentioned abortion. What I did mention was adoption and again what I stated about that is currently a gay couple cannot adopt.

That is currently factually correct is it not?

Daith

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Because I believe a child should be raised by a mother and father and I believe a marriage should be husband and wife.

And for children that are raised by same sex parents you are happy for them to not have the same rights as a child raised by a mother and father?

COYVB

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Because I believe a child should be raised by a mother and father and I believe a marriage should be husband and wife.

When you're referring to marriage, are you referring to the religious thing, or the legal thing? Because if it's the religious thing, then that's perfectly fine. Most churches define it as between as husband and wife, so if you want to play their game you play by their rules. No qualms there.

If it's legally though, I find it hard to see why it makes a damned bit of difference to you

PopePalpatine

eviltwin wrote: »

How is it that all these No voters have gay friends? :rolleyes:

They all know Paddy Manning?

Ave Sodalis

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I never mentioned abortion. What I did mention was adoption and again what I stated about that is currently a gay couple cannot adopt.

That is currently factually correct is it not?

Sorry, autocorrect on phone.

Currently, it's correct. With regard to the referendum, it is not correct. Before we get to the referendum, there will be a change (which you will not vote on) and gay couples can adopt. This will happen regardless of the results of the referendum.

Ctrl Alt Delete

Daith wrote: »

And for children that are raised by same sex parents you are happy for them to not have the same rights as a child raised by a mother and father?

Exactly what rights to the child are affected ?

Rights for the adoptive parents would be more relevant surely?

Daith

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Exactly what rights to the child are affected ?

Rights for the adoptive parents would be more relevant surely?

The child does not have the right to have both parents identified in law. Their family does not have the same rights as other families.

You are ok with this?

eviltwin

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Because I believe a child should be raised by a mother and father and I believe a marriage should be husband and wife.

Do you not believe people should have autonomy to do what is right for them? I don't think people should smoke and as a vegetarian I don't think people should eat meat but it's not my responsibility to force my views on other people. Everyone should be free to make decisions that are right for them and their family. Your views are irrelevant.

Ctrl Alt Delete

COYVB wrote: »

When you're referring to marriage, are you referring to the religious thing, or the legal thing? Because if it's the religious thing, then that's perfectly fine. Most churches define it as between as husband and wife, so if you want to play their game you play by their rules. No qualms there.

If it's legally though, I find it hard to see why it makes a damned bit of difference to you

Your right it doesnt make a difference to me but legally as it stands you cannot that is not my doing, it is not solely up to me and it will be decided by the country en masse.

If it changes afterwards so be it I will respect that also.

Ctrl Alt Delete

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you not believe people should have autonomy to do what is right for them? I don't think people should smoke and as a vegetarian I don't think people should eat meat but it's not my responsibility to force my views on other people. Everyone should be free to make decisions that are right for them and their family. Your views are irrelevant.

But yet my right to smoke where I want is currently being limited by law. And there is a difference between a persons right for autonomy for them and right to autonomy for a child (which can and does be challenged legally)

eviltwin wrote: »

Your views are irrelevant.

Choose to call my views irrelevant at your own peril

Daith

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

If it changes afterwards so be it I will respect that also.

Why would you respect it if you voted no to equality?

COYVB

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Your right it doesnt make a difference to me but legally as it stands you cannot that is not my doing, it is not solely up to me and it will be decided by the country en masse.

If it changes afterwards so be it I will respect that also.

Don't you think that, if you actually respected these people as you say you do, you would be more comfortable with voting yes, and therefore giving them the opportunity to have a CHOICE in the matter, than voting no and doing your best to prevent them from having that choice?

Ctrl Alt Delete

Daith wrote: »

Why would you respect it if you voted no to equality?

Because that is what usually happens after a referendum. I might disagree with it and I might have voted no but I also respect the majority of people have spoken in a democratic process.

Ave Sodalis

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Choose to call my views irrelevant at your own peril

They are though. This referendum will not determine whether a gay couple can raise a child so using that as an argument is irrelevant.