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

Ozymandius2011

One of the arguments I have heard the Religious Right use against gay marriage (which was also used against decriminalisation in 1994) is that gay men are promiscuous. However, a married relationship is more likely to be monogamous because the couple wouldn't be marrying in the first place if they didn't want to make a commitment.

StewartGriffin

B_Wayne wrote: »

The opposition to the referendum have already referred to incest and marrying one's relative in the last week.

I think they view it as a valve - either leave it as it is - or open it fully.
At the moment, all that is allowed through, are accepted male/female marriages,if we are going to tweak it, may as well open it up to full equality. Perhaps in 40 years time sister/brother love may be as normal as a man/man, or woman/woman love is now?

It is only a LEGAL issue. I don't see why any loving relationship should be denied a legal contract.

conorh91

sup_dude wrote: »

How is that in any way related to this discussion?

The discussion is being framed in terms of equality.

Do you honestly think people want to get married only because of taxes?!

No, there are other financial benefits.

Financial reasons are a relevant motivation to marry, but I've never said that these are the only reasons. Where did you get that idea?

reprise

sup_dude wrote: »

No, but if the sole purpose of marriage is to set up for the best possible environment for children, are you saying that children of unmarried and single parents are in lesser environments?

I'm sure there are plenty of studies that have something of substance to offer on that theory.

sup_dude wrote: »

Are you saying people who cannot have children shouldn't bother getting married as it would be pointless?

It's entirely their choice. Plenty of married couples split up over infertility. Plenty manage fine without children. As I have said, it aint compulsory.

sup_dude wrote: »

This is still irrelevant and, by your account, just furthers the argument for SSM anyway as gay couple will be able to adopt, married or not.

I disagree.

Ave Sodalis

conorh91 wrote: »

The discussion is being framed in terms of equality.


No, there are other financial benefits.

Financial reasons are a relevant motivation to marry, but I've never said that these are the only reasons. Where did you get that idea?

Because you're under the opinion that this referendum is about money, or so your posts are suggesting. This referendum is here because people who love each other want to make a commitment to each other in a legal way and they can't.

I have never heard gay people talk so much about politics in my life. They are like a bunch of Atheists around a bible.

Ave Sodalis

reprise wrote: »

I'm sure there are plenty of studies that have something of substance to offer on that theory.



It's entirely their choice. Plenty of married couples split up over infertility. Plenty manage fine without children. As I have said, it aint compulsory.



I disagree.

There is studies, yeah. Most of them showing that marriage is by no means any way indicative of a suitable and stable environment for children.

Plenty stay together. It isn't compulsory, but in your opinion, why would they bother, going by your logic?

Would you care to elaborate?

Shrap

StewartGriffin wrote: »

I think they view it as a valve - either leave it as it is - or open it fully.
At the moment, all that is allowed through, are accepted male/female marriages,if we are going to tweak it, may as well open it up to full equality. Perhaps in 40 years time sister/brother love may be as normal as a man/man, or woman/woman love is now?

It is only a LEGAL issue. I don't see why any loving relationship should be denied a legal contract.

And can't they lobby for their own rights then, if it ever does become a thing which I very much doubt, instead of conflating something that hasn't happened yet in society with something that is very much a reality today but is entirely unrelated to your imaginary scenario.

There is no valve, no slippery slope, no need to present exaggerated and fallacious arguments like - "Ooh, before you know it there'll be sons wanting to marry their dead grandfathers in the grave because necrophilia should be allowed if everything else is and it's clear everything is allowed now because GAY is!!". It's all a bit childish, the posters who are proposing strawman arguments to beat the band. Stupid, even.

eviltwin

Deleted User wrote: »

I have never heard gay people talk so much about politics in my life. They are like a bunch of Atheists around a bible.

As far as I'm aware a lot of the posters on the last couple of pages aren't gay. Incredible that straight people would have an opinion on this issue isn't it?

Kurtosis

This semantic equality argument is really trivial.

The referendum is to provide equality of opportunity to marry one's partner of choice regardless of their sex.

Shrap

Deleted User wrote: »

I have never heard gay people talk so much about politics in my life. They are like a bunch of Atheists around a bible.

That's quite funny

I'm an atheist, political straight though, but it's still funny.

ardmacha

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you think I am any better a parent to the child I had in marriage vs the one I had before marriage? I fail to see how a 15 minute ceremony has changed the outcome for my subsequent children. Marriage doesn't make you a good parent. Your parenting skills are what makes you a good parent.

If you were marrying the other parent of the child, that mutual commitment by its parents is, on balance, in the interest of the child.

This debate seems to have a lot of talk of people not being bad parents, but it is reasonable to discuss what is the best arrangement without any implication that everyone not in that arrangement is a bad parent.

eviltwin

ardmacha wrote: »

If you were marrying the other parent of the child, that mutual commitment by its parents is, on balance, in the interest of the child.

This debate seems to have a lot of talk of people not being bad parents, but it is reasonable to discuss what is the best arrangement without any implication that everyone not in that arrangement is a bad parent.

Marriage is just one way of making a commitment. Choosing not to marry, or in this case not having the option in the first place, doesn't necessarily make you any less committed to your family.

reprise

sup_dude wrote: »

There is studies, yeah. Most of them showing that marriage is by no means any way indicative of a suitable and stable environment for children.

How's about showing me even one, that shows that marriage, is on balance, an inferior environment to the alternatives.

sup_dude wrote: »

TPlenty stay together. It isn't compulsory, but in your opinion, why would they bother, going by your logic?

Would you care to elaborate?

I really don't have an opinion on the matter as it doesn't apply to either myself or most people I know, so elaborating would be pointless.

StewartGriffin

Shrap wrote: »

And can't they lobby for their own rights then, if it ever does become a thing which I very much doubt, instead of conflating something that hasn't happened yet in society with something that is very much a reality today but is entirely unrelated to your imaginary scenario.

There is no valve, no slippery slope, no need to present exaggerated and fallacious arguments like - "Ooh, before you know it there'll be sons wanting to marry their dead grandfathers in the grave because necrophilia should be allowed if everything else is and it's clear everything is allowed now because GAY is!!". It's all a bit childish, the posters who are proposing strawman arguments to beat the band. Stupid, even.

Such short sighted snobbery. Basically you say "let them fight their battles, I'm fighting mine."

It isn't about rights or equality for you - it about ME ME ME!

Well that's ok, but stop talking about equality then.

And, hey, talking of exaggeration, ""Ooh, before you know it there'll be sons wanting to marry their dead grandfathers in the grave because necrophilia should be allowed if everything else is and it's clear everything is allowed now because GAY is!!

Shrill!

Ave Sodalis

reprise wrote: »

How's about showing me even one, that shows that marriage, is on balance, an inferior environment to the alternatives.



I really don't have an opinion on the matter as it doesn't apply to either myself or most people I know, so elaborating would be pointless.

I never said it was inferior. I said I disagree with it being superior in terms of child raising.

Yet, you said you disagree. If you disagree you clearly have an opinion. This is what I was asking you to elaborate on

Ave Sodalis

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Such short sighted snobbery. Basically you say "let them fight their battles, I'm fighting mine."

It isn't about rights or equality for you - it about ME ME ME!

Well that's ok, but stop talking about equality then.

And, hey, talking of exaggeration, ""Ooh, before you know it there'll be sons wanting to marry their dead grandfathers in the grave because necrophilia should be allowed if everything else is and it's clear everything is allowed now because GAY is!!

Shrill!

I'm not gay and yet I chose to fight this battle because a) I know gay people and b) they're fighting for their rights and believe they have a very good point (to put it lightly).
Others are not fighting. Why would anyone fight for something when the people it affects don't seem that bothered?

eviltwin

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Such short sighted snobbery. Basically you say "let them fight their battles, I'm fighting mine."

It isn't about rights or equality for you - it about ME ME ME!

Well that's ok, but stop talking about equality then.

And, hey, talking of exaggeration, ""Ooh, before you know it there'll be sons wanting to marry their dead grandfathers in the grave because necrophilia should be allowed if everything else is and it's clear everything is allowed now because GAY is!!

Shrill!

There is nothing to stop any other interest group getting momentum for their cause on the back of this. Has anyone come forward......no, not that I'm aware of. It makes it hard then to argue for those rights when you don't have anyone prepared to go public and demand them

Shrap

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Such short sighted snobbery. Basically you say "let them fight their battles, I'm fighting mine."

It isn't about rights or equality for you - it about ME ME ME!

Well that's ok, but stop talking about equality then.

And, hey, talking of exaggeration, ""Ooh, before you know it there'll be sons wanting to marry their dead grandfathers in the grave because necrophilia should be allowed if everything else is and it's clear everything is allowed now because GAY is!!

Shrill!

Have you even read the comments I was referring to? All this crap about why shouldn't we be voting on mothers marrying their adult daughters as well; the derailing arguments are seemingly endless. I think you missed my entire point. WHICH is, we are being asked to vote on ONE thing, not future projections of how society might be in 40 years. ONE thing that is necessary to gay people now in order to protect their children and in order that gender preference is no longer an obstacle to marriage.

Got it? Good.

Edit: Oh, and I'm not gay - just for the sake of clarity. Not that it makes a difference.

StewartGriffin

sup_dude wrote: »

Why would anyone fight for something when the people it affects don't seem that bothered?

Err.. Oppression? Slavery? Civil rights?

Maybe because it's just the right thing to do.

reprise

eviltwin wrote: »

As far as I'm aware a lot of the posters on the last couple of pages aren't gay. Incredible that straight people would have an opinion on this issue isn't it?

And the reason we shouldn't have an opinion on a constitutional referendum is ?????

AlanS181824

Okay everyone has the right to their opinion but seriously...

Some of you are honestly going to argue and say that 2people who love each other and want the same rights as straight couples is wrong?

Sure the original purpose of marriage is to protect the children but wasn't the original purpose of women to produce children?

Times change, Ireland needs to vote yes and prove to the international community that okay we sure do love our bankers and our debt but also we are a country that accepts all its citizens not just those who are in straight marriages!

StewartGriffin

Shrap wrote: »

Edit: Oh, and I'm not gay - just for the sake of clarity. Not that it makes a difference.

Why would I care if you are gay?

Why do you feel the need to tell me, that you are not gay?

We are discussing a referendum - not your sexual preference.

Ave Sodalis

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Err.. Oppression? Slavery? Civil rights?

Maybe because it's just the right thing to do.

Except, they were fought against. Stuff like incest isn't

reprise wrote: »

And the reason we shouldn't have an opinion on a constitutional referendum is ?????

That's not what eviltwin said. In fact the opposite. They're saying that as straight people, we can have an opinion. Are you misreading all the posts on here?

Ave Sodalis

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Why would I care if you are gay?

Why do you feel the need to tell me, that you are not gay?

We are discussing a referendum - not your sexual preference.

How is it all ME ME ME, when it doesn't effect me?

Shrap

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Why would I care if you are gay?

Why do you feel the need to tell me, that you are not gay?

We are discussing a referendum - not your sexual preference.

That's been answered by Sup-Dude.

Yes, we are discussing a referendum which I think you'll find has been my entire point all along. We are not discussing what else should be in the referendum (although there is a shouty number of people who think we are).

reprise

sup_dude wrote: »

That's not what eviltwin said. In fact the opposite. They're saying that as straight people, we can have an opinion.

My bad. Apols Eviltwin, fwiw, I still find your arguments amongst the most genuine, persuasive and touching.

StewartGriffin

sup_dude wrote: »

How is it all ME ME ME, when it doesn't effect me?

I'm not a woman, but it still effects me if a woman is flogged for driving a car in Saudi- Arabia.

Why? Because I'm a human being, and so is she.

Ave Sodalis

StewartGriffin wrote: »

I'm not a woman, but it still effects me if a woman is flogged for driving a car in Saudi- Arabia.

Why? Because I'm a human being, and so is she.

So basically, we're all just selfish beings regardless of any action we take. Why's it an issue now?

Ozymandius2011

sup_dude wrote: »

How is it all ME ME ME, when it doesn't effect me?

I think it effects whether the parents of gay sons/daughters want their children to grow up as equals or second class citizens.

Children are already in some cases being raised by same-sex couples. Gay people are allowed to adopt already in a single capacity. The Family and Relationships Bill will allow gay couples to do. Because of the link between inheritance and marriage, a surviving partner - who may well by then be considered as a parent by the child - faces separation from the child -- with possibly serious psychological separation anxiety caused to the child that may be longlasting. The child would face possibly being taken into care. And after what we have learned about what goes on in some Irish care homes for children and the elderly (recently), I doubt anyone would want that.

arayess

eviltwin wrote: »

As far as I'm aware a lot of the posters on the last couple of pages aren't gay. Incredible that straight people would have an opinion on this issue isn't it?

I've heard that argument in a few posts. It's only correct everybody has a say as it determines an aspect of the society we all live in .

many people scream about the equality of this but it's not about equality , marriage will still be excluded from people on this list - people who are family for example

can't post a link but citizen information has a list and even if you remove the blood relative aspect for moral/health reasons there are others on the list that are still illegal.

polygamy will still be banned which is definitely an obstacle for our Islamic folk but also for others who may want to go down that route.

Have gay marriage all you want but spare me the hand-wringing over equality

efb

arayess wrote: »

I've heard that argument in a few posts. It's only correct everybody has a say as it determines an aspect of the society we all live in .

many people scream about the equality of this but it's not about equality , marriage will still be excluded from people on this list - people who are family for example

can't post a link but citizen information has a list and even if you remove the blood relative aspect for moral/health reasons there are others on the list that are still illegal.

polygamy will still be banned which is definitely an obstacle for our Islamic folk but also for others who may want to go down that route.

Have gay marriage all you want but spare me the hand-wringing over equality

Equality and polygamy lol

floggg

reprise wrote: »

I can condense. I am of the belief that marriage, by design, was simply not intended for same sex couples as it was focused and based on biological parentage and children within a defined set of parameters.

If you wish to change those parameters, you must be prepared to defend your reasons. Trying to make out that changing the parameters can redefine marriage and alter the original intent is simply disingenuous. Hence my question asking about the marriage of brothers.

I understood that part. It was what you were suggesting I was saying which confused me.

As for your argument, it is only your belief that marriage is set within those parameters. it is certainly not established fact.

If your argument is based on its original design, then marriage was certainly not what was best for the child (in some early formulations of marriage, fathers had the right to kill or sell their children for example) - it was about property, control, power, wealth etc. Neither the wife nor the child had much in the way of rights, so arguing now that the institution was designed to primarily have regard to their welfare would be disingenuous.

Indeed, i think any arguments which claim we should be beholden to the original purpose or state of marriage would reflect poorly on those making them, as it would require you to accept or condone many morally repugnant.

The idea that a husband didn't need his wife's consent for sex for example very much underpinned the traditional formulation of marriage, which saw her as is property to do with what he wished.

If you are looking at the purpose and design of modern marriage, which is less than 100 years old, there is no reason to suppose it is primarily about children's rights in the way you argue - and certainly not about the narrow concept of biological parentage. It is an equal partnership between two people who love each other who wish to make a life long commitment to one another. Hence we allow women in the workplace, no fault divorce, contraception and family planning, tax benefits for childless marriages, adultery.

The lack of children or child production capacity has never been an impediment at all to straight people marrying, or to the validity of their marriage, so it is again disingenuous to argue that it is for gay people.

Even if we accept that marriage is primarily intended for child rearing purposes (which I don't), you haven't even pointed to anything which would suggest marriage equality would undermine it (given that we allow adoption and fertility treatments such as sperm and egg donation for married couples I'm going to ignore your absurd attempt to confine any such purpose to the raising of biological children only).

LGBT people already have children, and those children would be best served by providing them with full rights vis-a-vis both their parents (at least one of whom will be non-biological) though the framework of marriage. As i said, LGBT people are not in too disimilar a situation to infertile couples, and have many similar optinos open to them. They have been demonstrated to be just as capable parents to children as heterosexual couples as well.

So how is any supposed child rearing purpose of marriage undermined exactly?

And the brother reference still makes zero sense, particularly when you suggested it was similar to a sexual and romantic union, much less the freudian slip comment. It is absurd and doesnt really add anything to a mature debate

Ave Sodalis

arayess wrote: »

Have gay marriage all you want but spare me the hand-wringing over equality

What would you call it? Is it not part of equality? Why can't it be called equality if that's what it is?

To Elland Back

floggg wrote: »

So all LGBT people should be disadvantaged legally because you want to teach some people you consider bullies a lesson?

That's hardly fair, is it? And taking such a stance erodes an moral high ground which you might seek.

Edit - actually, as pointed out above, by voting No would you not be rewarding the bullies on the No side. There are lots, some of which have been saying some incredibly nasty things about LGBT people, their parents and their families.

It is natural reaction to being bullied that someone might take such action. I have no problem in someone arguing their point strongly, but personal abuse if you hold a different opinion is unacceptable (on both sides).

I intend to vote yes, but if the some of the vitriol that I have heard lately gathers momentum, it might make me reconsider, as is my right

efb

To Elland Back wrote: »

It is natural reaction to being bullied that someone might take such action. I have no problem in someone arguing their point strongly, but personal abuse if you hold a different opinion is unacceptable (on both sides).

I intend to vote yes, but if the some of the vitriol that I have heard lately gathers momentum, it might make me reconsider, as is my right

You can change your vote cos you didn't like your breakfast that's your right too

floggg

reprise wrote: »

And again, marriage has a primary focus on providing the best possible environment for the children that it may produce.

Just so we are clear - that's the children that it may produce.

That distinction doesn't really plug the holes in your argument. It doesnt change the fact that infertile couples are in a similar situation to LGBT couples.


So either we accept that the inability to conceive children naturally and unassisted is not a requirement for marriage, or we say infertile couples should not be permitted to marry under the current formulation of marriage.

floggg

To Elland Back wrote: »

It is natural reaction to being bullied that someone might take such action. I have no problem in someone arguing their point strongly, but personal abuse if you hold a different opinion is unacceptable (on both sides).

I intend to vote yes, but if the some of the vitriol that I have heard lately gathers momentum, it might make me reconsider, as is my right

It is entirely your right, but I still can't understand it.

Surely LGBT people have suffered much more serious bullying than opponents of equality for LGBT people. So surely you should be more likely to react to that bullying, no?

Why is bullying by some supporters on one side of the debate an issue for you, but not bullying by some supporters on the other side of the debate?

the_monkey

Sheep Lover wrote: »

I will vote no in this referendum

Morning Adolf

floggg

sup_dude wrote: »

What would you call it? Is it not part of equality? Why can't it be called equality if that's what it is?

Can i suggest you just ignore the red herring slippery slope, equality for all non-existent groups of mothers who want to marry their daughters nonsense.

I very much doubt there is anybody who wants to marry their daughter, so lets not side track the issue arguing about whether or not we should be fighting for it.

its just muddying the issue and playing into the hands of all the slippery slope arguments, as here we are lumping all the issues in as one.

osarusan

Funny how almost all of those who claim to be swayed by the vitriol and insults involved only comment on the 'yes' side.

They seem to miss the vitriol and insults coming from the 'no' side.

I mean, you would think that anybody whose vote would change depending on the ugly language coming from one side or another would have had their mind irrevocably made up by the 'sounds of sodomy' leaflet.

Herb Powell

I'll voting yes because I'm not an absolute cunnt.

AudreyHepburn

I'll vote yes because there is absolutely no good reason to vote no and I don't believe that I or anyone else should have the right to dictate anyone's private lives.

Riverireland

Hat would the situation be for bi sexuals? Would they not need to marry both a man and a woman? Thanks.

Daith

Riverireland wrote: »

Hat would the situation be for bi sexuals? Would they not need to marry both a man and a woman? Thanks.

No, bisexuality doesn't mean you're only attracted to two different genders at the same time.

ZiabR

Yes from me.

arayess

efb wrote: »

Equality and polygamy lol

Please enlighten me to your point

what do you know of polygamy ?which I mean in the broad sense

Cabaal

Ok lets look at this and lets look at who's campaigning for a no on this,

This might be somewhat ranty but stick with it, a few weeks ago I saw that the Catholic Church has finally started its campaign against marriage equality,

The Catholic Church all of a sudden seems awful concerned about the children of Ireland as they believe its a "grave injustice" if Ireland makes it legal for gay and lesbian couples to marry.

Their new tactic? Claiming every child has the right to a mother and father in a loving marriage. (this ignores the fact that over 40% of children born in Ireland are born outside of a marriage based on 2013 figures) Do the Catholic Church somehow believe all these children are less loved and cared for?.

Funny thing is, for an organization that now acts so very concerned about children they were more then happy to sell off children in Ireland for over 3 decades to American couples. Not to mention the hundreds of cover ups of sexual abuse which were covered up by the Vatican's own policies on how to handle cover-ups.

I also note that Bishop Kevin Doran is involved in this campaign against marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples. For those that have not heard of Kevin, he used to be on the board of Dublin's Mater Hospital.

In 2005 Kevin and two other individuals on the board of the hospital took the decision to stop trials of the drug for lung cancer patients. The reason?? They objected because female patients who could get pregnant would have to take contraceptives under the treatment. The drug to be tested at the time may have prolonged the lives of lung cancer patients by several months.

Kevin & his "friends" objected to use of the drug because women taking contraceptives was against the catholic church's "ethos". Due to this the cancer treatment was stopped.

So when it comes to cancer, they'd rather a women would die quickly then take the pill. In my book thats pretty messed up thinking. So forgive me if I don't respect Kevin on any level, he is pond scum and nothing more.

The bottom line is gay and lesbian couples deserve marriage equality, if a couple wants to get married then that is their personal choice.

If you think that marriage equality somehow de-value's your own marriage then you must be in an awful insecure marriage to begin with as I know that in the morning if marriage equality passes it doesn't change my marriage to my wife or my love for her one bit.

A marriage is what YOU as a couple make it, not what the catholic church claims it stand for. Thats why many people get married and decide never to have children for whatever the reason, thats their choice. It doesn't mean their marriage is less of a marriage because of this.

If you think that marriage is only to create a loving family for children then you do a disservice to the 40% of children born outside of marriage in Ireland by even suggesting that their parents somehow love or care for them in a lesser way to a couple that is married.

At the end of the day unlike nuns, priests and bishops the vast majority of people that will vote on marriage equality in 2015 have allowed themselves the most normal and natural thing in the world......to have feelings, relationships and sex with another human being.

How priests and bishops feel they are somehow qualified to comment on relationships and sex when they deny themselves these very normal feelings and experiences is beyond me. Would you trust a person to tell you how to drive if they never drove a car?

For those of us that have allowed themselves to create relationships, marry, divorce, have sex or whatever, you know that real life and marriage isn't some super dream land were children will experience nothing negative.

The Catholic church's attempt to somehow classify marriage as something that no gay or lesbian couple should ever experience is utter nonsense and a few very short years from now we'll look back at Bishop Kevin Doran and Bishop Liam MacDaid and call them bigots,

I'll be voting yes in May,

Riverireland

Daith wrote: »

No, bisexuality doesn't mean you're only attracted to two different genders at the same time.

Can you clarify what a bi sexuals marriage would entail then. My understanding is that a bi sexual is attracted to both men and women? Surely that would involve a lot of marriages and divorces or numerous extra marital affairs unless they were allowed to marry one of each? Thanks.

Duggy747

I'll be voting yes because I haven't seen one good solid reason not to throughout this entire debate.