# Marriage equality referendum - "rights" to kids etc.



## Betsy Og

I will be voting yes, presuming yes means allowing marriage equality. Not so much because I think the civil partner legislation is lacking, but more that it would be a signal of true equality.

On the Claire Byrne show, a lot of the talk was about children and associated rights. My overall view is that every child needs protection be they born of marriage, outside marriage, to gay parents (of either gender) or whatever. So, broad assumptions of quality of care or "better for the child" are not reliable IMHO.

As regards same sex parents, I'm reminded of a quote from Juno & the Paycock (O'Casey play) - this is approximate now; Woman 1: "the poor lad, he'll have to grow up without a father"
Woman 2: "sure he'll have what's better, two mothers".

However, does society have a different view re 2 fathers?, I think it does. Maybe this goes back to the "all men are useless with babies or, generally, domestically" like all the washing powder ads etc tell us. But is there a darker more unspoken fear??, two men and a small child, are people subconsciously making a jump to paedophilia? I'm sure stats say that most abuse happens between the biological father and daughter, however we're in such a frenzy off the back of clerical abuse scandals (adult men and small boys) that it permeates everything - e.g. coaching kids, I think I'd spontaneously combust if some parent didnt show up and there was a risk I'd be left alone with their child - not that I'd let it happen, at a minimum I'd have my own lads or another adult around - but you know what I mean, will that hysteria leak into this debate.

I'd welcome some expert to come forward and give us the facts and the stats (which I'd imagine are positive), that gay men are less of a risk to children, there is no link between homosexuality and paedophilia. I'd imagine gay men adopting/fathering a surrogate will have more involvement with social services than others (not saying they should, but I betcha they will/do), so I think this should not be an issue.

In one way I'm reluctant to even bring up this topic, but all the same I think if Ireland wants to move on we have to confront the darkest corners and let in the light. I will guarantee that, in the debate, there will be loads of negative inference about 2 father families, but it'll be careful and insidious.

p.s. Donal Og programme was good, shows we're some bit down the road compared to other places.


----------



## Purple

I share all of your concerns. In think it’s well established that gay men are far less likely to abuse children than straight men but I would also welcome the facts.
On the more general issue of two fathers I think the issues around that will stem from the general position that fathers are regarded as second class parents by the state and state services. There is an assumption that children should be with their mother and unless she is grossly incompetent and/or negligent she will be in the driving seat in any custody battle.
That feeds into this particular debate in the following ways;

Male couples seeking to adopt a child will be at the back of the queue if there are also female couples in the mix.
If a male/female marriage breaks up and the mother enters a same sex relationship it will have no bearing on her access or custody of the children. If the father enters a same sex relationship it most certainly will have a negative bearing on his access and custody of his children.
In our modern and progressive society where so many things have changed for the better our attitude to fatherhood seems to be based on all of the negative stereotypes from the past. Sexism towards men is rampant and acceptable. I don’t blame women in general or feminism in particular, it’s more complex than that and one group asserting their rights didn’t deliberately cause another to be disenfranchised.


----------



## Leper

I'm getting a trifle confused here and as I am not homophobic and have seen well known homosexual people state that they do not agree with gay couples being given the right to adopt children.  Without clogging up the debate can anybody inform us of the full truth of what will happen in adopting children if we vote in favour of Gay Marriage. I would ask that the reasons given are kept within the boundary of not being homophobic.


----------



## Purple

Leper said:


> I'm getting a trifle confused here and as I am not homophobic and have seen well known homosexual people state that they do not agree with gay couples being given the right to adopt children.  Without clogging up the debate can anybody inform us of the full truth of what will happen in adopting children if we vote in favour of Gay Marriage. I would ask that the reasons given are kept within the boundary of not being homophobic.



There two issues will, apparently, be dealt with in separate pieces of legislation. Therefore they will not be linked legislatively.

To me people are either equal or they are not so given that I believe people should be equal I therefore cannot object to a same sex couple adopting children.


----------



## Firefly

I cannot understand anyone objecting to gay marriage to be honest - how exactly will it affect them anyway?  

Regarding gay adoption, I don't believe there will be a referedum on this anytime soon on the basis of previous posts re 2 x fathers. It's a pity though as there is (I imagine) such a great supply of parents looking to adopt compared to children available for adoption - each set of potential parents should be rated on their suitability for each child, regardless of their sexual orientation. I would sooner be raised by 2 loving fathers than by a mother & father with issues. 

Firefly.


----------



## Betsy Og

The jist of the argument from the Iona representative was that marriage is defined in the constitution within the article on family. So if you permit same sex marriage then automatically there is equality on family issues like adoption. Per above I dont see that as an issue were it to be the case. But assuming you might have a problem with that they are recommending a No vote on that basis - dunno it its even a genuine point or not (any constitutional lawyers hanging out here??), but chances are it is a sustainable legal view because, whether you like Iona or not, they dont seem to be incompetent in the people they put forward or the positions they take. No doubt there will be many a red herring over the next 5 or so months.

If that is a legal issue then a smart move would be to separate (if possible) marriage and family. Apart from the rights of children, now on their own legislative footing I think, I dont see why issues like adoption etc would need to be in the constitution.


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> I cannot understand anyone objecting to gay marriage to be honest


 I'm all in favour of it; why should they be happy? 



Betsy Og said:


> If that is a legal issue then a smart move would be to separate (if possible) marriage and family. Apart from the rights of children, now on their own legislative footing I think, I dont see why issues like adoption etc would need to be in the constitution.


I think we also need to separate religious and civil marriage more definitively. No priest or rabbi or mullah should act as an agent of the state so couples should have to go the a registry office to sign a civil register in order to constitute a civil marriage.


----------



## flowerman

Supposedly God and This post will be deleted if not edited immediately and all religions tell us all to be good human beings,yet its Religion that is screwing up society.
And thanks to the Catholic Church and "their priests" we have so many kids lives ruined in this country and all around the world.
The Catholic Church are not exactly in a position to lecture people about a matter like this,when alot of their people and "Gods Followers" destroyed kids lives.



If 2 women or 2 men want to marry then let them marry.
If they want to have kids or adopt then let them.

Some of my wifes long term male and female friends are gay.I became friends with them and they are some of the most sincere,honest and nicest people on this planet.

Let them live their life how they want to,and if that means wanting to marry and have a familt/kids then let it be.


----------



## Leper

Firefly said:


> . . . - each set of potential parents should be rated on their suitability for each child, regardless of their sexual orientation. I would sooner be raised by 2 loving fathers than by a mother & father with issues.
> 
> Firefly.



But, would you sooner be raised by a loving mother and loving father without issues than by two loving homosexual fathers (also without issues)?


----------



## terrysgirl33

Leper said:


> But, would you sooner be raised by a loving mother and loving father without issues than by two loving homosexual fathers (also without issues)?



I think it depends on who can offer a pony.  Or a swimming pool...

I'm joking, but it would be a good situation if there were two couples suitable for adoption, and you could pick which one you wanted based on shared interests or similar life goals?


----------



## terrysgirl33

Purple said:


> I'm all in favour of it; why should they be happy?




Yep, share the misery...


----------



## Vanilla

Just yes, a million times yes. We should have equality, both for marriage and in relation to adoption etc etc.


----------



## Leper

terrysgirl33 said:


> . . .  if there were two couples suitable for adoption, and you could pick which one you wanted based on shared interests or similar life goals?



You see that's part of the problem - the person being adopted does not have the choice; the choice will be made by somebody in our Health Service Exectuive (HSE).


----------



## Leper

Vanilla said:


> Just yes, a million times yes. We should have equality, both for marriage and in relation to adoption etc etc.


Please expand your submission.  Have you no reservations whatsoever regarding adoption? Is this your opinion only? Have you discussed the issue with people who have adopted children? Have you discussed the issue with anybody who gave a baby up for adoption?


----------



## Purple

Leper said:


> Please expand your submission.  Have you no reservations whatsoever regarding adoption? Is this your opinion only? Have you discussed the issue with people who have adopted children? Have you discussed the issue with anybody who gave a baby up for adoption?


Leper is asking good questions here.
All else being equal should a child go to a stable and loving heterosexual couple or a stable and loving homosexual couple?
I’m not sure what the answer is and if it’s an issue for anyone deciding where the child should go then there is no equality.
In practice it doesn’t work that way but is it a case of “all animals are equal but some are more equal than others”?


----------



## michaelm

Betsy Og said:


> I will be voting yes, presuming yes means allowing marriage equality. Not so much because I think the civil partner legislation is lacking, but more that it would be a signal of true equality.


I will be voting no because I believe that the civil partnership legislation is sufficient and that marriage is a gendered institution.





Betsy Og said:


> The jist of the argument from the Iona representative was that marriage is defined in the constitution within the article on family. So if you permit same sex marriage then automatically there is equality on family issues like adoption.


This is the nub of the issue.  The new provision will be inserted under article 41 (The Family) of the constitution.  Adoption agencies will be unable to favour placing a child with a mother & father over other configurations.





Firefly said:


> I would sooner be raised by 2 loving fathers than by a mother & father with issues.


Indeed. That's a bit of a straw man.  Other than adoption by one parent or relative the choice will be between (issue-free) mother & father or same-sex couples and it will be a minefield for the adoption agency if this referendum is carried.





Purple said:


> All else being equal should a child go to a stable and loving heterosexual couple or a stable and loving homosexual couple? . . if it’s an issue for anyone deciding where the child should go then there is no equality.


Adoption should be about the best interest of the child, not equal rights for adults to adopt children.  If it's about the child then there is no inequality.  The state should not deny an adoptive child the right to a mother or a father, even in our modern and progressive society.


----------



## dereko1969

Leper said:


> I'm getting a trifle confused here and as I am not homophobic and have seen well known homosexual people state that they do not agree with gay couples being given the right to adopt children.  Without clogging up the debate can anybody inform us of the full truth of what will happen in adopting children if we vote in favour of Gay Marriage. I would ask that the reasons given are kept within the boundary of not being homophobic.



Which well-known homosexuals?



Leper said:


> But, would you sooner be raised by a loving mother and loving father without issues than by two loving homosexual fathers (also without issues)?





Leper said:


> You see that's part of the problem - the person being adopted does not have the choice; the choice will be made by somebody in our Health Service Exectuive (HSE).





Leper said:


> Please expand your submission.  Have you no reservations whatsoever regarding adoption? Is this your opinion only? Have you discussed the issue with people who have adopted children? Have you discussed the issue with anybody who gave a baby up for adoption?



What is your opinion on Gay adoption, you're querying others stating they are in favour of it without detailing why you're against it.
How many adoptions are there in this country every year compared to the numbers seeking adoption? I don't think there's a huge surplus of those seeking kids over those seeking to be adopted, so the Sophie's Choice you're positing is unlikely to come to pass. It's just trying to muddy the waters. I wouldn't have a problem with the people who currently decide on adoptions continuing that role when the pool of potential parents is expanded by this legislative change.
Also Firefly there's no need for a referendum on "gay" adoption, it's not in the constitution.


----------



## Betsy Og

michaelm said:


> Adoption should be about the best interest of the child, not equal rights for adults to adopt children. If it's about the child then there is no inequality. The state should not deny an adoptive child the right to a mother or a father, even in our modern and progressive society.



I agree with the first 2 lines and think we should leave it at that. Let the adoption agency sort it out, that's what they're there for. If all mixed couple get the kids and the gay couples dont then, bar a judicial review for bias if necessary, I think the adoption agency must know best and their opinion should stand. The last line taps into the idea that mammy & daddy are best, maybe they are, I dont know, it all depends on the individuals concerned in a particular case, but I dont think it needs straight-jacketed by the constitution.

It is probably more likely that male couples would look to the surrogacy route - because with the struggle straight couples have to adopt, I'd say it would be more practical. Given recent cases I think the whole area of surrogacy needs to be reviewed, probably regulated, but I think writing discriminatory legislation would be a retrograde step.

Overall it would be helpful if there could be two separate debates, but I accept that it looks like, given our constitution, the whole ball of wax will need to be dealt with now. Its a kind of double of quits scenario, if current one passes (I think it will), then seems automatic equality on adoption etc., but the margin of passing could be tight due to peoples reservations re kids. If marriage was clearly on its own, then think landslide Yes. If was then a separate referendum on equality re kids/adoption, I'd say it could be very close run and I wouldnt be that confident it would pass. So maybe better to take the annoyance and risk of dealing with both issues together, as that may get both over the line.


----------



## Firefly

Leper said:


> But, would you sooner be raised by a loving mother and loving father without issues than by two loving homosexual fathers (also without issues)?



That's a fair question. In my opinion any decision should be based soley on what's best for the child. All things being equal (i.e. both sets of potential parents being kind and suitable) then I would have to go with a m+f couple. Simply because I think it would be easier on the child on a number of fronts. Take for example the child being a girl - it would be a lot easier for her to ask her mother about things like periods etc. It would also eliminate a potential reason to be bullied. 

Having said all that, this assumes a like for like comparison of would-be parents. No child should go to parents not suitable for a child regardless of their sexual orientation. 

Firefly.


----------



## Purple

Betsy Og said:


> It is probably more likely that male couples would look to the surrogacy route - because with the struggle straight couples have to adopt, I'd say it would be more practical


That's the key issue. At the moment they can't adopt as a couple. The idea that there will be a competition between a straight couple and a gay couple is not realistic.


----------



## michaelm

Purple said:


> The idea that there will be a competition between a straight couple and a gay couple is not realistic.


How so?  As you suggesting that  straight couples will trump and gay couples such that gay couples will only be able to adopt where one is either a parent or a relative of the child?


----------



## The_Banker

Generally when it comes to votes like this regarding constitutional change on social matters, I check what the Catholic Church has to say on it and then I vote against their opinion.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> How so?  As you suggesting that  straight couples will trump and gay couples such that gay couples will only be able to adopt where one is either a parent or a relative of the child?


No, I'm saying that it doesn't arise. There aren't lots of kids in orphanages in Ireland, despite what American TV producers may think.


----------



## dereko1969

This is all an attempt to muddy the waters. That's why the Government are dealing with them separately. The referendum is about Marriage Equality, nothing else. As can be seen by some commentators here, the muddying is working, there's no reference to adoption in the Constitution why are people stating that there is?


----------



## ajapale

What is the impact of a yes vote on pensions? And in particular DB spouses and children's schemes?

What is the impact of a yes vote on inheritance rights? And in particular land owner / farmers in rural Ireland?


----------



## Betsy Og

ajapale said:


> What is the impact of a yes vote on pensions? And in particular DB spouses and children's schemes?
> 
> What is the impact of a yes vote on inheritance rights? And in particular land owner / farmers in rural Ireland?


Fairly sure the Civil Partnership legislation puts civil partners on a equal footing with spouses so I think no impact on the issues you mention.


----------



## Leper

dereko1969 said:


> Which well-known homosexuals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your opinion on Gay adoption, you're querying others stating they are in favour of it without detailing why you're against it.
> How many adoptions are there in this country every year compared to the numbers seeking adoption? I don't think there's a huge surplus of those seeking kids over those seeking to be adopted, so the Sophie's Choice you're positing is unlikely to come to pass. It's just trying to muddy the waters. I wouldn't have a problem with the people who currently decide on adoptions continuing that role when the pool of potential parents is expanded by this legislative change.
> Also Firefly there's no need for a referendum on "gay" adoption, it's not in the constitution.



1. I never said I was against the marriage of a homosexual couple.
2. I do not know how many adoptions there are in Ireland.
3. I do not know how many applicants there are for adopting babies.
4. I do know there is a surplus of applicants to the amount of babies available.
5. For various reasons I am not going to name any well-known homosexual not in favour of homosexual adopting babies. 

I hope these answer the questions raised in an earlier post.


----------



## michaelm

Purple said:


> The idea that there will be a competition between a straight couple and a gay couple is not realistic.





Purple said:


> I'm saying that it doesn't arise. There aren't lots of kids in orphanages in Ireland, despite what American TV producers may think.


Yes, so given that more people are looking to adopt than there are children to adopt how does that mean that competition between a straight couple and a gay couple is not realistic or will not arise?


----------



## Purple

Most adoptions in Ireland are inter-family or inter-country.
If a gay couple adopt and raise the child of a family member only one of them can ever be recognised as that child's parent.
Say a woman has a child and then enters a long term and committed relationship with another woman. They both raise that child as their own and the child only knows the two women as its parents. The state gives no recognition to the non genetic parent. If the biological parent dies and the biological grandparents don't approve of the remaining parent they can take the child away from them and stop them from having any contact. That is wrong in so many ways and needs to be addressed.

Equality is equality. The reservations I have about how the child of a same sex couple will be treated by some in society are far outweighed by the reservations I have about this state treating some of its citizens as second class or somehow lesser because of their sexual orientation.


----------



## michaelm

Everyone is for equality.  But nothing in you post bolsters your assertion that competition is not a realistic prospect.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> Everyone is for equality.  But nothing in you post bolsters your assertion that competition is not a realistic prospect.


It's certainly possible but not likely. Laws shouldn't be make on the basis of hard cases.


----------



## Betsy Og

michaelm said:


> Everyone is for equality.  But nothing in you post bolsters your assertion that competition is not a realistic prospect.


But so what if competition is a realistic prospect?, how does that have any bearing on the right to marry or, if the issues must be linked, to right to adopt? Sure there is already intense over-demand, the adoption service has to deal with that, ok there may be more seeking to adopt, but I'm sure the poor dears can cope.


----------



## michaelm

Betsy Og said:


> But so what if competition is a realistic prospect?, how does that have any bearing on the right to marry or, if the issues must be linked, to right to adopt?


There is no right to adopt.  The amendment will mean that the state or it's agencies cannot differentiate between same-sex and straight married couples.  The knock on effect of this is that the adoption agency will not be able to favour placing a child in a mother/father situation.  I have zero interest in anyone’s sexual orientation.  My view is that we already have equality in that the gendered institution of marriage and civil partnerships are equivalent.  The referendum is long odds on to pass (1/12) in any event.


----------



## Ceist Beag

michaelm said:


> The knock on effect of this is that the adoption agency will not be able to favour placing a child in a mother/father situation.


That's a very misleading take on it. Maybe the adoption agent won't be able to favour placing the child in a mother/father situation _on basis of the gender of the parents_, but there are plenty of other reasons why the adoption agency might deem the mother/father option to be the favoured place for a child. As Betsy Og said, when it comes to adoption decisions I'm sure the adoption agency are best placed to make this decision and nothing in this marriage referendum would impact on their ability to make this decision as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## michaelm

You say my statement is very misleading but then seem to agree with it.  I have no doubt that the adoption agency people know what they are doing but we will be trying one hand behind their back in certain cases . . they will be concerned to avoid any claims of discrimination.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> You say my statement is very misleading but then seem to agree with it.  I have no doubt that the adoption agency people know what they are doing but we will be trying one hand behind their back in certain cases . . they will be concerned to avoid any claims of discrimination.


If they act in the best interest of the child then there is no discrimination.


----------



## michaelm

Purple said:


> If they act in the best interest of the child then there is no discrimination.


And no inequality.  I hope that they can continue to act in the best interest of each child unencumbered by the passing of this referendum, despite my concerns that the provision isn't as benign as is being suggested and that it will have unintended(?) consequences.


----------



## Sol28

flowerman said:


> Some of my wifes long term male and female friends are gay.I became friends with them and they are some of the most sincere,honest and nicest people on this planet.



And some of them are right erm... Gombeens. But equality allows you to recognise the positive and negative features of an individual - just not tarnish them all based on a group's perception.


----------



## Leper

I listened to two politicians (both are Gay) talking about the Gay Marriage referendum on the radio recently.  Both agreed that if the referendum was held in this month (January) the right to Gay Marriage would be defeated.  Can anybody say why it will not be defeated come May? Or is the whole matter a foregone conclusion?


----------



## michaelm

Leper said:


> Can anybody say why it will not be defeated come May? Or is the whole matter a foregone conclusion?


I suspect that the politicians don't actually believe what they are saying but want to avoid complacency on the Yes side so that the Yes campaigners and ultimately Yes voters turn out.  I suspect that a a higher percentage of No voters will vote and that they are less likely to voice their opinion for fear of being wrongly labelled as homophobic.


----------



## Sol28

The worry is that the people who are more than likely to Accept the ammendment are the very same people who wont vote. Those who oppose the referendum will turn up in greater numbers proportionally speaking.

Its not all an age thing - but the younger voters are more likely to vote Yes - and with the referendum in May - many university students will be in Exam mode and may not make it home to vote.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Sol28 said:


> The worry is that the people who are more than likely to Accept the ammendment are the very same people who wont vote. Those who oppose the referendum will turn up in greater numbers proportionally speaking.
> 
> Its not all an age thing - but the younger voters are more likely to vote Yes - and with the referendum in May - many university students will be in Exam mode and may not make it home to vote.


PaddyPower goes 9 to 1 *on* a Yes, 9 to 2 *against* a No.  For the uninitiated that means Paddy reckons the chances of a Yes are 83% (after allowing for his margin).  Based on opinion polls I would have thought it would be much higher, so you might be right _Sol28;_ come the date, things could change.

For the record Paddy is going 4/6 under 62.5% Yes vote and Evens over 62.5%.  That means Paddy thinks the result will come in around 60%.

I find Paddy to be much more reliable on these matters than the official pundits; when there is money at stake, biases and prejudices tend to go out the window.


----------



## michaelm

Duke of Marmalade said:


> I find Paddy to be much more reliable on these matters than the official pundits; when there is money at stake, biases and prejudices tend to go out the window.


Me too, although a No has shortened in the odds (was 11/2) and the first Nice referendum was 11/2 for a No, so the bookies don't always get it right.  I guess one reason they are running the gimmicky referendum on reducing the age floor for presidential election candidates to 21 (from 35) on the same day is to try to attract the younger voters who will also vote yes to same-sex marriage.


----------



## Betsy Og

michaelm said:


> I guess one reason they are running the gimmicky referendum on reducing the age floor for presidential election candidates to 21 (from 35) on the same day is to try to attract the younger voters who will also vote yes to same-sex marriage.



Could well be. But I suppose there's also big cost involved in running these things so you'd never be better off have 5 or 6 questions on the same day and get it all done.


----------



## michaelm

For sure there are savings to be made by running concurrent referendums but at what cost? changing the constitution is not a trivial matter.  The second referendum is entirely unnecessary but I guess they want to pretend that the constitutional convention wasn't pointless.  If they wanted to tinker with the presidency they should have upped the minimum age to 60 and made it one term only.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

michaelm said:


> Me too, although a No has shortened in the odds (was 11/2) and the first Nice referendum was 11/2 for a No, so the bookies don't always get it right.  I guess one reason they are running the gimmicky referendum on reducing the age floor for presidential election candidates to 21 (from 35) on the same day is to try to attract the younger voters who will also vote yes to same-sex marriage.


Yes there is the odd exception, but some recent classics are 1/6 Obama at the time of the last election and 1/6 a No in the Scottish Ref - in both cases the media were blaring "too close to call".  Here's another one - you would think by all the hysteria that UKIP are on the verge of a Syriza style shock - the betting markets reckon they will get less than 5 of the 600 or so Westminster seats, still might hold the balance of course.

I accept your take on young people's attitudes but it is not totally clear that because they would support the second ref as well that that would increase their share of the vote.  As an extreme imagine the second ref was that people under 35 need not pay income tax.  That would sure get them out in their droves, but it would also get everybody else out


----------



## NovaFlare77

michaelm said:


> And no inequality.  I hope that they can continue to act in the best interest of each child unencumbered by the passing of this referendum, despite my concerns that the provision isn't as benign as is being suggested and that it will have unintended(?) consequences.



The Adoption Act obliges adoption services and the Adoption Authority to make decisions with the child's best interests and welfare as the paramount considerations. That will continue to be the case no matter which way the referendum goes.

The only difference marriage makes to the adoption process is that married couples can apply jointly, and if deemed suitable, they take joint custody of the child. They still have to be assessed, vetted, interviewed and checked, and that's an intensive process that can take months. Invasive was how one journalist described it. If an applicant isn't deemed suitable, they can't adopt, regardless of their marital status. Marriage doesn't bring any greater "right to adopt", and there have been dozens of cases of unmarried people adopting.

As has been mentioned earlier in the thread, the adoption laws are being changed so that all couples, be they married, civil partners, or cohabiting, can apply jointly, and if deemed suitable, take joint custody. This was something recommended by the Children's Ombudsman back in 2009 when giving her advice on the current Adoption Act. It's also something that benefits the child, because it means every child adopted by a couple will now have a legally recognised relationship with both adoptive parents, no matter the parents marital status.

But even if the adoption laws weren't being changed, the only benefit marriage would bring to married same sex couples is the ability to apply jointly. After that, they're subject to the same checks and balances as everyone else.


----------



## Leper

Nice 'n' Easy debate there lads.  I got lost somewhere along the way with what are the issues and the real issues in this referendum.  There will be much of the same hammered out on our airwaves in the coming months.  The print media will be to the fore also.  The problem is what is the truth. And the truth never got in the way of any referendum/election in Ireland before and perhaps not in this referendum either.

The Way I See It:- Homosexual Marriage is the union of two people of the same sex.  (Hetrosexual) Marriage is the union of two people of different sex.  Sexual acts in either marriage are not much different in either other than one could produce offspring.  

Miriam O'Callaghan said:- The Leo Varadkar Interview in which he "came out" was "probably the most important interview of my life."  No offence to Miriam, but why was it the most important interview.  I can think of much more important interviews.  I listened to Dónal Óg Cusack on television recently in which he said "What is it to you, what I do in my bedroom?"  I believe this is the nub of the whole issue i.e. it is none of our business what sexual orientation anybody is.

The Problem:- Us (over 60's) were brought up to despise homosexual acts.  Believe me, some of the words used to describe homosexuals would put the word "queer" in the halfpenny place.  Then it became legal to be homosexual and suddenly we all had to flick the switch and say "We were wrong" and one thing we Irish are famous for is that we were never wrong.  

The Solution:- Live and let live.  I have no doubt that future social history buffs will look back on all this like we look back on the corked bottle of Smithwicks (nothin' like the aul bottle!).

With Paddy Power odds of 1/9 the referendum is going to be carried.  It is going to happen, get over it! The day after the referendum we will all continue to do what we usually do.  For a minute, let's say the referendum will not be carried; will it mean a whole lot of actual difference?

Last Wednesday my calendar informed me "You have grown up - when you learned to laugh at yourself."  Perhaps it is time for all of us to laugh at ourselves.


----------



## Gerry Canning

I cannot see how any sane person would ever not want equality.
I cannot see how any heterosexual or homosexual should not be treated equally.

However I have a bit of an issue over word Marriage.
In Constitution Marriage did not need to be legally defined as it was clearly understood to mean man&woman.

To now (change) what up to now means heterosexual marriage does that not in fairness change what generations construe as marriage and in a real way change it?

I am not a language expert but changing the normally understood meaning of a word will mean unforeseen challenges and they won,t all be positive.


Please , I am not trying to create a row but consider the way Government play with verbiage.
1. Using the word Equality is emotive, who does not want equality ? It hints that a contrary view to their Referendum means the contrarian is (backward)
2. On this Water Refund of 100 euro. They put in the word (Conservation)
Does that mean protesters are not in favour of conservation ie (backward) 

Changing the understood meaning of any word is fraught with unintended consequences


----------



## michaelm

NovaFlare77 said:


> The Adoption Act obliges adoption services and the Adoption Authority to make decisions with the child's best interests and welfare as the paramount considerations.


This constitutional amendment will mean that there is no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage and therefore the gender of the would-be parents will be excluded as a consideration; the Adoption Authority will not be at liberty to favour a mother & father situation over father x2 or mother x2 set-ups.


----------



## dereko1969

michaelm said:


> This constitutional amendment will mean that there is no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage and therefore the gender of the would-be parents will be excluded as a consideration; the Adoption Authority will not be at liberty to favour a mother & father situation over father x2 or mother x2 set-ups.


Again you are deliberately mixing up two separate topics. The Adoption Act will mean that, notwithstanding any constitutional amendment to marriage, that prospective parents, heterosexual, homosexual, married or unmarried will be treated equally. The child's best interest is taken as the paramount value.
The Adoption Act has nothing to do with the Marriage Equality referendum, just because you keep stating it, doesn't mean it's so. This is the typical Iona Institute playbook, confuse the electorate, create fear by mis-informing the public.


----------



## michaelm

I'm not deliberately mixing up or trying to confuse anything.  We have a different view on the implications of the proposed amendment.  I have no doubt that your view is genuinely held and it's not my problem if you think my view is disingenuous.  I fully agree that the child's best interest is (and will continue to be) taken as the paramount value however it seems glaringly obvious that post this referendum there can be no differentiation between heterosexual and homosexual marriage when weighing the child's best interest.


----------



## dereko1969

michaelm said:


> I'm not deliberately mixing up or trying to confuse anything.  We have a different view on the implications of the proposed amendment.  I have no doubt that your view is genuinely held and it's not my problem if you think my view is disingenuous.  I fully agree that the child's best interest is (and will continue to be) taken as the paramount value however it seems glaringly obvious that post this referendum there can be no differentiation between heterosexual and homosexual marriage when weighing the child's best interest.


Yes, but that will be the case following the passing of the Adoption Act, whether or not the Marriage Equality referendum is passed or not.
Why do you think there should be a differentiation between hetero and homo marriage in weighing up the child's best interest when you've already said that that interest is paramount?


----------



## michaelm

dereko1969 said:


> Why do you think there should be a differentiation between hetero and homo marriage in weighing up the child's best interest when you've already said that that interest is paramount?


The proposed amendment will place constitutional handcuffs on the Adoption Authority to the effect that they will be unable to favour a mother & father situation over same-sex situation when considering best interest.  This, allied with my view that civil partnership is a non-gender specific equivalent of the gendered institution of marriage, makes it a No from me.


----------



## Gerry Canning

AAM is the first place I have seen a reasoned discourse on the Marriage Referendum.
From the threads ,
1. Adoption criteria remain very strict.
2. If carried, any solid couple can be considered as adoptees.

Means all couples are (graded) on what is best for the child.
I do not read  opposition to the above.

I am taken with michaelm,s comment that marriage; by its understood nature is man & woman.
From my view I think to change the understood meaning of anything (marriage) is not fair to those who are already married ie man&woman.
Could the wording on the Referendum not have been changed to facilitate this?
I am very uncomfortable when something is to be changed under the blackmail verbiage of (equality.)

Could it again be our (leaders) jumped onto a Populist Bandwagon?
If so , 
from wishing to extend rights to couples, they may succeed in (de-righting) previous marriages?
And I am sure the Gay community are in no way in favour of discrimination. They understand discrimination. 

Just raising it and would appreciate other views. 

I think the 2nd referendum is a sop ,  smells of our (leaders) giving a little nod to constitutional change,(twits).
Again would appreciate other views.


----------



## Sol28

Obviously I am in favour of equal marriage.

However - defining the word marriage as only applying to Men and Women creates the segregation. If we start defining marriage as only Men and Women - what word can we use for same sex marriage. I am only totally against the phrase 'gay marriage', as again it creates segregation.

How will me marrying my (future) boyfriend be unfair to you, who is married to your wife. Can you explain how your relationship will change? Legally, morally or personally?

I watched the film Selma recently (out on general release on the 6th Feb). Its about the Selma riots, Martin Luther King and racial equality in the states. Watching the film it is abhorrent how a group of people born a certain way were treated so differently. We find it ludicrous that it was even an option to discriminate legally and morally - let alone only 50 years ago. Hopefully this referendum is passed - and that the next generations will look back at how ludicrous the current situation is for homosexual people.


----------



## Sol28

And I dont even want to comment on how ludicrous it is that I need to ask all of you for your permission to be treated equally.

Watch this video - Think its pretty self explanatory.


----------



## dereko1969

michaelm said:


> The proposed amendment will place constitutional handcuffs on the Adoption Authority to the effect that they will be unable to favour a mother & father situation over same-sex situation when considering best interest.  This, allied with *my view that civil partnership is a non-gender specific equivalent of the gendered institution of marriage, makes it a No from me*.



So basically, adoption has nothing to do with this, you'd be voting no anyway, so why not just state that at the outset? Also, again you're mis-interpreting the legislation. The Adoption Act will change what the Adoption Authority can do, not the referendum.



Gerry Canning said:


> AAM is the first place I have seen a reasoned discourse on the Marriage Referendum.
> From the threads ,
> 1. Adoption criteria remain very strict.
> 2. If carried, any solid couple can be considered as adoptees.
> 
> Means all couples are (graded) on what is best for the child.
> I do not read  opposition to the above.
> 
> I am taken with michaelm,s comment that marriage; by its understood nature is man & woman.
> From my view I think to change the understood meaning of anything (marriage) is not fair to those who are already married ie man&woman.
> Could the wording on the Referendum not have been changed to facilitate this?
> I am very uncomfortable when something is to be changed under the blackmail verbiage of (equality.)
> 
> Could it again be our (leaders) jumped onto a Populist Bandwagon?
> If so ,
> from wishing to extend rights to couples, they may succeed in (de-righting) previous marriages?
> And I am sure the Gay community are in no way in favour of discrimination. They understand discrimination.
> 
> Just raising it and would appreciate other views.
> 
> I think the 2nd referendum is a sop ,  smells of our (leaders) giving a little nod to constitutional change,(twits).
> Again would appreciate other views.



How does it change or diminish what those already married have? Did legislation forbidding marriage between the races being ended change the marriages of those who married within their own races beforehand? Equality isn't blackmail.


----------



## Sol28

michaelm said:


> This, allied with my view that civil partnership is a non-gender specific equivalent of the gendered institution of marriage, makes it a No from me.



Thats the issue - Civil Partnership is not the same as marriage - theres over a 100 different points of difference between both. When civil partnership was introduced it was a step forward - however - it actually enshrined discrimination. No mixed same couple can enter a civil partnership. No same sex couple can enter a marriage. It discriminates both ways.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Sol28 said:


> Thats the issue - Civil Partnership is not the same as marriage - theres over a 100 different points of difference between both. When civil partnership was introduced it was a step forward - however - it actually enshrined discrimination. No mixed same couple can enter a civil partnership. No same sex couple can enter a marriage. It discriminates both ways.


Sol 28.
  A mixed couple not being permitted to go for civil partnership could be construed as discriminatory only if some mixed couple objected.
My problem is I understand marriage to have always meant man&woman.

Maybe you have hit the solution,

In future all couples can only enter Civil Partnership.
I am uncomfortable in using words like discriminatory because society evolved with clear meanings to things.
These clear meanings may well now be shown as discriminatory but you just can,t back date a societal norm? can you ?
I would also have concerns that people will keep revising, I think in general leave the pasts flaws with the past.
Let us find new clarity in the way we understand things.

Let us find a new word for all loving couples and legislate accordingly.
(I know I am an optimist)


----------



## Sol28

Gerry Canning said:


> These clear meanings may well now be shown as discriminatory but you just can,t back date a societal norm? can you ?



Of course you can - Slavery (for instance) was a societal norm at one point. Now we cannot contemplate it as a norm. The civil service ban on married women was a norm.

Have you seen 'The Imitation Game'. The story of Alan Turing - the mathematician who cracked the enigma code that ultimatly saved millions in the Second World War. Well he was arrested for gross indecency (by having relations with another man) due to the laws in place in England at the time. He was whitewashed from history. Only in recent years has be been pardoned (posthumously). A man who died by age 41 as a result of his 'treatments'. A man now known as the father of computing and who could have used his genius for such much more. That societal norm is being corrected - slowly - but its happening.

What we must do is learn from the past and adapt our present for the benefit of the future.


----------



## Sol28

Gerry Canning said:


> In future all couples can only enter Civil Partnership.
> ....
> Let us find a new word for all loving couples and legislate accordingly.
> (I know I am an optimist)



The referendum is not about any religious connection to marriage. No one is fighting to make the churches enable marriage. 

This is about civil marriage. Call it civil partnership if you like - but for equality (in law) to be present - then everyone must enter CP - or Marriage - or have a choice as to which one they choose. No one should be barred from either terms.

But from a legislative point of view - amending the constitution to remove the term marriage and replace it with Civil Partnership would be a much bigger task. The current wording for the referendum is simple and fair.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Sol28 said:


> Of course you can - Slavery (for instance) was a societal norm at one point. Now we cannot contemplate it as a norm. The civil service ban on married women was a norm.
> 
> Have you seen 'The Imitation Game'. The story of Alan Turing - the mathematician who cracked the enigma code that ultimatly saved millions in the Second World War. Well he was arrested for gorss indecency due to the laws in place in England at the time. He was whitewashed from history. Only in recent years has be been pardoned (posthumously). A man who died by age 41 as a result of his 'treatments'. A man now known as the father of computing and who could have used his genius for such much more. That societal norm is being corrected - slowly - but its happening.
> 
> What we must do is learn from the past and adapt our present for the benefit of the future.


Sol,
I think we agree MUCH more than disagree.
Slavery is still understood as Slavery , time or norms will never change that.
The Marriage Ban , may when it was first started, made sense , as a society we outgrew its strictures. It is now part of what can be viewed today as a quaint relic of past times.
Alan Turing was treated by the (accepted) norms of that time. We cannot change what was done to him , what we have done is acknowledge that wrong.

Societal norm is not something we change by changing terminology in legislation.
As you say societal norms change ,and from my experience for the better.

I could well be wrong but would be slow to tamper with words that have had a clear meaning for generations and remain worried that our (lazy) legislators have taken the easy option on their wording.

I do not trust politicians who can see no  further than the next election, to bring in solidly thought out constitutional change .


----------



## Betsy Og

Gerry Canning said:


> I could well be wrong but would be slow to tamper with words that have had a clear meaning for generations and remain worried that our (lazy) legislators have taken the easy option on their wording.



In fairness that's not very compelling argument, and wouldn't it be a poor bargain to resolve that risk but at the cost of not extending the hand of acceptance and friendship (at the State level) to a heretofore marginalised section of our community? As a happily married hetrosexual I can certainly state that my marriage will in no way be diminished by same sex marriages. It might be diminished if I don't get the lawn mowed or the bins out or ........ but same sex marriage wont rank on the issues list


----------



## Leo

Gerry Canning said:


> I could well be wrong but would be slow to tamper with words that have had a clear meaning for generations and remain worried that our (lazy) legislators have taken the easy option on their wording.



If the meaning of words never changed, the field of etymology would be a dull place.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Leo said:


> If the meaning of words never changed, the field of etymology would be a dull place.


Agreed,

But normally meanings evolve over time ,not at a legislative pen-stroke. 
Maybe just this (oul-fella) being slow to change meanings.!

Betsy og.
For clarity, I hope I did not say any marriage would be diminished.
I have a simple doubt over changing what marriage is presently accepted as meaning.

I would hope the Gay community have moved beyond needing the acceptance of non gay people , at least I hope they have.

But then again maybe there are more bigots around than I know of?


----------



## Sol28

Gerry Canning said:


> I would hope the Gay community have moved beyond needing the acceptance of non gay people , at least I hope they have.



Unfortunately the straight world makes the decisions (by majority vote) - the straight world calls the shots, the straight world discriminates - so we still need the acceptance of non gay people.


----------



## Leper

Sol28 said:


> Unfortunately the straight world makes the decisions (by majority vote) - the straight world calls the shots, the straight world discriminates - so we still need the acceptance of non gay people.


Hold on there, Sol.  This is not true and there is no need to be criticising the non gay people unfairly.  Of course, there are homophobic straight people around and believe it or not there are homophobic homosexual people around also. 

The last sentence there might stun a few people.  I was invited to a discussion on what it was like to be gay back in the 50's, 60's,70's,80's,90's some weeks ago.  It was an eye opening experience.  All went well until a transexual took the floor and started complaining of the non acceptance of her among the homosexual community.

We have a referendum coming shortly.  The country will make its choice and if it doesn't it will not mean too much difference either according to an item in the Irish Independent recently (written by a gay man, incidentally, who advised he would be voting against the referendum)


----------



## Sol28

Leper said:


> Hold on there, Sol. This is not true and there is no need to be criticising the non gay people unfairly.



My response above was based on the line by



Gerry Canning said:


> I would hope the Gay community have moved beyond needing the acceptance of non gay people



Unfortunately due to the majority rules principle of true democracy (of which, obviously, I am a fan), the majority of people in power are non gay. The majority of people voting are non gay. Thats fact. I am not saying that the majority of people are homophobic - far from it - from the conversations in this thread we are getting a strong trend towards acceptance. But as it stands right now - we need the acceptance of non gay people to enable us to have full legislative and societal equality.

As the law stands there is discrimination; as society, in many parts of this country, stands there is discrimination. The law we can hopefully change very soon. Society will take time, but I hope and believe that this will occur. We have had big steps forward since decriminalisation of gay men in 1993 (there was never a law against lesbianism.), now we need to close the legal obstacles to equality.

I have been at a number of same sex marriages and civil partnerships. When a set of family and friends come together to celebrate the love of two people - the sense of joy at the celebration feels no different, despite the genders of the two main participants!

(And yes - there are many homophobic homosexuals - I have been one myself. Unable to accept others as I was unable to accept myself.)


----------



## Gerry Canning

Sol .

1.{majority rules principle of true democracy} of which you are a fan.
Be careful , In N Ire majority rule wasn,t a great advert.
Majority rules well ONLY  whilst protecting those of different ilk.
In Ire we are improving on protecting those of different ilks , I have no doubt that the Gay folk are now in a much much better place and I see no attempts to go back to the grey times..

 2.I disagree with you, you do not need my acceptance to have full legislative and societal acceptance.You are of our society.I think the Gay community underestimate their acceptance as part of our society.
The majority of people in power are not gay, however we have at least one Gay minister and a few well known gay deputies.
From my view they average out as the more impressive Td,s.

But as you I think would accept ; we always will have a % of twits!.


----------



## Purple

The constitution is there to protect citizens from the tyranny of the majority.


----------



## michaelm

Purple said:


> The constitution is there to protect citizens from the tyranny of the majority.


But the majority can change it.  I'd have thought that the constitution is there to protect citizens from the government of the day.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> But the majority can change it.  I'd have thought that the constitution is there to protect citizens from the government of the day.


The people can change it but the legislature proposes the amendment so there's a double check.
As far as I know an amendment cannot contradict a different article of the constitution but I'm far from being an expert and am open to correction.


----------



## Madangan

I'm voting Yes because I do not know of a single valid fact based reason to Vote No.

I'm adopted so I know a little about growing up with parents who are not biologically related to me.

I have gay friends, straight friends and, I suspect lots of bisexual friends who may not even know that themselves. I myself am straight but that is irrelevant. I have friends who are parents and some are better than others. I have gay friends who Social workers deemed the most suitable couple in their wider family to foster  children of other family members (the parents had a dysfunctional relationship at the time).

As as adopted person I know what made my childhood idyllic and it it was very idyllic. It was love. Pure and simple and loads of it. Love from, yes, my straight parents but also my wider family and neighbours. I had a far happier childhood than some of my friends whose, yes, straight parents, weren't always entirely loving to their kids or each other.

So comparing like with like it was love what made the difference, not gender, not sexuality, just love.

DNA does not a family make, nor does having two parents, nor does having a set of heterosexual parents. families come in all shapes and sizes, the Referendum will allow some people ,who are in love but who cannt currently get married,marry. That's all it is about.

The Proposed family legislation will simply provide a better legal framework for families that already exist and will continue to exist regardless of the legislation and the referendum.

I have always been in favour of " Gay Rights" long before now. I remember when sexual acts between two men in this country was against the law. If asked back then would I be in favour of marriage equality I am 100% certain I would have said yes. Sadly if asked back then would I be in favour of " Gay adoption" I am almost 100% certain I would not have been. However I remember the day I first thought about that and asked myself why?  Thought I was so liberal, so right on, so why No to Gay adoption? I realised that deep deep down where I like to hide the parts of me that aren't so nice I was in my own way homophobic, I thought two gay men ( don't ask me why I, a woman, honed in on fathers) were not suitable.

I vowed then to myself to think about it, every now and then. to just open my mind and now today I am totally in favour of gay adoption.

I think that here on AAM that being a Yes voter is easy and probably the norm although I have not read most posts on here to be honest. However because of the journey I came on myself vis a vis adoption I truly believe that is is possible to be latently homophobic and therefore  I will not label any one proposing to Vote NO as homophobic unless it is so express as to be impossible to ignore. I will however engage with No voters and try to change their mind right up to polling day.

As the best bewigged barristers say in their written opinions " Nothing further occurs"


----------



## Sol28

Excellent post Madangan.


----------



## michaelm

Madangan said:


> I truly believe that is is possible to be latently homophobic and therefore I will not label any one proposing to Vote NO as homophobic unless it is so express as to be impossible to ignore.


This seems to suggest that in your view anyone advocating a No vote is homophobic, but perhaps they can't help it as they don't realise it . . so you won't admonish them.  How tolerant.


----------



## Madangan

michaelm said:


> This seems to suggest that in your view anyone advocating a No vote is homophobic, but perhaps they can't help it as they don't realise it . . so you won't admonish them.  How tolerant.



No that's not what I said.

I believe many voting No are homophobic, most of those may be latently so. 

However I also believe there are people voting no who are not homophobic but are voting no for reasons they believe to be correct. And I believe those reasons not to be correct or factually incorrect.

However I refer you to my opening line. If someone gives me a valid fact based reason to vote No I will of course consider voting No.


Btw I don't know you, I haven't to my knowledge read any of your posts on this thread so I have no idea how you intend to vote or if you intend to vote or whatever your reasons are.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Madangan said:


> No that's not what I said.
> 
> I believe many voting No are homophobic, most of those may be latently so.
> 
> However I also believe there are people voting no who are not homophobic but are voting no for reasons they believe to be correct. And I believe those reasons not to be correct or factually incorrect.
> 
> However I refer you to my opening line. If someone gives me a valid fact based reason to vote No I will of course consider voting No.
> 
> 
> Btw I don't know you, I haven't to my knowledge read any of your posts on this thread so I have no idea how you intend to vote or if you intend to vote or whatever your reasons are.


This post has gone too quiet , so here is a thought or two!
My starting point is that Referendums should be NO unless there is compelling reason to change.

1. It is a Referendum to permit all couples to have the word Marriage onto their partnership.
2. It has nothing to do with Homophobia , you would think it was, by the posts I have viewed.I do think the inference, that no voters are homophobic is grossly unfair.
I expect it to be carried by two-thirds ,and would be concerned that other third are viewed as (backwoodsmen)
3. It changes the term Marriage from what was accepted as meaning Man and Woman ,to any couple.
4. I do not think it unreasonable for   Married couples to want to retain Marriage as man & wife.
5. I am uncomfortable on word equality being used , man and woman, is not the same as man & man or woman & woman.
6. Even in the unlikely event it is not carried , the Gods will have us revote !
7. The whole issue over kids is a much bigger issue than this ,and I do not see the relevance of bringing it up.

Quite sure I am missing a lot and need to take good advice from AAM readers.
I havn,t made my mind up yet.
Be pleasant on your comments , please.


----------



## Kine

They can have my kids - wrecking my head at the moment!


----------



## Vanilla

Gerry Canning said:


> T
> 2. It has nothing to do with Homophobia , you would think it was, by the posts I have viewed.I do think the inference, that no voters are homophobic is grossly unfair.
> 3. It changes the term Marriage from what was accepted as meaning Man and Woman ,to any couple.
> 4. I do not think it unreasonable for   Married couples to want to retain Marriage as man & wife.
> 5. I am uncomfortable on word equality being used , man and woman, is not the same as man & man or woman & woman.
> 6. Even in the unlikely event it is not carried , the Gods will have us revote !
> 7. The whole issue over kids is a much bigger issue than this ,and I do not see the relevance of bringing it up.


Re your numbered paragraphs:
2. Don't agree. In my opinion gay couples should have the right to marry, just like hetero couples and it is homophobic to think otherwise.
3.Yes which is a good thing.
4. I think that is unreasonable.
5. That's too bad for you, but I don't agree.
6. Which God are we talking about here?
7. It's all related- should a male/male or a female/female marriage have different rights to that of a male/female?


----------



## Sol28

I saw this picture and think its a very appropriate point for this discussion.






_
The Fact that you cant sell your daughter for three goats and a cow means we have already *redefined *marriage!
_
Not making light of this point but Marriage has already been redefined so many times in our lifetime. Women are no longer automatically domiciled where their (ex/estranged) husband resides, women can continue to work post marriage, women can apply for loans without their husbands permission, marital rape is now a crime, black can marry white etc..

Why are people scared that allowing two men to marry, or two women to marry will disrupt their existing marriage? If your marriage is strong - then the world wont change for you. If your marriage is not strong and falls apart - I dont think its anything to do with this possible change in law. You need to look to other factors.

What we are doing is creating an equality in law.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Sol28 said:


> I saw this picture and think its a very appropriate point for this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> The Fact that you cant sell your daughter for three goats and a cow means we have already *redefined *marriage!
> _
> Not making light of this point but Marriage has already been redefined so many times in our lifetime. Women are no longer automatically domiciled where their (ex/estranged) husband resides, women can continue to work post marriage, women can apply for loans without their husbands permission, marital rape is now a crime, black can marry white etc..
> 
> Why are people scared that allowing two men to marry, or two women to marry will disrupt their existing marriage? If your marriage is strong - then the world wont change for you. If your marriage is not strong and falls apart - I dont think its anything to do with this possible change in law. You need to look to other factors.
> 
> What we are doing is creating an equality in law.



Forgive me, but I do not see how changes within how women were unfairly treated in Marriage actually creates a redefined marriage.

I do see how defining  marriage of Black men to White women does redefine the (norm) of marriage, indeed that is the best example I have seen so far to vote yes on an equality basis.

I still have the notion ,that marriage is male and female.Therefore I just can,t readily place change into an equality pot?
I have a nagging doubt that Gays/Lesbians have a hang up over Marriage.
In my, maybe narrow view, { long live difference} .

Vanilla , the Gods I spoke of was our politicians, they have form, in that if they don,t like the way we vote on a referendum , they call it again in a couple of years.
In this referendum , I am inclined to vote yes but I do not want it being carried with a rump of no voters feeling they were bumped into a change by populism , better to have discussions like this.
Lets get it right and with maximum consensus. I think the no side are afraid of being branded Homophobic ,so in general the no vote is silent and probably ill informed.
I do not want Referendum carried with a sullen no vote!

Again , just some quick thoughts.


----------



## Sol28

Gerry Canning said:


> Forgive me, but I do not see how changes within how women were unfairly treated in Marriage actually creates a redefined marriage.



The laws were changed to redefine marriage. A single woman was allowed work, was allowed get a loan, was allowed live where she chose to live. The legal definition of marriage pre-these changes prevented a married woman from doing so. In more enlightened decades, the law was changed to allow a married woman to have self-determination. Do you not think that those changes in law redefined the LEGAL entity that is marriage?



Gerry Canning said:


> I have a nagging doubt that Gays/Lesbians have a hang up over Marriage.



Oh totally! Absolutely agree! As a member of the gay/lesbian brigade (well gay more so - i have never had much lesbian tendencies!) - I do have a hang up on it. I am a legal member of this state, I pay my taxes (way more than many people do - different story), yet the law prevents me from being fully equal in my country of birth. This is the last element of legal discrimination that exists that causes me to be treated differently than you. 

I have no interest in destroying your marriage, I have no interest in banning marriage. What I have an interest in is the ability to be equal in law to you - based on something that I had no decision in. I was born Gay - I have as much of an ability to feign attraction to members of the opposite sex as you do to members of the same sex. And unlike you (I'm presuming) - I at least tried living that way.

So yes - I have a hang up over marriage.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Sol28 said:


> The laws were changed to redefine marriage. A single woman was allowed work, was allowed get a loan, was allowed live where she chose to live. The legal definition of marriage pre-these changes prevented a married woman from doing so. In more enlightened decades, the law was changed to allow a married woman to have self-determination. Do you not think that those changes in law redefined the LEGAL entity that is marriage?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh totally! Absolutely agree! As a member of the gay/lesbian brigade (well gay more so - i have never had much lesbian tendencies!) - I do have a hang up on it. I am a legal member of this state, I pay my taxes (way more than many people do - different story), yet the law prevents me from being fully equal in my country of birth. This is the last element of legal discrimination that exists that causes me to be treated differently than you.
> 
> I have no interest in destroying your marriage, I have no interest in banning marriage. What I have an interest in is the ability to be equal in law to you - based on something that I had no decision in. I was born Gay - I have as much of an ability to feign attraction to members of the opposite sex as you do to members of the same sex. And unlike you (I'm presuming) - I at least tried living that way.
> 
> So yes - I have a hang up over marriage.


.......................

Sol 28,

Yup you are right by your implication , I am a die-hard hetrosexual !
I think at this stage you are beating me 2 to 0 and its only half time!

As you might have gathered I ain,t in the discrimination business and would not wish to give a hoot about someones  sexuality.
If a NO vote means I am treating someone unequally because they are Gay , then the answer is YES.  

Ps. Still amazed how the NO voters are too silent for there to be a reasoned debate.
Is it they are afraid to be labelled bigots or just don,t rate the issue.
Think about this. Most people are not Gay so it is hard for them to get (het) up over this referendum.


----------



## michaelm

Gerry Canning said:


> in general the no vote is silent and probably ill informed.


I think you're half right there.  There is no profit in voicing support for a No vote.  I'd expect a sizable No on the day from many who are otherwise generally disinterested in the sexual preferences of others . . but when pushed will decide that marriage is a gendered institution worth preserving as such and that the cry of inequality is hollow in that civil partnership is the same-sex equivalent.  Some will have genuine concerns that beyond a Yes a quota of adoptive children will be denied either a mother or a father, all else being equal, for the sake of modernity and supposed equality.





Sol28 said:


> What I have an interest in is the ability to be equal in law to you


You mightn't like it or may view it as semantics but you are equal in law.  The law says, with various restrictions, that an individual can marry someone of the opposite sex or can enter a civil partnership with someone of the same sex; this is the same for all.  Your individual rights are the same as mine.  With a Yes we will be straying from equality for individuals, which is what we should have, to equality of relationships, which is a misstep for the State.


----------



## Sol28

Gerry Canning said:


> As you might have gathered I ain,t in the discrimination business and would not wish to give a hoot about someones sexuality.



I appreciate that - and I would hope that these debates can stay reasoned. However there has been precedence in these debates of mud slinging from both sides. I hope we would not get into that.
There is also precedence of the oppressed calling foul of the oppressors - and the oppressors do not like that. This is going to occur each and every time a debate surfaces where one group is more powerful and has more rights than a smaller less powerful group.



Gerry Canning said:


> Still amazed how the NO voters are too silent for there to be a reasoned debate.


I am also surprised that within the AAM community I seem to be the only openly gay person in this discussion. Therefore you are all debating whether to treat me equally in law. I am the only person truly affected in this thread.



michaelm said:


> I'd expect a sizable No on the day from many who are otherwise generally disinterested in the sexual preferences of others . . but when pushed will decide that marriage is a gendered institution worth preserving...


Unfortunately I also believe that this will happen - as people dont like change. And that the power of the churches will mobilise a lot of No voters. Yes voters may see this as a fundamental human right and may not actually vote as they are convinced it will occur anyway without their vote.



michaelm said:


> the cry of inequality is hollow in that civil partnership is the same-sex equivalent.


Michalem: The thing is - Civil Parnership is not the same sex equivalent. It is not equal in law to marriage (see [broken link removed]for more information). It is a lesser right. It also allowed inequality to be written into law - as only a same sex couple cannot enter into civil partnership - You are not able to enter a civil partnership as a straight couple. In Britain when it was introduced - Men and Women could choose a civil partnership.

While people of my sexuality are being told we are different, we are less, we are not equal, then the culture of bullying of gay people is sanctioned. Suicide rates are higher in gay/lesbian youth than amongst their straight counterparts.
We never read or see same sex couples in books or stories when growing up. All under the banner of 'What will we tell the Children'. Children are not inherently afraid of difference - children learn fear of difference from their parents and community.


----------



## michaelm

Sol28 said:


> And that the power of the churches will mobilise a lot of No voters.  Yes voters may see this as a fundamental human right and may not actually vote as they are convinced it will occur anyway without their vote.


I'm dubious about your first comment above and the second is less credible again.





Sol28 said:


> Civil Parnership is not the same sex equivalent. It is not equal in law to marriage. It is a lesser right. It also allowed inequality to be written into law - as only a same sex couple cannot enter into civil partnership - You are not able to enter a civil partnership as a straight couple.


That's not a problem with the gendered institution of marriage but rather a problem with the Irish implementation of civil partnership (Irish governments never seem to get anything quite right) which could be remedied . . civil partnership should be non-gendered.  Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same, the result of the referendum will not change this, perhaps it is you who fears difference.  The vast majority of people are disinterested, if not uninterested, in the sexuality of others.


----------



## Sol28

michaelm said:


> Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same, the result of the referendum will not change this, perhaps it is you who fears difference.



Is this the same argument that Senator Ronan Mullen is using that he is actually more in favour of equality than the yes voters. (TheJournal.ie Interview).

Homosexuality is not the same as heterosexuality - you are totally right there. But then man is not the same as woman, black is not the same as white, asian is not the same as latino. However - each should be afforded the same rights and opportunities. That's the basis of equality.

Michaelm; I have declared my interest in this referendum - i am directly affected by its result - if, as has been said in this discussion so far, that most people are totally disinterested in this amendment - why are you so vehemently opposed. How will it affect your life?


----------



## Gerry Canning

The debate moves on.

I had Sol,s Yes Team .  2 nil up at half-time .
Michaelm,s comments now mean its Yes 2 , No 1.  

I still need converting to either side, as I do not like indecision.


----------



## michaelm

Look, Sol28, I'm not vehemently opposed, just opposed.  I view it as a folly, a pretence and a waste of time and money (as is the other referendum); I view marriage as a gendered institution and any change to this would be a sham.  For me, and I suspect most No voters, there is no inequality, just difference.  If civil partnership needs to be tweaked then it should be.  There's little point going round in circles which the same arguments, you either view it as an equality issue or you don't . . which is probably why there isn't much debate (despite Gerry champing at the bit for such).


----------



## Gerry Canning

michaelm said:


> Look, Sol28, I'm not vehemently opposed, just opposed.  I view it as a folly, a pretence and a waste of time and money (as is the other referendum); I view marriage as a gendered institution and any change to this would be a sham.  For me, and I suspect most No voters, there is no inequality, just difference.  If civil partnership needs to be tweaked then it should be.  There's little point going round in circles which the same arguments, you either view it as an equality issue or you don't . . which is probably why there isn't much debate (despite Gerry champing at the bit for such).


..........................
Michaelm ,

He might have hit the crux of my indecision.
I got married into a clearly defined gendered institution.
I still have doubts, that should the vote be to not change that definition, that that no vote  will in any real sense ,impede or in any way harm same-sex loving couples.

Dear me , 
It,s now Yes-side 2 , No-side 1 , but the no side have a free kick in a dangerous position!


----------



## Ger

I think its important to go back to first principles and note that marriage is first and foremost a 'contract'. And one of the principles of contract is that  because contracts are voluntary agreements, if the two parties wish to terminate the contract, they have the option to do so or to create a new contract. However there are restrictions on this if third parties are involved, and I think it is for this reason that traditionally marriage is considered to be a very restrictive (difficult to terminate) contract because it is assumed that there will be third parties (e.g children, grandchildren, in-laws, etc ) affected by the termination of the contract.

It is hard for me to see then, why the coming together of any two ( or even more) people for the purpose of mutual friendship etc. in a sterile relationship that would not normally produce third parties (children) would require a contract as legally binding as that of marriage unless there was an intention that third party issues (e.g children) would be involved.

For this reason then, I think there is some justification to the view that relationships that fall outside the traditional meaning of marriage need to be considered separately. I also think that some caution is necessary when it comes to the Irish constitution as changes can have unforeseen consequences.   It is for these reasons then that I think I will vote 'no' to any tampering with the Irish constitution on this matter.


----------



## Vanilla

Sounds like a convoluted way of trying to justify your view to me. Should a heterosexual couple who know they are infertile and do not want to adopt be denied the right to marry, then?

Can't have kids? Won't have kids? No marriage for you then.

I'm not even going to point out that gay couples can also have children as that is obvious.


----------



## Leper

Vanilla said:


> Sounds like a convoluted way of trying to justify your view to me. Should a heterosexual couple who know they are infertile and do not want to adopt be denied the right to marry, then?
> 
> Can't have kids? Won't have kids? No marriage for you then.
> 
> I'm not even going to point out that gay couples can also have children as that is obvious.



I don't think Ger is pointing out that there should be no marriage for hetrosexual couples who cannot father/mother their own children. 

If you think different you would be no more inclusive than your ordinary Joe-Soap-Homophobic. This referendum is being voted by many who (a) Cannot understand homosexuality or (b) Cannot accept homosexuality (c) Cannot accept that homosexual couples should rear children.

The mindset of the whole country regarding homosexuality needs to be changed and it is changing albeit slowly.  The referendum will be carried if the vote is tomorrow.  But, there is a long way to go.  The subject is being hacked to death in the media.  In my opinion, the only danger to the carrying of the referendum is Oversell.  Oversell should not be underestimated and could well lead to the referendum falling. I have heard many complaining that they cannot listen to the radio, watch the television, read the newspapers etc without Gay Marriage being argued at length. The Gay Community needs the Hetrosexual Community and vice versa. Whether we like it or not we all share the country together.

So Vanilla, with respect, Ger is entitled to his/her views and so are you.


----------



## Latrade

Ger said:


> I think its important to go back to first principles and note that marriage is first and foremost a 'contract'. And one of the principles of contract is that because contracts are voluntary agreements, if the two parties wish to terminate the contract, they have the option to do so or to create a new contract. However there are restrictions on this if third parties are involved, and I think it is for this reason that traditionally marriage is considered to be a very restrictive (difficult to terminate) contract because it is assumed that there will be third parties (e.g children, grandchildren, in-laws, etc ) affected by the termination of the contract
> 
> It is hard for me to see then, why the coming together of any two ( or even more) people for the purpose of mutual friendship etc. in a sterile relationship that would not normally produce third parties (children) would require a contract as legally binding as that of marriage unless there was an intention that third party issues (e.g children) would be involved.


 
Traditionally it is a contract, hence why parents would get together and discuss who their children would marry, irrespective of who the child wanted to marry or was even at an age where it thought about marriage,  and a dowry would change hands. However, traditional marriage ended a long time ago as did the notion of a contract, at least as a social concept. It would be difficult to argue that for anything but a very small minority marriage is a commitment between two people to spend the rest of their lives together.

The issue of sterility and having children is too easily dismissed as sterility is not restricted to homosexual relationships. If naturally having children is a condition of marriage then I have several hetrosexual friends who would need to have their marriage annulled. The problem is that as a civilisation we have changed marriage several times to the point we are at now where it is a legally binding commitment in love and monogomy, at least I hope people do not propose by saying,

"Dear significant other, I would like to suggest a voluntary 'contract' where, if we, the two parties, wish to terminate the contract, we have the option to do so or to create a new contract."

As you categorically state it is a voluntary agreement. However, I reject the notion of going back to "first principles" as we can't, we can't go back to the prehistoric notion of marriage as civilisation developed. We've tried and we still have no real answer for human monogomy. We've no accurate record until the 12th century of what marriage meant. And even if we take that definition, well then we can also have arranged marriage, child marriage and until very recently in our culture legitimate domestic abuse within a marriage (as in marriage defined where the female is subservant). The first principles argument also has no place, because we cherry pick which bit of the first principles we wish to use in an argument.

The concept and definition of marriage has changed. Thankfully it is now a voluntary agreement between two people who wish (at least at that point in time) to commit to a relationship together for the rest of their lives. There is nothing at all that should or could exclude same a sex marriage couple in this committment. Nothing. Notions of what you believe to be traditional or "first principles" and notions of sterility are not reasonable arguments against why a same sex couple cannot have the same recognition by the state of their commitment.

This referundum isn't seeking to disolve the entire notion of marriage, just permit the use of that term for all who wish, just to allow anyone who wishes to make that committment have the same standing in the eyes of the state and the same rights. It has no effect or impact on all those who are currently married. It doesn't weaken their marriage or commitment, it will just make more people in the state happy and equal.


----------



## Sol28

Latrade said:


> It has no effect or impact on all those who are currently married. It doesn't weaken their marriage or commitment, it will just make more people in the state happy and equal.



Its amazing how many people forget the simple point made above by Latrade.

This referendum will have no impact on the majority of the population. For a minority of the population it will finally mean that in the eyes of the law we are equal. We will have the same right to marry (in law) the partner that we love and wish to spend the remainder of our lives together - in 
sickness and in health.

If you think otherwise its because you believe that I am not equal to you. Whatever you're reasoning for that belief - its still the same outcome - you believe you have more rights than me.


----------



## Sol28

Ger said:


> I also think that some caution is necessary when it comes to the Irish constitution as changes can have unforeseen consequences.



I think this is such a cop out - Because we don't know know what might happen - lets not do anything. Mankind would never have progressed if this was the overriding principle of all people.

I agree with Vanilla - it sounds like you are trying to make excuses for why you are voting No. If you are voting no because you believe I am different than you - than why not just state that fact. I would respect your honesty more.


----------



## terrysgirl33

What strikes me in this debate is that the whole 'civil partnership' idea was a complete waste of time and money, it should just have been 'civil marriage' in the first place and let everyone get on with their lives.


----------



## Sol28

terrysgirl33 said:


> What strikes me in this debate is that the whole 'civil partnership' idea was a complete waste of time and money, it should just have been 'civil marriage' in the first place and let everyone get on with their lives.



Civil Partnership was a step forward. All civil partnership did was enable the wider community to get their heads around loving parternerships. 
It was hotly debated in the LGBT world and caused many arguments between groups.

Some saw it as a step forward - others saw it as a half hearted measure - that actually wrote discrimination into law. A same sex couple could not marry, a mixed sex couple could not civil partner (such an awkward phrase). It is also different than marriage and has many different (ie lesser) rights than marriage.

It does cloud this debate as many people think its the same as marriage (in law).


----------



## Gerry Canning

A few things are becoming clearer.

So I will state the obvious;

1. Up to now Marriage is  man & woman ie Marriage is clearly understood to be gender sourced.

2. If carried,   Marriage will no longer be gender sourced.
.........................................................
Questions.

Does that effect existing marriages ; obviously not, since, what is being taken from Marriage is its gender linkage on future unions not on EXISTING marriages.
Is that change to make Marriage a non gender base , an (equality ) issue? 
Or is it more an attempt to redefine what Marriage is?

On the Yes side I hear the heartfelt wish to have Marriage Redefined.Is that a good reason to vote YES? 
On the No side I do not hear any compelling reason to vote No.

If you believe Marriage is Man & Woman , you vote NO.
If you believe Marriage is to be non gender specific you vote YES.
........................
I think all future  unions twix couples should just be civil unions that encompass the legal safeguards we have in Marriage.That would be tidier.
So If future couples wish to call their Union ,Marriage then grand.


----------



## terrysgirl33

Sol28 said:


> Civil Partnership was a step forward. All civil partnership did was enable the wider community to get their heads around loving parternerships.
> It was hotly debated in the LGBT world and caused many arguments between groups.
> 
> Some saw it as a step forward - others saw it as a half hearted measure - that actually wrote discrimination into law. A same sex couple could not marry, a mixed sex couple could not civil partner (such an awkward phrase). It is also different than marriage and has many different (ie lesser) rights than marriage.
> 
> It does cloud this debate as many people think its the same as marriage (in law).




I agree it was a step forward, but by stopping short of the same legal rights and responsibilities as marriage, and excluding mixed sex couples, it created an unnecessary fudge, and just extending marriage to everyone would have been easier and more logical.

I am not gay, this does not affect me, but it seems like a waste of time (to have introduced the civil partnership thingy).  (I will be voting yes)

FWIW I have three children and the 7 year old doesn't want to get married, she wants to get partnershiped.  I'm not exactly sure why, but she's adamant!


----------



## terrysgirl33

Gerry Canning said:


> I think all future  unions twix couples should just be civil unions that encompass the legal safeguards we have in Marriage.That would be tidier.
> So If future couples wish to call their Union ,Marriage then grand.



I agree.  You have a union, called a civil partnership or a civil marriage or what have you, registered by the state, and you can also chose to have a religious ceremony.  As a practicing catholic who got married in a church, I'm not sure what the problem is with separating things like this?  Seems sensible, for GLTB couples, and also people who want a legal partnership, but don't want anything to do with the church.


----------



## Sol28

terrysgirl33 said:


> it created an unnecessary fudge, and just extending marriage to everyone would have been easier and more logical



Terrysgirl - I totally agree - as do so many other people - but full equal marriage was a step too far for many people/politicians. It was allowing us gay men and women to ride on the bus - but on the back of the bus only. 

As you can see from many of the points raised in this thread alone - there is much opposition to full equal civil marriage. It was quiet a divisive approach in the LGBT groups as to whether to accept CP as a step forward at all.



terrysgirl33 said:


> Seems sensible, for GLTB couples, and also people who want a legal partnership, but don't want anything to do with the church.



This happens in many countries - catholic countries as well - in Portugal you get married twice - once civilly - once religiously if that's what you choose. The civil one is the only one that matters in the eyes of the law there. We have just maintained the registration within the religious ceremony.


----------



## Sol28

Leper said:


> In my opinion, the only danger to the carrying of the referendum is Oversell.  Oversell should not be underestimated and could well lead to the referendum falling. I have heard many complaining that they cannot listen to the radio, watch the television, read the newspapers etc without Gay Marriage being argued at length.



I totally get where you're coming from on this. But forgive us our time of campaigning - this is a major moment in time for the LGBT community. Its quiet embarrassing to have to ask you to allow us to be equal. There's less than 40 days left in this campaign.

Just to challenge you a bit though. I cannot turn on the TV, read a newspaper or listen to the radio without having your straight marriages and relationships being shoved in my face. I hear my married colleagues talk about their wives, their husbands, their mother in laws, their weddings their divorces on a day to day basis. I see straight celebratory couples shove their weddings in my face in the pages of the red tops and the VIP magazines. Every day of my life I hear/see stories of straight marriage.

And I am delighted to hear of it - I am happy to hear of my friends being happy in their relationships. I am sad to hear they are not working out. I care.

So while this referendum approaches - we hope that you will afford us the same courtesy, and let us have our moment to show that we too are humans capable of love.


----------



## michaelm

Sol28 said:


> let us have our moment to show that we too are humans capable of love.


The above is a straw man argument.  The vast majority of No voters will oppose this referendum as they believe marriage to be a gendered institution, primarily, and the best model, for the upbringing of children; not to deny you and others of your moment to show that you too are humans capable of love .

Same-sex and heterosexual unions are different animals . . if it doesn't look like a duck and doesn't quack like a duck then it's not a duck, and amending the constitution won't change that.


----------



## Sol28

michaelm said:


> as they believe marriage to be a gendered institution, primarily, and the best model, for the upbringing of children



And this isnt a straw man argument.....

I believe - and this is from personal experiences and challenges I have had in my life. That the vast majority of No voters will be voting No because they believe that homosexuality is intrinsically wrong - not because they believe that marriage is a gendered institution. All other arguments those people quote are camouflage.


----------



## michaelm

Sol28 said:


> And this isnt a straw man argument.....


Nope.  Why should anyone who thinks that homosexuality is wrong feel that they must hide such.  Straight (can i say that without offending somebody?) people are far more indifferent to homosexuality than you seem to think.  A victim mentality does not a victim make (although that said, just because one is paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you).


----------



## Leper

Sol28 said:


> I totally get where you're coming from on this. But forgive us our time of campaigning - this is a major moment in time for the LGBT community. Its quiet embarrassing to have to ask you to allow us to be equal. There's less than 40 days left in this campaign.
> 
> Just to challenge you a bit though. I cannot turn on the TV, read a newspaper or listen to the radio without having your straight marriages and relationships being shoved in my face. I hear my married colleagues talk about their wives, their husbands, their mother in laws, their weddings their divorces on a day to day basis. I see straight celebratory couples shove their weddings in my face in the pages of the red tops and the VIP magazines. Every day of my life I hear/see stories of straight marriage.
> 
> And I am delighted to hear of it - I am happy to hear of my friends being happy in their relationships. I am sad to hear they are not working out. I care.
> 
> So while this referendum approaches - we hope that you will afford us the same courtesy, and let us have our moment to show that we too are humans capable of love.



Sol, one thing I can guarantee is that I will be among the first to vote Yes in the referendum.  While I am hetrosexual, I have the greatest of respect for homosexual people.  Like I said earlier, I think at this moment the referendum is home and dry.  Nothing but a few drastic own goals will have the referendum defeated.  I feel some own goals are being scored going over and over the same ground on television and radio.  There is nothing worse than the same old chestnuts being drawn up time and again.  

Remember the launch of the Ford Edsel in the late 50's in the USA.  It was the perfect car endorsed by Henry Ford and anybody else he could get to endorse it.  The American tv and radio stations were full of ads of the best car ever to grace the roads.  Newspapers backed up the advertising with more advertising.  The Edsel was advertised so much that it failed dismally and is reckoned to be one of the greatest cock-ups of advertising in history.

People talk of relationships.  That's the way we are.  You can talk of relationships too, but I know you are reticent given the history of Irish people and homosexuality. The country is going on a new crusade shortly and you are a part of it.  Stay part of it.

I don't want to steal your thunder and celebration from the certainty of a victory.  But, I want you to win and not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.


----------



## Sol28

michaelm said:


> A victim mentality does not a victim make



And members of an oppressing group telling the oppressed that they are not oppressed is OK?
I have been held back - I have been prevented from being able to live my life in a happy and open situation - by family members, and by the wider society. Im not an old man - I am early forties, but I have felt the brunt of a society that feels that Im somewhat lesser than most people. I still cringe everytime I have to come out in a new situation - a new workplace, wondering what the reaction will be.

Its getting a lot better - a hell of a lot better - people are finally getting to a live and let live situation. But being told by people like yourself that i should be happy with my lot is not something I take well.


----------



## Leper

michaelm said:


> Nope.  Why should anyone who thinks that homosexuality is wrong feel that they must hide such.  Straight (can i say that without offending somebody?) people are far more indifferent to homosexuality than you seem to think.  A victim mentality does not a victim make (although that said, just because one is paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you).



Michael, with respect, I do not think this is a fair post.


----------



## Sol28

Leper said:


> Like I said earlier, I think at this moment the referendum is home and dry



Leper, I thank you for your comments - and appreciate your vote. But I actually don't think this referendum is home and dry.

I think this will be lost if people are complacent about it being home and dry - and a sure win. They may not make the effort to actually turn up and put their mark on the ballot paper. Turn outs in referendums can be so low that its only the hardliners that call the shots.

I have said it before - the community in here in the most part seem open minded and civically aware. Not all people are as up to date on current matters. I look forward to the celebrations on the 23rd - but i dread the despair if the referendum is rejected.


----------



## Leper

Sol28 said:


> Leper, I thank you for your comments - and appreciate your vote. But I actually don't think this referendum is home and dry.
> 
> I think this will be lost if people are complacent about it being home and dry - and a sure win. They may not make the effort to actually turn up and put their mark on the ballot paper. Turn outs in referendums can be so low that its only the hardliners that call the shots.
> 
> I have said it before - the community in here in the most part seem open minded and civically aware. Not all people are as up to date on current matters. I look forward to the celebrations on the 23rd - but i dread the despair if the referendum is rejected.



Sol, I can understand your anguish.  You are on the inside looking out while the majority are on the outside looking in.  The Homosexual Community will have to vote in droves.  I reckon many hetrosexual people of the Yes camp who are pro referendum will vote also.  I can see the majority of people in the No camp not voting.  A small majority will carry the referendum with ease. Just don't score any more own goals.


----------



## michaelm

Sol28 said:


> I have said it before - the community in here in the most part seem open minded and civically aware. Not all people are as up to date on current matters.


This type of blinkered view is permeated by condescension and will only serve to solidify would-be No votes.  Methinks proponents of a Yes would be better to temper or mask such.


----------



## Betsy Og

michaelm said:


> This type of blinkered view is permeated by condescension and will only serve to solidify would-be No votes.  Methinks proponents of a Yes would be better to temper or mask such.



I suppose its hard not to think of opponents as "backwoods-men" (the term for unbelievers in the Norn Iron Good Friday times) when you are so passionate about it, it will make a difference in your life (or it certainly seems so), and the issue itself seems self-evident. But agree with you, no point 'poking the bear' of moderate opinion who dont want to feel rail-roaded. I will vote yes, though it makes no odds to me, so that equality can be seen to be delivered (I'm not yet convinced there's anything terribly substantive at stake, but symbolic is enough to get my Yes vote).


----------



## Latrade

michaelm said:


> The above is a straw man argument.  The vast majority of No voters will oppose this referendum as they believe marriage to be a gendered institution, primarily, and the best model, for the upbringing of children; not to deny you and others of your moment to show that you too are humans capable of love .
> 
> Same-sex and heterosexual unions are different animals . . if it doesn't look like a duck and doesn't quack like a duck then it's not a duck, and amending the constitution won't change that.


 
As pointed out that is a straw man argument as it has nothing to do with, at least from those directly campaigning, raising a family, it is about equal rights. The think of the children argument is largely a straw man being used by Iona and Iona only (along with their incorrect use of research which actually shows no difference in the welfare of a child between a same sex or hetrosexual).



Leper said:


> Remember the launch of the Ford Edsel in the late 50's in the USA.  It was the perfect car endorsed by Henry Ford and anybody else he could get to endorse it.  The American tv and radio stations were full of ads of the best car ever to grace the roads.  Newspapers backed up the advertising with more advertising.  The Edsel was advertised so much that it failed dismally and is reckoned to be one of the greatest cock-ups of advertising in history.


 
I get the point, but the Edsel failed because it was an awful car rather than the marketing.



michaelm said:


> This type of blinkered view is permeated by condescension and will only serve to solidify would-be No votes.  Methinks proponents of a Yes would be better to temper or mask such.


 
But you yourself stated that the no vote is based on believing homesexuality is wrong,  how can it be blinkered when that is a direct statement. I don't care how people justify that belief to themselves or how much they lament that society now deems such views as offensive. Removing staw men arguments from both sides it is essentially a vote to recognise a contract between two people and all the benefits the state provides that goes with making such a contract. Whatever about children, whatever about your personal beliefs on homesexual relationships, is it right that gay couples don't have the same rights on property, tax, inheritance, etc that are given to a hetrosexual couple who make the same commitment?


----------



## NovaFlare77

The Referendum Commission for the two referendums has been set up and their website includes some pretty clear advice on what the marriage equality referendum is about and what changes if it's passed:


----------



## michaelm

Latrade said:


> But you yourself stated that the no vote is based on believing homesexuality is wrong


I'm afraid I didn't; I suggested the the No vote is based on the view that marriage is a gendered institution and that civil partnership is the same-sex equivalent.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Am I missing something?

Today few people worry if someone is of whatever orientation.

I would say that because I am heterosexual I am not overly exercised by the Referendum because it does not affect my situation.
It appears that the Homosexual lobby genuinely believe that this Referendum is very important for them.

I dislike and resent the comment {vast majority of No voters is because they believe homosexuality is intrinsically wrong} and that by strong implication those in No camp who believe Marriage is a gender based institution are ergo bigots. 

I can  understand a Gender Based NO , and I can understand a non Gender based YES.

Maybe it is just because most are Heterosexual most just cannot get inside the arguments to vote Yes?

The Yes side should be concerned that {they, doth protest too loudly}.
I think it will be a lot closer than 70% Yes , 30% No.


----------



## Latrade

michaelm said:


> I'm afraid I didn't; I suggested the the No vote is based on the view that marriage is a gendered institution and that civil partnership is the same-sex equivalent.


 
Apologies, I was confused in haste by this post:



michaelm said:


> Nope. Why should anyone who thinks that homosexuality is wrong feel that they must hide such.


 




Gerry Canning said:


> Am I missing something?
> I dislike and resent the comment {vast majority of No voters is because they believe homosexuality is intrinsically wrong} and that by strong implication those in No camp who believe Marriage is a gender based institution are ergo bigots.
> 
> I can  understand a Gender Based NO , and I can understand a non Gender based YES.
> 
> Maybe it is just because most are Heterosexual most just cannot get inside the arguments to vote Yes?
> 
> The Yes side should be concerned that {they, doth protest too loudly}.


 
OK, let's take the argument that those opposed to the vote simply oppose because they feel that marriage is man and woman and we will give the benefit of the doubt when they state that they have no issue with anyone's sexuality.

Take this line from the Referendum site linked above:



> The State ... may discriminate positively in favour of families based on marriage


 
So the state can have in place incentives for people to be married irrespective of whether they have children or not, irresespective fo whether they can have children or not. The state has such incentives and married couples have benefits and protections that non-married couples do not.

I'm not married, I'm in a long term relationship but unmarried. However, I could at any point in time get married and take advantage of the benefits and protections available to me. I don't even have to go to a church, it could be a registry office and still get all the same benefits. It is my choice whether I do or do not.

However, this isn't the case for same sex couples as they can not have their marriage recognised or protected in law. Currently their relationship is discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality. That cannot be disputed. Even if someone considers themselves completely ok with sexuality, voting no means that the current discrimination should remain. It may be a support for gender-bassed marriage, but it is support for sexuality-based discrimination.

What was the reference above: if it walks like a duck...

The argument may well be that marriage and marital protection is linked to family and, ergo children. But under what circumstances are children included? Naturally born concieved between the couple? Ok, but then what about those hetrosexual couples who have fertility problems and can't conceive together naturally? Should their marriage be annulled and reduced to a "civil" union? If not why not? If No is all about gender and family, then why are there allowances for those who cannot conceive?

However, they have choices in order to become a family. They could adopt. They could go for artificial imsemination. Thing is, so can same sex couples as sexuality does not affect fertility. So that starts to ebb away at the "family" and marriage being essential to preserving a family. There is a group of people who cannot conceive naturally and yet get all the benefits of marrital protection just because they are male and female. In those circumstances what reason is there to deny same-sex couples equal status by the state?

Does the "traditional" married couple have justifiable reason for special status because it is a demonstrably better environment to raise children? Not according to any research carried out. It looks like finanical and domestic stability, security, education, supportive and loving parents are the key factors to strong families and children's welfare, not sexuality. Are any of those issues more favourable to "traditional" married couples over same-sex? Absolutely not.

And that's what it boils down to, "gender-based" marriage is essentially a nice way of saying that they don't want same-sex people to have the same rights and protections that they do, whether it be financial, tax, insurance, property, inheritance, etc. And the only remaining argument against it is their sexuality, there simply is no logical, rational or demonstrable argument as to why same-sex marriage should not have equal status...other than just because they're gay.

If people wish to believe that they have no problem with sexuality, I'm happy to give them the benefit of the doubt. But if the only remaining argument against equal status is sexuality and for continuing discrimination, then despite protestations to the opposite, you have to wonder....



Quack indeed.


----------



## Sol28

Gerry Canning said:


> The Yes side should be concerned that {they, doth protest too loudly}.



We have a referendum coming up that might finally bring equality to my relationship as to yours. Is it not time for us to make our voices now heard? If not now - then when? 
Also - you choose to read this thread - its because you are interested in the topic for whatever reason. So don't be surprised to hear both sides of the argument in this discussion. I am certainly not.



Gerry Canning said:


> It appears that the Homosexual lobby genuinely believe that this Referendum is very important for them.



Absolutely important for us - and we are asking for you to recognise that and hopefully make the effort to visit the polling station on the day. 

However I am not fan of the phrase 'Homosexual Lobby' it has negative connotations. We are not a political party, or a group of developers, or a company - we are your brothers and sisters, your cousins, your friends and workmates. A disparate collection of people who are born a certain way. We are not a Lobby.



Latrade said:


> And that's what it boils down to, "gender-based" marriage is essentially a nice way of saying that they don't want same-sex people to have the same rights and protections that they do, whether it be financial, tax, insurance, property, inheritance, etc. And the only remaining argument against it is their sexuality, there simply is no logical, rational or demonstrable argument as to why same-sex marriage should not have equal status...other than just because they're gay.



Q.E.D. - Nice summation Latrade.


----------



## Purple

Sol28 said:


> However I am not fan of the phrase 'Homosexual Lobby' it has negative connotations. We are not a political party, or a group of developers, or a company - we are your brothers and sisters, your cousins, your friends and workmates. A disparate collection of people who are born a certain way. We are not a Lobby.



I also find the phrase "gay community" strange, for the same reasons.
I have a few gay friends, of both genders, and a gay family member. They couldn't be more different as people.


----------



## Sol28

Purple said:


> I also find the phrase "gay community" strange, for the same reasons.
> I have a few gay friends, of both genders, and a gay family member. They couldn't be more different as people.



A few years ago I would have agreed with you. But I am seeing more and more of a community aspect - there are so many different social elements and constructs. There are many sports and theatre clubs, voluntary groups, political factions, as well as the (less than a handful of) bars. So in many respects it has all of the same elements as any small town - just more geographically spread out. You can choose to be part of it - or live independently of it. And like every community there are the nice people, the not so nice people - and the downright strange people.


----------



## Firefly

Fascinating thread. I do have to ask hetrosexual (obviously) people who are against this, how it actually affects them personally whether two gay people are married or not? I presume a lot of them are married already and even if they are not yet, they are hardly at risk of a forced marriage to someone of the same sex are they?

This will be like the anti-divorce crowd from years ago telling us it'll be the end of the world as we know it. We'll look back years from now and wonder what all the fuss was about!

As a father of 2 young children, I would hate if one of my children had less rights and options than the other. Live and let live!

Firefly.


----------



## Purple

Firefly said:


> Fascinating thread. I do have to ask hetrosexual (obviously) people who are against this, how it actually affects them personally whether two gay people are married or not? I presume a lot of them are married already and even if they are not yet, they are hardly at risk of a forced marriage to someone of the same sex are they?
> 
> This will be like the anti-divorce crowd from years ago telling us it'll be the end of the world as we know it. We'll look back years from now and wonder what all the fuss was about!
> 
> As a father of 2 young children, I would hate if one of my children had less rights and options than the other. Live and let live!
> 
> Firefly.


That's my thinking on it as well.

As Charlie McCreevy said to an irate Jonny Fox (TD for Wicklow) when homosexuality was decriminalised "Relax Jonny, we're making it legal, not compulsory."


----------



## michaelm

Latrade said:


> Does the "traditional" married couple have justifiable reason for special status because it is a demonstrably better environment to raise children? Not according to any research carried out. . . And that's what it boils down to, "gender-based" marriage is essentially a nice way of saying that they don't want same-sex people to have the same rights and protections that they do, whether it be financial, tax, insurance, property, inheritance, etc. And the only remaining argument against it is their sexuality, there simply is no logical, rational or demonstrable argument as to why same-sex marriage should not have equal status..


If parentage is irrelevant and marriage is to be stripped of it gendered nature for the sake of modernity why not boil it down further to be open to any two people, then all two person relationships will be equal (and equally valid) and everyone will be happy, surely.


----------



## Latrade

michaelm said:


> If parentage is irrelevant and marriage is to be stripped of it gendered nature for the sake of modernity why not boil it down further to be open to any two people, then all two person relationships will be equal (and equally valid) and everyone will be happy, surely.


 
Which is what is being asked surely...except I'm getting a scent of the Iona Incest card.


----------



## Sunny

Latrade said:


> Which is what is being asked surely...except I'm getting a scent of the Iona Incest card.



Hmmmm, I thought that's the road they were going down as well.....I hope we are wrong.....


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> If parentage is irrelevant and marriage is to be stripped of it gendered nature for the sake of modernity why not boil it down further to be open to any two people, then all two person relationships will be equal (and equally valid) and everyone will be happy, surely.


Yes, except relationships that are illegal such as when a party is under age or incest is involved etc.


----------



## Latrade

Purple said:


> Yes, except relationships that are illegal such as when a party is under age or incest is involved etc.


 
I think you'll find they're legal for the Lannisters.


----------



## Firefly

And another thing (I've been thinking about this!)...for all those who are against same-sex parenting, with the huge number of single parents out there, do you think a child would be better served with one parent or two same-sex parents?

Firefly.


----------



## Latrade

Firefly said:


> And another thing (I've been thinking about this!)...for all those who are against same-sex parenting, with the huge number of single parents out there, do you think a child would be better served with one parent or two same-sex parents?
> 
> Firefly.


 
Historically, I think they'd prefer they were removed from the mother, institutionalised, used as slave labour or sold.

A much more wholesome upbringing than any gay couple could provide.


----------



## michaelm

Latrade said:


> ...except I'm getting a scent of the Iona Incest card.


Hmmmm, I think that's pizza you scent Scoob . . I haven't read anything that Iona have to say on the matter, in fact other than this thread I have been largely tuned-out of the issue.





Purple said:


> Yes, except relationships that are illegal such as when a party is under age or incest is involved etc.


Incest is a separate legal issue and should be no impediment to, what might then be, the legal construct formally know as marriage (TLCFKAM) being available to ANY two mentally sound adults regardless or gender or relationship who aren't already party to a TLCFKAM.


----------



## Latrade

michaelm said:


> Incest is a separate legal issue and should be no impediment to, what might then be, the legal construct formally know as marriage (TLCFKAM) being available to ANY two mentally sound adults regardless or gender or relationship who aren't already party to a TLCFKAM.


 
Are you saying, as I can't tell from the post, that the referendum would allow incestuous marriages or that arguing for same-sex marriage is the same argument for allowing incestuous relationships or something else entirely?


----------



## Purple

Latrade said:


> Are you saying, as I can't tell from the post, that the referendum would allow incestuous marriages or that arguing for same-sex marriage is the same argument for allowing incestuous relationships or something else entirely?


That's not what I'm taking from michaelm's post at all.
It's not easy to be the only contrarian voice in these situations and while I disagree with him I think his posts have been reasonable and reasoned.


----------



## michaelm

Something else, nothing to do with incest.  Various posts here seems to say that parentage and gender and sexuality are irrelevant and that the 'traditional' family based on marriage is of no relative benefit to children over other ad hoc arrangements.  If that is the case and we intend to extend marriage then it should be open to any two people who wish to enter that contract, including siblings and other relatives.  If we only extend the current Adam and Eve model to Adam and Steve surely that discriminates against the caring and interdependent relationship of brothers Podge & Rodge, even if they don't share a bed.



Purple said:


> It's not easy to be the only contrarian voice in these situations and while I disagree with him I think his posts have been reasonable and reasoned.


Well, you posted that before you read the above .


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> Well, you posted that before you read the above .


No, I disagree with you but that doesn't mean you posts are inflammatory or unreasoned.


----------



## Latrade

michaelm said:


> Something else, nothing to do with incest.  Various posts here seems to say that parentage and gender and sexuality are irrelevant and that the 'traditional' family based on marriage is of no relative benefit to children over other ad hoc arrangements.  If that is the case and we intend to extend marriage then it should be open to any two people who wish to enter that contract, including siblings and other relatives.  If we only extend the current Adam and Eve model to Adam and Steve surely that discriminates against the caring and interdependent relationship of brothers Podge & Rodge, even if they don't share a bed.
> 
> Well, you posted that before you read the above .


 
Except direct family already has a certain amount of protection in the law that a same sex couple doesn't (inhertitance, property, etc) and we aren't talking about the same type of union or contract. And it is another straw man.

Is there something special about a "traditional" marriage relationship that isn't in a same sex relationship? Assume there isn't (for the purposes of this), next is there something different in a relationship between two non-related persons (irrespective of sexuality) commiting to live together, combine income, invest together and support each other that does not exist in interdependent siblings or relatives? Yes. It is an wholly different commitment and union. Are there similarities, yes, but the similarities are greater to being equal to with a same-sex couple and "traditional" couple, unless you feel current traditional marriage is comparable to an interdepenent family relationship?

All the same, same-sex couple still have trouble in having their life-partner recognised for life insurance, still have trouble provinding for life-partners in wills, and so on and so forth. We could possibly entertain the discussion if same-sex couples had the same rights as interdependent brothers or relatives, but they don't.

Why is the "traditional" marriage afforded special status and the only union that requires incentive and recognition by the state?


----------



## Latrade

Purple said:


> That's not what I'm taking from michaelm's post at all.
> It's not easy to be the only contrarian voice in these situations and while I disagree with him I think his posts have been reasonable and reasoned.


 
I wasn't being snotty (I hope), i genuinely did not understand what point was being made. However, I do now.


----------



## Purple

Latrade said:


> Is there something special about a "traditional" marriage relationship that isn't in a same sex relationship? Assume there isn't (for the purposes of this), next is there something different in a relationship between two non-related persons (irrespective of sexuality) commiting to live together, combine income, invest together and support each other that does not exist in interdependent siblings or relatives? Yes. It is an wholly different commitment and union. Are there similarities, yes, but the similarities are greater to being equal to with a same-sex couple and "traditional" couple, unless you feel current traditional marriage is comparable to an interdepenent family relationship?


Excellent post.
I know one same sex couple who are in a committed long term relationship.
I don't know them well but they are intelligent, warm and charming women and a pleasure to be around. I wish I knew them better. Maybe that's a factor in why I feel strongly about this issue, maybe because I feel it is an affront and fundamentally unjust that their loving and committed relationship is somehow less in the eyes of the state than other, far less successful relationships between heterosexual couples.


----------



## michaelm

Latrade said:


> Why is the "traditional" marriage afforded special status and the only union that requires incentive and recognition by the state?


Because it has been viewed, rightly methinks, as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of society which provides social cohesion, and, as the best model for the upbringing of children.  The tax policy of Individualisation has weakened this status and redefining marriage will weaken it further.  Ultimately every ad hoc arrangement may be afforded special status, and when all are special then none will be.


----------



## Leper

Purple said:


> Excellent post.
> I know one same sex couple who are in a committed long term relationship.
> I don't know them well but they are intelligent, warm and charming women and a pleasure to be around. I wish I knew them better. Maybe that's a factor in why I feel strongly about this issue, maybe because I feel it is an affront and fundamentally unjust that their loving and committed relationship is somehow less in the eyes of the state than other, far less successful relationships between heterosexual couples.



Purple is right and to the point.  Anybody who has difficulty in recognising homosexual marriage/partnership could do themselves a favour by befriending such a couple or attending information meetings on such issues.  They will see that friendship/love/companionship is no different to that of  hetrosexual couples.

There appears to be a fear among many that the world will stop spinning on its axis when we have homosexual marriages or that the aisles of churches will turn into love-ins or something.


----------



## Sol28

Leper said:


> They will see that friendship/love/companionship is no different to that of hetrosexual couples.



They will also see that relationship break-downs are just as difficult - and that not all relationships are healthy and happy. Exactly the same as within heterosexual relationships. 

The marriage equality campaign is focusing on Leper's point - this is not a theoretical discussion - this is a personal point for many of us. As you get to know the individuals - you will see that we are no different - no better, no worse - than any other person.


----------



## michaelm

Leper said:


> There appears to be a fear among many that the world will stop spinning on its axis when we have homosexual marriages or that the aisles of churches will turn into love-ins or something.


There is no fear, it is viewed as somewhere between a spurious waste of time a money and unnecessary social engineering, and nothing to do with churches.  If/when it is passed it will likely prove no more or less a calamity than it will a panacea.


----------



## Latrade

michaelm said:


> Because it has been viewed, rightly methinks, as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of society which provides social cohesion, and, as the best model for the upbringing of children.  The tax policy of Individualisation has weakened this status and redefining marriage will weaken it further.  Ultimately every ad hoc arrangement may be afforded special status, and when all are special then none will be.



What will it weaken? A definition? I'm sorry that it's been proven that upbring a child's development and future isn't affected by what kind of relationship they grow up in a long as they are loved, secure and supported. Genuinely sorry, as think of all the children institutionalized that could have been in a living family earlier.

But that fact does nothing to stop me being the best dad I can or me and my partner being the best parents we can be. It doesn't stop heterosexual couples getting married and being great parents, or adopting, or not having kids at all if they want. Nothing is changed and nothing will affect you or anyone else opposed. Just means more happy families and maybe more happy kids. Is the such a bad thing from changing one line in the Constitution?

As to other relationships and how feel they may get recognition. Here's a simple thing to do and won't take any time if you have those concerns; have a look to Canada or the UK. Same-sex marriage and yet the Cousin lobby group isn't exactly lining up to have their relationship recognised. Heterosexual couples are still getting married, or not, having kids, or not, adopting, or not, having a legally recognized next or kin, leaving property and loving each other or not. The only thing that has changed is sane sec couples can do all that too.


----------



## Purple

Latrade said:


> I think you'll find they're legal for the Lannisters.


Speaking of which, it's back on!


----------



## Leper

Hey Guys! I'm at a loss here.  Forgive my lack of such knowledge. Who or what are the Lannisters? Sounds like some rare disease to me!


----------



## Purple

Leper said:


> Hey Guys! I'm at a loss here.  Forgive my lack of such knowledge. Who or what are the Lannisters? Sounds like some rare disease to me!


Game of Thrones reference.


----------



## michaelm

Latrade said:


> What will it weaken?


If one is of the opinion that parentage and gender are irrelevant and that the 'traditional' family based on marriage is of no relative benefit to children over other ad hoc arrangements and therefore it is not in the interest of society to promote such then it will weaken nothing.  Those with the 'love is all you need' outlook will vote Yes in droves, those who, like me, view marriage as gendered and primarily about children will vote No.


Purple said:


> Speaking of which, it's (GoT) back on!


Downloaders with scant regard for copyright will already have the first four episodes .


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> If one is of the opinion that parentage and gender are irrelevant and that the 'traditional' family based on marriage is of no relative benefit to children over other ad hoc arrangements and therefore it is not in the interest of society to promote such then it will weaken nothing.  Those with the 'love is all you need' outlook will vote Yes in droves, those who, like me, view marriage as gendered and primarily about children will vote No.


I think it's very unfair and disparaging to refer to committed, loving and stable same sex relationships as "ad hoc arrangements".


----------



## michaelm

Not intended to be disparaging, not wanting to get hung up on semantics, perhaps I should have used non-traditional, mea culpa.


----------



## Latrade

michaelm said:


> If one is of the opinion that parentage and gender are irrelevant and that the 'traditional' family based on marriage is of no relative benefit to children over other ad hoc arrangements and therefore it is not in the interest of society to promote such then it will weaken nothing.  Those with the 'love is all you need' outlook will vote Yes in droves, those who, like me, view marriage as gendered and primarily about children will vote No.


 
Relevance is based upon how their importance is measured. At the moment it is measured on opinion or view and I'm not convinced that a view of what is better should maintain a system that discriminates against a group of people for no other reason than their sexuality. It should be good news that children can be raised in a family environment irrespective of their parent's gender, not the basis to vote no and maintain discrimination.

A family based on marriage is important. As is a stable and secure relationship as is stable and secure household, income, dedicating time and attention to children, etc. So no, it isn't "love is all you need" that's a very glib statement, it is simply that the belief that a traditional marriage is a better model for a family cannot be proven, in fact has been disproven. Whatever cognitive dissonance occurs from there within those who hold that opinion is for them and their conscience, but I would hope that this is measured against whether it is reasonable to deny another human being equal rights on the basis of a false assumption and belief no matter how uncomfortable it might be?


----------



## michaelm

Latrade said:


> A family based on marriage is important. As is a stable and secure relationship as is stable and secure household, income, dedicating time and attention to children, etc.


We agree on something.





Latrade said:


> the belief that a traditional marriage is a better model for a family cannot be proven, in fact has been disproven. Whatever cognitive dissonance occurs from there within those who hold that opinion is for them and their conscience


There is no onus on proponents of traditional marriage to prove anything.  Nothing has been disproved.  The best one can say is that studies suggest that being raised by a same-sex couple does not result in any significant relative disadvantage.  The scope and subjectivity of such studies attract little scrutiny.  A man can no more mother a child than a woman can be a father figure, studies notwithstanding.  I have no cognitive dissonance on the matter and my conscience is clear.  What you may not appreciate is that No voters don't view this as an equality issue despite it being branded as such.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> A man can no more mother a child than a woman can be a father figure, studies notwithstanding.


What do you mean by mothering?
I'll be spending Friday evening baking with my daughters. I'm the parent who brings them to the hair dresser and to date I'm the parent who has talked to my older daughter about make-up. Their mother does none of the above.


----------



## Latrade

michaelm said:


> The scope and subjectivity of such studies attract little scrutiny.  A man can no more mother a child than a woman can be a father figure, studies notwithstanding.  I have no cognitive dissonance on the matter and my conscience is clear.  What you may not appreciate is that No voters don't view this as an equality issue despite it being branded as such.


 
Actually they attract a lot of scrutiny, predominantly because there is a tendancy for some right-wing commentators, press or insitutions to cherry pick the data. For example the Mail in the UK has used the studies to show that children fair poorly in single-parent families (largely to bash benefits and welfare arrangements), but the report shows that children from single parent families in less deprived areas do just fine. Trust me, these studies have been picked over by all sides in the debate.

Whether you view it as an equality issue or not is irrelevant. I'm actually loathed to be so blunt in what is a reasonable discussion, but I think I have to be because denying equal rights to one group of people based soley on their sexuality is nothing but an equality issue. I appreciate No voters may wish to believe it isn't about equality or prejudice, but it is. If they can't accept that same-sex families can be just as rich and stable as "traditional" then they are denying a fact. If they can't accept that there is nothing to support the belief that "traditional" marriage is better than same-sex, then they are denying a fact. To do so and not also accept that this is a form of prejudice and denial of equality is a matter of their conscience, but it is still and will always be about singling out a group of people and denying them the same rights as you.


----------



## michaelm

Latrade said:


> Whether you view it as an equality issue or not is irrelevant. I'm actually loathed to be so blunt in what is a reasonable discussion, but I think I have to be because denying equal rights to one group of people based soley on their sexuality is nothing but an equality issue.


It's relevant to me.  If I believed it was an equality issue I'd vote Yes.  You may be loath to accept it but my No vote has nothing to do with sexuality but rather based on viewing marriage as gendered.  Your Yes will cancel my No and happily for the Yes side they should easily carry the day and everyone can then go back to being uninterested.


----------



## Leper

The conversations here are going around and around talking about the same squares in different circles.  Speaking as a rational hetrosexual you don't have to be a genius to know that this referendum means much more to homosexual people than hetrosexual people. What does it matter to any hetrosexual person if homosexual people can marry each other?  Let's call a spade a spade here what difference does it make to the hetrosexual community that homosexuals can marry each other?


----------



## Purple

Leper said:


> Let's call a spade a spade here what difference does it make to the hetrosexual community that homosexuals can marry each other?


 That's the nub of it. I'm not suddenly going to change sexual preference because homosexual people have the same recognition under the law for their relationships as heterosexual people... and if I did what harm? here's the thing; there's nothing wrong with being gay.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Have followed all the threads .
.

There is no doubt the Gay Community feel hard done by not having Marriage and are very emotive.
There is little doubt that Heterosexual Community are not overly emotive on this referendum.

So we end up voting on variable emotions ?, never a good idea.
 Homosexuals are Homosexual and Heterosexuals are Heterosexual, so why have sameness?  I just do not get the equality argument. 

I fear that from now on until polling day , the (convinced) (cheerleaders) from either side will spout spurious candyfloss arguments or plain hateful reasons to follow them.
We could end up with a YES vote that has soured the airways.
We could end up with a NO   vote that has soured the airways.
Either result will not help anyone.

Does it not boil down to a simple premise as follows.

        If I believe Marriage is a Gender based institution , I vote NO.
If I want Marriage to be a non Gender based institution , I vote YES.


----------



## Latrade

Gerry Canning said:


> Have followed all the threads .
> .
> 
> There is no doubt the Gay Community feel hard done by not having Marriage and are very emotive.
> There is little doubt that Heterosexual Community are not overly emotive on this referendum.


 
I would question several of the points here.

"feel hard done by" is a tad condescending. The Gay community are being actively discriminated against by the state as identified by the Supreme Court. Remember, it is illegal for them to marry. Illegal. Banned. Not just an inconvience, but an official state policy that bans them enjoying the same marital and state recognised status as heterosexual couples. It isn't feeling hard done by when there is a clear policy of treating one group of people as different to all other citizens.



Gerry Canning said:


> So we end up voting on variable emotions ?, never a good idea.
> Homosexuals are Homosexual and Heterosexuals are Heterosexual, so why have sameness? I just do not get the equality argument.


 
How about homosexuals are human beings capable of sustaining a lasting relationship suitable for the ongoing support and care for a family (or not if they chose), heterosexuals are are human beings capable of sustaining a lasting relationship suitable for the ongoing support and care for a family (or not if they chose) so why the difference? It's that simple.



Gerry Canning said:


> If I believe Marriage is a Gender based institution , I vote NO.
> If I want Marriage to be a non Gender based institution , I vote YES.


 
Vote based on whatever criteria you wish, but you can't avoid the fact that it is a vote on equality and the denial of equal status to a group of fellow citizens.

The repetition of the line regarding gender being a basis for marriage is fine, that can be down to belief and to be honest it can only be down to a belief because it cannot be supported through any evidential basis. Nobody is denying anyone their beliefs (it is only criminal to make public beliefs that can give rise to hatred and harm of individuals), but that doesn't overide the simple fact that this is an equality issue and whether you wish to continue to deny a group of people equal status or not.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Latrade said:


> I would question several of the points here.
> 
> "feel hard done by" is a tad condescending. The Gay community are being actively discriminated against by the state as identified by the Supreme Court. Remember, it is illegal for them to marry. Illegal. Banned. Not just an inconvience, but an official state policy that bans them enjoying the same marital and state recognised status as heterosexual couples. It isn't feeling hard done by when there is a clear policy of treating one group of people as different to all other citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> How about homosexuals are human beings capable of sustaining a lasting relationship suitable for the ongoing support and care for a family (or not if they chose), heterosexuals are are human beings capable of sustaining a lasting relationship suitable for the ongoing support and care for a family (or not if they chose) so why the difference? It's that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> Vote based on whatever criteria you wish, but you can't avoid the fact that it is a vote on equality and the denial of equal status to a group of fellow citizens.
> 
> The repetition of the line regarding gender being a basis for marriage is fine, that can be down to belief and to be honest it can only be down to a belief because it cannot be supported through any evidential basis. Nobody is denying anyone their beliefs (it is only criminal to make public beliefs that can give rise to hatred and harm of individuals), but that doesn't overide the simple fact that this is an equality issue and whether you wish to continue to deny a group of people equal status or not.


----------



## Gerry Canning

I hear you loud and clear and I apologise if I am a tad condescending , not intended.
I would have been more afraid of being deliberately hurtful to anyone.

So it is illegal for Gays to marry. Then let us kill off marriage and instate a proper Civil Union.
Up to now Marriage (for better or worse) is gender based, people who have married until now accept that.
This Gender Basis has nought to do with belief , it is a statement of accepted fact that since the State was set up Marriage is accepted as Gender based.The vote is do we wish to change that.
The more I think about it  this Referendum was ill-conceived on a doubtful equality basis.
Had it been phrased in such a way as a New Beginning of Relationships with full equality for couples and that Marriage as a gender based institution died in the fullness of time ,it would have been better. 

I still do not see it as a vote on equality.
I do not see it as a vote on family, or who cares for who.

For what it is worth , I expect Yes to carry vote.


----------



## Purple

If interracial marriages were banned and we were looking to lift that ban would it be legitimate to oppose that ban on the basis that one is not racist but considers marriage to be a union between people of the same race?
In years to come this referendum will be seen in the same light.


----------



## Sunny

Of course this is about equality. Marriage as an 'institution' doesn't belong to hetrosexual people. It doesn't belong to people of any one faith or religion. The concept of marriage belongs to everybody. This is about the State actively discriminating against one part of society. The various religious order are free to continue with how they see fit but they have no right to try and enforce their beliefs on the rest of society. I have read some rubbish about the impact on children during this debate and it is simply pathetic. Every day, there are children been being born to young teenage mothers, there are children been born into houses with alcoholic or drug addict mothers and fathers. There are children been physically and sexually abused by their mothers and fathers. There are children that are been beaten, molested, raped, starved and made suffer by their so called loved ones. Many hetrosexual married couples have proven themselves to be pathetic, cruel, evil, sadistic parents and yet we think that by allowing same sex people marry, we are opening the floodgates of misery for children of Ireland and the end of the family unit.

This debate is not about children. It is about the right of same sex couples to marry like their brothers, sisters and friends. That's all. Any attempt to go past this is an attempt to scaremonger.


----------



## Latrade

Gerry Canning said:


> So it is illegal for Gays to marry. Then let us kill off marriage and instate a proper Civil Union.


 
Why when the problem is essentially solved by a simple change of definition? That route would require a much bigger change in the constitution and would have a much bigger impact on married people. This way the only impact is to provide equal rights to a group currently denied them.



Gerry Canning said:


> Up to now Marriage (for better or worse) is gender based, people who have married until now accept that.
> This Gender Basis has nought to do with belief , it is a statement of accepted fact that since the State was set up Marriage is accepted as Gender based.The vote is do we wish to change that.


 
The state set up many things in the constitution based upon what it felt best or thought at the time. Many have been changed in light of perceived wrongs, biases, administrative details, etc. We've accepted many things in the constitution and society has developed to mean we no longer feel they were just or right, in many of those changes we weren't directly impacted by the need for change. That's an argument from a privaledged position. Married couples have accepted that marriage is gender because they are the only ones allowed to marry, there hasn't been an opportunity to think of it in any other way.

The issue on belief is whether marriage should continue to be gender-based, not that it is currently gender based, but whether there are any demonstrable negative impacts from removing the gender bias. If not and the individual still wishes to vote no, then it is a matter of their belief and nothing more.

I still do not see how you cannot see that this anything but an equality issue.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Latrade said:


> Why when the problem is essentially solved by a simple change of definition? That route would require a much bigger change in the constitution and would have a much bigger impact on married people. This way the only impact is to provide equal rights to a group currently denied them.
> 
> 
> 
> The state set up many things in the constitution based upon what it felt best or thought at the time. Many have been changed in light of perceived wrongs, biases, administrative details, etc. We've accepted many things in the constitution and society has developed to mean we no longer feel they were just or right, in many of those changes we weren't directly impacted by the need for change. That's an argument from a privaledged position. Married couples have accepted that marriage is gender because they are the only ones allowed to marry, there hasn't been an opportunity to think of it in any other way.
> 
> The issue on belief is whether marriage should continue to be gender-based, not that it is currently gender based, but whether there are any demonstrable negative impacts from removing the gender bias. If not and the individual still wishes to vote no, then it is a matter of their belief and nothing more.
> 
> I still do not see how you cannot see that this anything but an equality issue.


.........................................................................................................
Sorry folks.
Must be me but I just cannot get my head around this being an equality issue.
Is this Referendum  not solely a wish to ensure all loving couples get the same rights ?

So confine Marriage as was understood up to now as Man & Woman , that is what was contracted.

Let us give a time clarity and close off the accepted definition of Marriage,and have all future Unions as Full Civil Partnerships encompassing rights that up to now were largely encompassed in Marriage?
Would that not sort out the No camp and give equal future rights to Yes camp?


----------



## Purple

Gerry Canning said:


> .........................................................................................................
> Sorry folks.
> Must be me but I just cannot get my head around this being an equality issue.
> Is this Referendum  not solely a wish to ensure all loving couples get the same rights ?
> 
> So confine Marriage as was understood up to now as Man & Woman , that is what was contracted.
> 
> Let us give a time clarity and close off the accepted definition of Marriage,and have all future Unions as Full Civil Partnerships encompassing rights that up to now were largely encompassed in Marriage?
> Would that not sort out the No camp and give equal future rights to Yes camp?


Why would we do that, other than to differentiate between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage under the law? Kind of like "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others"?

It sounds a bit like this.


----------



## Firefly

What would happen currently if a man and women got married (even had kids), but one of them later had a sex-change...would they still be "married"?


----------



## Latrade

Gerry Canning said:


> .........................................................................................................
> Sorry folks.
> Must be me but I just cannot get my head around this being an equality issue.
> Is this Referendum  not solely a wish to ensure all loving couples get the same rights ?
> 
> So confine Marriage as was understood up to now as Man & Woman , that is what was contracted.
> 
> Let us give a time clarity and close off the accepted definition of Marriage,and have all future Unions as Full Civil Partnerships encompassing rights that up to now were largely encompassed in Marriage?
> Would that not sort out the No camp and give equal future rights to Yes camp?


 
Yes it is to provide the same rights, hence equality.

It doesn't effect the existing contract. Those married as of today are still free to remain married, love each other and remain heterosexual. They will not be forced to alter their existing contract. It will just mean others can avail of the same recognition by the state.

Therefore, why should it be called anything else than marriage?

It requires constitutional change as marriage is protected by the constitution, so whether they the new system is called civil partnership or any other name, it would still require constitutional change so that it has the same protection and status as marriage. We'd be back right back at the start.

And it's an uncomfortable proposition as it is a "separate but equal" view. It is still saying there is something special about traditional marriage that a gay marriage couldn't achieve. It is also, alas, the same argument used in support of segregated schools in the states that was found to be unconstitutional. Equality means equality.

I've no idea if the no camp would be happy with a civil union, given the opposition to civil partnership five years ago I'd suspect that no matter what it was called there would be a large opposition.

But why put it on the long finger? why go through even greater constitutional upheaval? This is the simplest and fairest way to ensure equality and ensures it with no impact on anyone.


----------



## Purple

Latrade said:


> And it's an uncomfortable proposition as it is a "separate but equal" view. It is still saying there is something special about traditional marriage that a gay marriage couldn't achieve. It is also, alas, the same argument used in support of segregated schools in the states that was found to be unconstitutional. Equality means equality.


Indeed!


Purple said:


> It sounds a bit like this.


----------



## Latrade

Firefly said:


> What would happen currently if a man and women got married (even had kids), but one of them later had a sex-change...would they still be "married"?


 
Yes because the state does not recognise the change of a person's gender, and so official records would still record their birth gender.


----------



## Purple

Latrade said:


> Yes because the state does not recognise the change of a person's gender, and so official records would still record their birth gender.


Another thing that should be changed.


----------



## Purple

I like this one


----------



## Leo

Interesting piece here on the evolution of marriage in Ireland, and how the term and what it entails has changed with the times. Very clear the accepted and legal meanings have evolved significantly over time.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Leo.

Maybe No voters are not into evolution!


----------



## Sol28

I am fuming with a poster I spotted earlier - the No side clouding the referendum with obvious lies. The Yes vote will make no change to any surrogacy laws - nor will a no vote.

Dirty Tactics have started!

(Sorry - Dont know how to make this pic any smaller)


----------



## terrysgirl33

Leo said:


> Interesting piece here on the evolution of marriage in Ireland, and how the term and what it entails has changed with the times. Very clear the accepted and legal meanings have evolved significantly over time.



It only deals with changes from middle to late medieval times, but it is very interesting, and sounds rather alien now!


----------



## Leper

Sol28 said:


> I am fuming with a poster I spotted earlier - the No side clouding the referendum with obvious lies. The Yes vote will make no change to any surrogacy laws - nor will a no vote.
> 
> Dirty Tactics have started!



We've never had a referendum or election which was without Dirty Tactics.  The forthcoming referendum and any future election will not be fought by people waving fingernails across a table.  I bet before long both sides will be pulling out every stop (clean and dirty) to try and convince people one way or the other.

Like I said in an earlier post on this thread there the only danger to the Yes vote is overkill.  Some of the trades unions have jumped in on the Yes side although they would have members on the No side too.  I'm sure some of the trades union membership will not be impressed on a union that was complicit in inflicting a 14% (at least) drop in wages over the past few years is championing something not in line with the thinking of some of its membership. Lots of other organisations have jumped on the Yes bandwagon too.

In the meantime an elderly homosexual friend of mine waits and waits on how the future of homosexuality is going to be treated in Ireland.  I should point out that he always practised his homosexuality.  He was cast out by his family; only receives an invitation to attend the family home on Christmas Day and while relationships were discussed by other family members, his were not.  He was driven into depression and confused beyond comprehension.  His chances of promotion in work were nil and for a quiet life he just laid low.  He still visits his family (at Christmas) and every illness is discussed except the illness inside of his mind (depression).  He is in his seventies now, retired, beaten down and can't believe that the people who castigated him are now hopping on bandwagons, clapping each other on the back and nobody is apologising or even expressing regret at his suffering.

Dirty Tricks are just another nail in this man's coffin by people who should know better.


----------



## Purple

Leper said:


> In the meantime an elderly homosexual friend of mine waits and waits on how the future of homosexuality is going to be treated in Ireland. I should point out that he always practised his homosexuality. He was cast out by his family; only receives an invitation to attend the family home on Christmas Day and while relationships were discussed by other family members, his were not. He was driven into depression and confused beyond comprehension. His chances of promotion in work were nil and for a quiet life he just laid low. He still visits his family (at Christmas) and every illness is discussed except the illness inside of his mind (depression). He is in his seventies now, retired, beaten down and can't believe that the people who castigated him are now hopping on bandwagons, clapping each other on the back and nobody is apologising or even expressing regret at his suffering.


That's very well put, extremely sad and, unfortunately, extremely common.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Those who castigated/hurt that 70 year old have realised that they were wrong and at least nowadays the vast bulk of that old  homophobia has gone.
It is always hard to apologise for past mistakes ,people have a habit of following the (norm) of the time and since they weren,t in that mans shoes in bygonedays, and since most people are heterosexual , they  could not back, in fairly recent past ,have seen the hurt.


----------



## Sol28

Gerry Canning said:


> Those who castigated/hurt that 70 year old have realised that they were wrong and at least nowadays the vast bulk of that old  homophobia has gone.



I totally agree with you. Unfortunately you cant retrospectively go back and fix his life. What we can do is ensure no one has to suffer the same again. Hopefully he can get some joy from seeing that the world is improving - and that rights are opening up to him (despite how late in his life they are).


----------



## michaelm

Sol28 said:


> I am fuming with a poster I spotted earlier - the No side clouding the referendum with obvious lies. The Yes vote will make no change to any surrogacy laws - nor will a no vote.


That is your opinion, which I presume is genuinely held.  Many voting No will view a Yes as setting in stone the recently rushed through Children and Family Relationships bill.

I've just watched a YouTube video of a talk by David Quinn (Iona Institute) on The Redefinition of Marriage and the Rights of Children which clearly explains the rational of many No voters.  It's long at 35 minutes, and one would have set aside any preconception or disdain one may harbour for Quinn or Iona, but it may provide an insight to the thinking of No voters even if one doesn't agree with it.  It pretty much elucidates why I'm voting No.


----------



## Leper

We're running away from what is relevant.  The referendum is about Equality.  

What is it to any person if homosexual people can marry each other? It's not like as if as a result of a Yes vote that the earth will stop spinning on its axis. Some of the ludicrous No advertising will drive people who were originally going to vote No to vote Yes.

Anyway Paddypower odds say it all Yes at odds 1/10


----------



## Latrade

michaelm said:


> That is your opinion, which I presume is genuinely held.  Many voting No will view a Yes as setting in stone the recently rushed through Children and Family Relationships bill.
> 
> I've just watched a YouTube video of a talk by David Quinn (Iona Institute).


 
Just to back up Sol and everyone else offended by the posters: false and misleading threats as to what the outcome of this vote will mean are the lowest form of politicking. The posters are simply wrong and deliberately so. There is no justification for perpetuating misleading threats that are almost dripping in hate for the (male) gay community. To be facetuous, posters stating that a child needs a mother would have been much more appreciated in recent history when the church was taking babies from mothers and sticking them in slave labour camps or selling them. But then I guess the church has changed it's views on what is best for a child...funny how we can change definitions and views as time goes on. Implies tyhat no view is sacred or concrete, no matter what the source.

For those not inclined to view the whole talk from David Quinn, here's the summary and if I misrepresent anything, I'm open to correction:

Once you redefine marriage you are saying that as a society we no longer need a social institution that:

grows out of the differences between the sexes,
out of the fact that the sexual union of a man and a woman is unique in kind,
out of the fact that the natural tie is worth preserving, and
out of the fact that actually it is best for the child to have a loving mother and father.
 
Is that about right?


I guess it seems reasonable, but here's my problem with many of the points and it is again that it all boils down to a veiled threat of doom and gloom without actually saying or providing evidence as to what will happen.

We have several countries that recognise gay marriage, perfect case studies to test these and none of this has proven to be true.

Quinn points to differences between men and women just by saying that; they're different. He tells us its proven they're different. I can accept this, but he doesn't explain how or in what way, or how this is unique and special. Give us something to discuss and debate because again, the impact of gender on raising a child has not been found to be significant. This is the main problem with the No campaign so far in that there is just too much implied threat without giving specifics, too much our gut says this is special so it must be. Does society grow out of the differences between sexes? I dunno. Maybe it has in recent history because of how prevalent sexism has been. Maybe that has fostered some of the differences in gender roles in the family, but that isn't the most common famliy unit for my generation. Both parents work, both share household duties, both raise the kids equally. I've dressed up and played fairies and tea parties just as much as I've been a punching bag for whichever super hero was favourite that week. I've discussed boys and girls. I know most of the songs to My Little Pony series just as much as I know how to clear most of the Lego video games. I'm a parent first, I just happen to be referred to as a dad.

Maybe, just maybe, the old gender assigned roles that are so special were based on an old patriarchal system that doesn't exist anymore (perfect chance for the Mens Right Movement to chip in to this thread).

To be facetious, a night in Coppers will show you that the sexual union of a man and a women isn't that unique. But then what does unique mean and in what context. Sexual union of a man and a man is also unique. Sexual union of a woman and a woman is also unique...man and sheep too. It's all unique going by a strict definition. But let's cut to the chase, he's not really saying unique, he's saying better, he's saying right. He's saying homosexuality is wrong, just in a way that doesn't get him into trouble.

We have two points, society grows out of the differences between sexes and that this sexual union is unique. But nothing to back up that statement, nothing out of the decades of anthropological studies to show that there is any downside whatsoever for allowing other couples to have the same rights. If these points are true, what possible impact is there if (approx) 15% of the population get to have equal status? None. Even Quinn can't (or won't) provide any, just implied threats.

Then the last two points. The natural tie is worth preserving. It has been. It will be. It. Doesn't. Change. Marriage between a man and a woman will still exist to be marriage between a man and a women. They can still go forth and multiply. If anyone is concerned that in the present or future that their marriage will not be special to them and their partner because two men or two women can also have their union recognised, then maybe take the time to think if marriage is right for you or whether you're ready for it. What other people do in their marriage, who they marry, why they marry, none of that should be of any consequence to you and why you chose to marry who you did or will. This vote will not do anything to existing marriage. Stop pretending it will. All and any impact on existing marriage is in the head of those puporting this falsehood. It perhaps says more about their own bigotry and existing marriage than anything else.

And then the last; think of the children. Here's the rub, it may well be best for a child to have a mother and father, but even Quinn prefaces this with "loving". So it is a qualified statement that all being equal a loving mother and father is better for the child than a loving same sex couple. Utter nonsense as it happens, but we'll go with it.

Let's start then with abolishing boarding schools, particuarly ones that are single sex and single sex teachers. That has to be a dangerous environment to raise children.

Question though, if (loving) mother and father is best, how will this referendum change that? Genuine question. Because the only possible way that could be affected is if gay couples start coming in and stealing children or getting preferential IVF treatment or something. Is it because there might be equal access to adoption? Good! Even if loving mother and father was best, there aren't enough of them willing to or able to adopt or foster. Even if a loving gay couple isn't as good, surely its better than a child being a ward of the state, or has Quinn not followed the HSE's record on caring for children?

Then the last thing he doesn't address is what about all the non-loving parents, is gender so important and special that they are still better than a gay couple? Really? Well obviously not, because even Quinn qualifies his statement with "loving", unfortunately we don't and never have had 100% compliance with being a good parent. There will be no impact on those in an existing marrigae with kids, they will still be the parent, they can still love and nurture their kids.

I agree we should think of the children, all those institutionalised because of a failure of parenting. All those who in the past were taken from mothers and sold. Think of the children, but not yours, those who don't have access to a loving and supportive family unit. Why deny them the same care and nurture?

Even if what Quinn states is correct (and all evidence is that it isn't...Canada, seems to be doing ok) it isn't a good enough reason to deny equality. There is no downside to voting yes. No impacts on existing reasons people got married or had kids. It will not affect how you parent  or continue in your relationship.

The No campaign remains one of implied threatswithout just stating what the justifiable reason for voting no is. Even when they do, they're all points that won't be impacted by this vote.


----------



## cork

It is a bit wierd that Labour and FG have posters up proclaiming Equqlity given the unequal nature of their past budgets.

That said - I hope the debate will give due respect to both sides.


----------



## Latrade

cork said:


> It is a bit wierd that Labour and FG have posters up proclaiming Equqlity given the unequal nature of their past budgets.
> 
> That said - I hope the debate will give due respect to both sides.


 
Not as weird as the Fianna Fail ones considering their thinly veiled contempt for gay marriage and the fact that they refused to provide for gay marriage when they were in government and ended up providing the sham civil union while promising their members they would never support gay marriage.


----------



## cork

FF very active down here in Cork on Referendum.

I actually attended a public meeting in the Kingsley hotel 2 weeks ago attended by Arvil power and Billy Kelleher.


----------



## Ger

Latrade said:


> To be facetious, a night in Coppers will show you that the sexual union of a man and a women isn't that unique. But then what does unique mean and in what context. Sexual union of a man and a man is also unique. Sexual union of a woman and a woman is also unique...man and sheep too. It's all unique going by a strict definition. But let's cut to the chase, he's not really saying unique, he's saying better, he's saying right. He's saying homosexuality is wrong, just in a way that doesn't get him into trouble.



As regards to the above, my interpretation of the meaning  of 'unique' in this context is that in the normal course of events, the sexual union of a man and a woman is the only sexual union that can bear fruit so to speak and produce new human beings.

But you are possibly right in that from a hedonistic context (a night in coppers), 'Sexual union of a woman and a woman is also unique...man and sheep too'.


----------



## Purple

Latrade said:


> Not as weird as the Fianna Fail ones considering their thinly veiled contempt for gay marriage and the fact that they refused to provide for gay marriage when they were in government and ended up providing the sham civil union while promising their members they would never support gay marriage.



It was an FF government that decriminalised homosexuality and it was an FF government that lowered the age of consent for both heterosexual and homosexual sex and opposed the FG proposal that the age of consent for homosexual sex be set at a higher age. They have a good track record in that regard.


----------



## Latrade

Ger said:


> As regards to the above, my interpretation of the meaning  of 'unique' in this context is that in the normal course of events, the sexual union of a man and a woman is the only sexual union that can bear fruit so to speak and produce new human beings.


 
I agree, in the normal course of events and in an ideal world. But it isn't an ideal world. There was a 496% increase in the number of people travelling abroad to have fertility treatment. Irish Health puts it at 1 in 6 couples seek fertility treatment. So only 5 out of 6 of those unique relationships are "normal". 

We can't base equality on what might be the case, but on what is the case.


----------



## michaelm

Leper said:


> The referendum is about Equality.


It appears the strategy of the Yes campaign is to keep repeating the equality mantra, for who could argue against equality, to dismiss all No arguments out of hand, and generally to harangue and impugn dissenters.



Latrade said:


> For those not inclined to view the whole talk from David Quinn, here's the summary and if I misrepresent anything, I'm open to correction:


I think it can be distilled down to saying that this amendment redefines the family, not just marriage, and sets in stone the Children and Family Relationships bill which envisages pick 'n' mix parentage such that whether a child has a mother and a father is deemed irrelevant by the state (and by popular vote).  I think it's still worth watching for those interested in why some people will vote No.



Leper said:


> Anyway Paddypower odds say it all Yes at odds 1/10


Indeed, which I suppose renders the debate somewhat moot.


----------



## Latrade

Purple said:


> It was an FF government that decriminalised homosexuality and it was an FF government that lowered the age of consent for both heterosexual and homosexual sex and opposed the FG proposal that the age of consent for homosexual sex be set at a higher age. They have a good track record in that regard.


 
Agreed, but the civil partnership legislation came with the statement that they would never legislate for gay marriage and we only had that legislation as a result of the Green Party. Out of all the parties, FF have been the quietest on this I'd say.


----------



## Purple

Latrade said:


> Agreed, but the civil partnership legislation came with the statement that they would never legislate for gay marriage and we only had that legislation as a result of the Green Party. Out of all the parties, FF have been the quietest on this I'd say.


I agree but no party can pat itself on the back when it comes to these issues, with the exception of the Greens. Labour has the best policy record of the main parties.


----------



## Latrade

michaelm said:


> I think it can be distilled down to saying that this amendment redefines the family, not just marriage, and sets in stone the Children and Family Relationships bill which envisages pick 'n' mix parentage such that whether a child has a mother and a father is deemed irrelevant by the state (and by popular vote).


 
Complete tosh, show me which part of the Bill allows for pick n mix parentage? The Bill tries to allow for modern families, but has numerous caveats attached. Such as recognition of an umarried father, but with caveats. Same sex couples can gain very limited guardianship if there is a child from a previous relationship, but the biological mother/father has the greatest say in the raising of the child. In the case of sperm or egg donation (not surrogacy), then the partner (homosexual or heterosexual) can be named as a second parent. But only if the donor consents, hasn't donated or consented for profit, however, they will be listed as the genetic parent on a list of donors. On adoption, single people can apply to adopt a child as it is (hardly in keeping with the family unit). The draft law proposes that civil partners and couples who have lived together for at least three years will be eligible to adopt jointly.

What exactly is pick n mix about that other than reflecting that there are legal complications, lack of clarity and difficulty with recognising parentage and guardianship in those cases where a child is not conceived via sexual intercourse. It just provides a route for recognition of parentage unless I've missed something.


----------



## Latrade

Purple said:


> I agree but no party can pat itself on the back when it comes to these issues, with the exception of the Greens. Labour has the best policy record of the main parties.


 
Exactly, which is why I reacted as I did to the irrelevant point regarding Labour and FG campaigns.


----------



## Gerry Canning

I get blinded by the yes and no side arguments .
I see genuine concerns by both sides and thankfully a lot less vitriol than I would have expected.

I still cannot get my head around the Equality Issue. =Yes side
I still cannot get my head around real concerns about Family.= No side.

Maybe it is just me but is this not simply an effort to permit all couples to use the word Marriage in a Civil sense.
If so then surely those who Married up to May 2015 are having their marriage ,which was clearly understood to be heterosexual changed, is it not reasonable that they vote No as their contract has changed.
Would it not have been possible to word things to accept the status quo up to May 15.
And then redefine The New Marriage as somewhat different to the Old Marriage?


----------



## Purple

Gerry Canning said:


> Would it not have been possible to word things to accept the status quo up to May 15.
> And then redefine The New Marriage as somewhat different to the Old Marriage?


No, because then we'd be back to the "different/separate but equal" status. If they are equal then they are the same.


----------



## Latrade

Gerry Canning said:


> Maybe it is just me but is this not simply an effort to permit all couples to use the word Marriage in a Civil sense.
> If so then surely those who Married up to May 2015 are having their marriage ,which was clearly understood to be heterosexual changed, is it not reasonable that they vote No as their contract has changed.
> Would it not have been possible to word things to accept the status quo up to May 15.
> And then redefine The New Marriage as somewhat different to the Old Marriage?


 
Contract, schmontract. Who out there right now married because it provided a contract? Genuinely, who does that? Who even thought that it was about their sexuality? Compare that to those that married because it was "the next step" in their relationship and a recognition of their commitment?

The change does nothing to that commitment whatsoever. So no, it isn't reasomable for them to feel that way even if they do. It is unreasonable, reactionary and, in my opinion, bigoted.

My contract of employment didn't change and wasn't devalued at the introduction and protections for equality. Just because my female colleagues were now entitled to the same pay based on their competence and not a reduced salary because of their sexuality didn't have any impact on my exisiting arrangements. But then I didn't start work on the basis of a contract. In the same way my contract of employment stayed the same when under the same legislation my Christian colleagues couldnt' be discriminated against for their faith or my gay colleagues couldn't be discriminated againts. Not one thing changed in my contract other than my colleagues were now on the same level as me (well, largely a better level because they were better workers).

Mortgages changed with female property rights, employment changed when women were no longer laid off due to marriage or pregnancy. None of which affected existing contracts. If someone is genuinely believes that these changes affects what their marriage means, then they need to reevaluate themselves what their marriage means. All I know is that nothing that goes on in the world has any change on what my relationship and family means, why I'm in that relationship and why we have a family.


----------



## michaelm

Latrade said:


> Complete tosh


Hmmm, sooo you don't agree that Quinn is essentially saying that '*this amendment redefines the family, not just marriage, and sets in stone the Children and Family Relationships bill* (which envisages pick 'n' mix parentage such that whether a child has a mother and a father is deemed irrelevant by the state)'? . . that is what he is saying, that you think it's complete tosh notwithstanding.


----------



## Latrade

michaelm said:


> Hmmm, sooo you don't agree that Quinn is essentially saying that '*this amendment redefines the family, not just marriage, and sets in stone the Children and Family Relationships bill* (which envisages pick 'n' mix parentage such that whether a child has a mother and a father is deemed irrelevant by the state)'? . . that is what he is saying, that you think it's complete tosh notwithstanding.


 
Yes, I think that statement is complete tosh for two reasons. First, the use of the emotive term "pick n mix" parentage. I'd like to see where and how this is the case. The state will recognise different forms of parentage and guardianship that reflect the modern family which has already redefined itself via IVF, egg and sperm donation. Unfortunately these are necessary even for heterosexual couples, because that unique heterosexual coupling isn't always as fruitful or as permanent as we'd like to think. The only way to preserve Quinn's view of normality and special would be to prohibit recognition of any "non-natural" birth, that would at least be consistent. If the Children and Family Bill prohibited same sex couples, would Quinn be so scared of it?

And the second point is probably the simplest, in that this referendum has nothing to do with the Bill and even if a no vote is successful, the Bill will be enacted and civil partnerships will be given rights of parentage. So he is wrong *and* talking complete tosh. The amendment will apply the existing definition of marriage to those who wish to avail of the ceremony. It does not redefine family, neither does the Children and Family relationship Bill. It largely provides criteria and conditions to be met before parentage can be recognised where it is in the child's best interest, all of which can largely be done right now, they just involve lengthy and expensive court hearings. This cuts out the need for the courts.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Latrade , go easy please .

To use words like reactionary, bigoted etc does your obvious wish for a Yes vote a lot of dis-service.

No doubt people on the no side hold reasoned views , you may strongly disagree with their reasoning that you see as flawed but they are not reactionary much less bigoted.

No doubt people on the Yes side hold reasoned views.If you disagree with them you are not reactionary much less bigoted.

We are all allowed our opinions , even if wrong!.
We are going to get Referendums on Abortion down the track which will put the anxst on this argument in the penny place!.


----------



## Firefly

Gerry Canning said:


> We are going to get Referendums on Abortion down the track which will put the anxst on this argument in the penny place!.



Gets popcorn


----------



## Sol28

Since I last read this thread a lot of discussion has been doing the rounds - I want to react to some of these points.
Firstly I will state my position - I am a single gay man, who has felt the sting of inequality through out my life.

My views are biased of course. But then as far as I can see I am the only stated gay person in this discussion - so to hear everyone else discuss (and dismiss) my reality is quiet personal.



michaelm said:


> It appears the strategy of the Yes campaign is to keep repeating the equality mantra, for who could argue against equality, to dismiss all No arguments out of hand, and generally to harangue and impugn dissenters.



And your No argument isnt repeated to death: - Change of contract, Who will think of the children, gendered institution?? (For the ISPCCs view on Marriage Equality see [broken link removed])
I walk home everyday and I am abused by posters on every street corner telling me I am unequal. I get flyers dropped in MY door telling me why I am wrong. I have campaigners knocking on my door to tell me to stay out of this discussion because I am not validated by the churches.



Latrade said:


> Agreed, but the civil partnership legislation came with the statement that they would never legislate for gay marriage and we only had that legislation as a result of the Green Party. Out of all the parties, FF have been the quietest on this I'd say.



For the first time in my memory - all the parties actually agree on something - Is that not a good thing - why do we need to play the political game?



Gerry Canning said:


> If so then surely those who Married up to May 2015 are having their marriage ,which was clearly understood to be heterosexual changed



And if this referendum passes your marriage is now understood to be homosexual? - well Bisexual at least. Nothing has changed in your marriage = nothing will change in your marriage - if you are worried that my wedding will annul yours then you have deeper issues to tackle in your marriage.



michaelm said:


> and sets in stone the Children and Family Relationships bill



This bill is in law already - This referendum will not make any changes to that law. Voting no will prevent me marrying - that is all it will do. Voting Yes will allow me to marry and have my union protected in law. It will also place my marriage on an equal footing as yours.



Gerry Canning said:


> No doubt people on the no side hold reasoned views , you may strongly disagree with their reasoning that you see as flawed but they are not reactionary much less bigoted.



From my very first line in this topic - I am a gay man - who will feel the affects of this vote. Either the country allows me to be equal -- or it tells me I am a lesser citizen - Either way - on the 23rd May - I will be in tears. Hopefully for joy - as I dont know how I would handle the entire country rejecting me. So excuse me why I cannot see your No vote as anything but a rejection of my equality - however you dress it up.


----------



## Sol28

Gerry Canning said:


> We are going to get Referendums on Abortion down the track which will put the anxst on this argument in the penny place!.



And this ultimatly is your issue - you believe that this is the slippery slope. This is not - this is an entirely different topic - so can we please keep this conversation on track.

Of all people - I think a gay or lesbian couple are the least likely couple to have any desire for Abortion.


----------



## Purple

Sol28 said:


> Of all people - I think a gay or lesbian couple are the least likely couple to have any desire for Abortion.


Well they are the least likely to have an unplanned pregnancy!


----------



## Gerry Canning

Sol28,
You are unfair to me, to tell me what I am thinking.
What I meant was that in most of the thread venom did not get into it this discussion (as it surely will in abortion referendum)and I was referencing that that  is a good sign.
.
It is unfair of you to presume  (my) issue is a slippery slope about anything.

I would have hoped that anything I put in was not an affirmation of any thing.
I would have hoped that my input was to fully educate myself for a decision.

I can readily accept being proven wrong , but please do not mind read me.


----------



## Sol28

Gerry, 

I admit - your posts have been on the questioning side - Trying to sort out what you believe best - And I admire youre desire to get educated.
But to associate this discussion with the abortion discussion is doing no one any favour. This topic is about equal marriage - that discussion is as relevant to Marriage Equality as debt forgiveness or tax credit legislation.

You also have to accept - that this topic is incredibly emotive for me - I have tempered my responses and counted to 10 many times prior to posting here. It feels like the world is in a committee room - discussing my future - i get to attend for a while to say my piece - but only a small bit - otherwise I am protesting too much.

I am the only person in this discussion to date (it appears) who will be directly affected by the result of this referendum. I appreciate and aim to assist anyone who is trying to understand the difference and educate themselves. However I will find it very very difficult to forgive anyone who, on the 22nd, votes 'No' for whatever reasoning.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Sol28 said:


> Gerry,
> 
> I admit - your posts have been on the questioning side - Trying to sort out what you believe best - And I admire youre desire to get educated.
> But to associate this discussion with the abortion discussion is doing no one any favour. This topic is about equal marriage - that discussion is as relevant to Marriage Equality as debt forgiveness or tax credit legislation.
> 
> You also have to accept - that this topic is incredibly emotive for me - I have tempered my responses and counted to 10 many times prior to posting here. It feels like the world is in a committee room - discussing my future - i get to attend for a while to say my piece - but only a small bit - otherwise I am protesting too much.
> 
> I am the only person in this discussion to date (it appears) who will be directly affected by the result of this referendum. I appreciate and aim to assist anyone who is trying to understand the difference and educate themselves. However I will find it very very difficult to forgive anyone who, on the 22nd, votes 'No' for whatever reasoning.


I Hear You and take on board the personalisation of your views.
You are correct this committee ie referendum is discussing your future .
Since most are Heterosexual it is difficult to walk in others shoes.
Again I was NOT wishing to bring abortion debate into this ; it was to highlight that in large part we have managed to stay (cool) in our discussions. It was the best analogy I could think of at the time.
Unless Paddy Power is wrong the Yeas 70% the Nos 30%.
Suggest ;
Chill out and take the 70% !!!


----------



## Gerry Canning

Ps. Sol.

Of course forgive anyone who votes No.
Remember I have even forgiven Fianna Fail and I never thought I would !


----------



## Sol28

Gerry Canning said:


> Suggest ;
> Chill out and take the 70% !!!



Believe me I would love to. I am actually quiet chilled on this, honestly. Im getting great feedback as are my gay friends - However I am wary of living in the gay friendly bubble - and missing out on the wider reality.

As the No side keep pointing out - referendums have changed totally from the polls to the result. I saw some figure that 125,000 people under 25 are not registered to vote. By laws of average - a higher percentage of these are more likely on the yes side. As David Quinn wrote in the Indo - There are a lot of people who for the sake of an easy life will say they are voting Yes - but on the day will vote No. All of these things make me nervous. So until the Yes side is declared victorious - I am going to be nervous and worried.

Though hopeful at the same time - I have been moved to tears a number of times when I see some of the yes sides online posts and videos (including the 101 year old woman who is voting yes - and whom has never missed an election)



Gerry Canning said:


> Of course forgive anyone who votes No.


Will take me a long time to do so. I will forgive people in time as they come to realise that the sky has not fallen in after the referendum passes, and accept their mistake . Certain high profile No Campaigners will never be on my Christmas Card list.


----------



## Sol28

Sol28 said:


> Certain high profile No Campaigners will never be on my Christmas Card list.


Unless its a Photo Christmas card of me and my husband, and our dogs in front of the Christmas Tree.


----------



## Latrade

Gerry Canning said:


> Latrade , go easy please .
> 
> To use words like reactionary, bigoted etc does your obvious wish for a Yes vote a lot of dis-service.
> 
> No doubt people on the no side hold reasoned views , you may strongly disagree with their reasoning that you see as flawed but they are not reactionary much less bigoted.
> 
> No doubt people on the Yes side hold reasoned views.If you disagree with them you are not reactionary much less bigoted.
> 
> We are all allowed our opinions , even if wrong!.
> We are going to get Referendums on Abortion down the track which will put the anxst on this argument in the penny place!.



I'm sorry but we shouldn't tiptoe around issues when they are right in front of us. Of course everyone is allowed an opinion, but that doesn't make it sacred or protected, just as none of my opinions are. If there is no intellectual justification, no factual justification, no moral justification or to rational justification to assert that recognition of gay marriage will in anyway affect someone's existing marriage or "contract", then I stand by the view that it is not reasonable to hold such an opinion, no matter how much they believe it.

As to bigotry, when all arguments put forward by those engaged in the no campaign are discussed, they are pretty much shown to have no value, be incorrect, even to be lies. Yet these lies and falsehoods only every occur on the subject of gay marriage. David Quinn isn't campaigning to stop heterosexual couples receiving donor eggs and both recognised as parents. If the Children's bill prohibited recognition of gay parents, do you feel Iona would be set against it?

When there is no intellectual reason to not support gay marriage, we are left by a process of elimination that they just don't want the gay community to have the same rights. It is that simple; believing in a superior model of human relationship and actively campaigning to prohibit another group of people from having the same rights simply because of their sexuality boils down to homophobia and preventing equal rights boils down to bigotry. We cannot avoid those terms being applied to some in the No campaign and we should call it when we see it.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Latrade said:


> I'm sorry but we shouldn't tiptoe around issues when they are right in front of us. Of course everyone is allowed an opinion, but that doesn't make it sacred or protected, just as none of my opinions are. If there is no intellectual justification, no factual justification, no moral justification or to rational justification to assert that recognition of gay marriage will in anyway affect someone's existing marriage or "contract", then I stand by the view that it is not reasonable to hold such an opinion, no matter how much they believe it.
> 
> As to bigotry, when all arguments put forward by those engaged in the no campaign are discussed, they are pretty much shown to have no value, be incorrect, even to be lies. Yet these lies and falsehoods only every occur on the subject of gay marriage. David Quinn isn't campaigning to stop heterosexual couples receiving donor eggs and both recognised as parents. If the Children's bill prohibited recognition of gay parents, do you feel Iona would be set against it?
> 
> When there is no intellectual reason to not support gay marriage, we are left by a process of elimination that they just don't want the gay community to have the same rights. It is that simple; believing in a superior model of human relationship and actively campaigning to prohibit another group of people from having the same rights simply because of their sexuality boils down to homophobia and preventing equal rights boils down to bigotry. We cannot avoid those terms being applied to some in the No campaign and we should call it when we see it.


----------



## michaelm

Although I personally don't mind, the haranguing and impugning of anyone foolhardy enough to admit an intention to vote No is probably the only way the Yes campaign just might snatch a loss from the jaws of victory.


----------



## Latrade

michaelm said:


> Although I personally don't mind, the haranguing and impugning of anyone foolhardy enough to admit an intention to vote No is probably the only way the Yes campaign just might snatch a loss from the jaws of victory.



Now I haven't seen any haranguing or impugning of anyone who has expressed an opinion. However, we shouldn't defend the indefensible when it appears, such as the recent posters or where the expressed opinion is a bigoted one. Challenging those opinions is reasonable and those who are voting No shouldn't read into it personally unless directed at them or, maybe, they share the opinion.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Latrade.

In no way should we tiptoe around issues ,
but there are enough No voters with sincerely held views to question your comment (right in front of us)

If for example, someone since childhood is led to believe all itinerants are knackers, to just walk in and state that person is a bigot does not help;
Even though that person is patently bigoted, they are not bigots , just uneducated and formed by their environment.. 
The same with most Social issues, norms get ingrained and become part of what makes society function.
These norms can and should be challenged where necessary.
The skill is in getting the simplicity and lazyness of bigoted views changed.
Accepted ideas are hard to change but full frontal attack kills discourse and surely we want  real reasoned change. 

Suggest we all need to walk in others shoes.


----------



## Latrade

Gerry Canning said:


> Latrade.
> 
> In no way should we tiptoe around issues ,
> but there are enough No voters with sincerely held views to question your comment (right in front of us)
> 
> If for example, someone since childhood is led to believe all itinerants are knackers, to just walk in and state that person is a bigot does not help;
> Even though that person is patently bigoted, they are not bigots , just uneducated and formed by their environment..
> The same with most Social issues, norms get ingrained and become part of what makes society function.
> These norms can and should be challenged where necessary.
> The skill is in getting the simplicity and lazyness of bigoted views changed.
> Accepted ideas are hard to change but full frontal attack kills discourse and surely we want  real reasoned change.
> 
> Suggest we all need to walk in others shoes.



Hang on, lets take a step back just for a second. There hasn't been a full frontal attack or anything even remotely near that, so let's not overplay what was a simple statement in response to your question. You asked was it not reasonable for someone to believe that their marriage contract has now changed because of this amendment and I said it wasn't reasonable to believe such a thing and that based on the clear lack of any logic, fact or rationality to that opinion, like some of the arguments we've seen from the No campaign, it is clearly one based on just not wanting gay couples to have the same rights. It is what it is.

It wasn't directed at anyone personally, just the hypothetical no voter who held that belief. 

We have eleven pages of reasonable debate, so again, there is no full frontal attack. 

The threat that calling out clear homophobia from the No campaign will only cement and strengthen the No vote speaks volumes. If there were an intellectual argument against a yes vote, we would heard it by now. When a sign by the road is deliberately misleading the public, when it is clearly only opposed to Gay men. What else do we say in those circumstances? 

The vitriol has come from statements regarding surrogacy (but only if they are gay parents), implying incest would be legalised on national radio, adoption (but only if they are gay), and the Yes campaign is demeaned, belittled and sniffed at for having the temerity to have a "mantra" of it being about equality. That is the only statement made by the Yes side because that is all that counts.

And you might explain how someone how who is patently bigoted isn't a bigot.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Latrade said:


> Hang on, lets take a step back just for a second. There hasn't been a full frontal attack or anything even remotely near that, so let's not overplay what was a simple statement in response to your question. You asked was it not reasonable for someone to believe that their marriage contract has now changed because of this amendment and I said it wasn't reasonable to believe such a thing and that based on the clear lack of any logic, fact or rationality to that opinion, like some of the arguments we've seen from the No campaign, it is clearly one based on just not wanting gay couples to have the same rights. It is what it is.
> 
> It wasn't directed at anyone personally, just the hypothetical no voter who held that belief.
> 
> We have eleven pages of reasonable debate, so again, there is no full frontal attack.
> 
> The threat that calling out clear homophobia from the No campaign will only cement and strengthen the No vote speaks volumes. If there were an intellectual argument against a yes vote, we would heard it by now. When a sign by the road is deliberately misleading the public, when it is clearly only opposed to Gay men. What else do we say in those circumstances?
> 
> The vitriol has come from statements regarding surrogacy (but only if they are gay parents), implying incest would be legalised on national radio, adoption (but only if they are gay), and the Yes campaign is demeaned, belittled and sniffed at for having the temerity to have a "mantra" of it being about equality. That is the only statement made by the Yes side because that is all that counts.
> 
> And you might explain how someone how who is patently bigoted isn't a bigot.


Latrade .
Someone can easily hold bigoted views, all that means is that  they are uneducated and with education they will  see the light.I think to put the word Bigot on them would be a bit unfair.
.................................
The Vitriol has come from the usual sources ,and responses only gives them oxygen , if their arguments are so off-side , better to ignore them.
...............................
Not a matter of what you say , it is largely a matter of perception ; if you call someone a bigot the reasoned arguments get lost in the (who are you calling a bigot )etc row.
......................................................
You can be as correct in your views as you want , but for now, be a bit political in your comments and win the vote first !


----------



## Latrade

Gerry Canning said:


> Latrade .
> Someone can easily hold bigoted views, all that means is that  they are uneducated and with education they will  see the light.I think to put the word Bigot on them would be a bit unfair.
> .................................
> The Vitriol has come from the usual sources ,and responses only gives them oxygen , if their arguments are so off-side , better to ignore them.
> ...............................
> Not a matter of what you say , it is largely a matter of perception ; if you call someone a bigot the reasoned arguments get lost in the (who are you calling a bigot )etc row.
> ......................................................
> You can be as correct in your views as you want , but for now, be a bit political in your comments and win the vote first !



I haven't called anyone a bigot, I called an opinion that if held even after all evidence to the contrary is provided is a bigoted one (there's a difference). I did so once. Once.

The usual sources are the ones putting up posters, the ones asked to write opinion pieces, the ones doing TV and radio in the name of balance. You can't ignore what they say as it in the absence of a moderate rational no campaign, their views are the only ones presented.

It isn't a matter of ignoring them when they have the same airtime.

Someone can hold bigoted views, but I'd they chose to express them and to promulgate falsehoods in order to continue to keep a group of people from achieving equality, then that extends beyond just holding bigoted views.

We can use whatever euphemisms we like to water down the reality, perhaps 'set in their ways'. But belief in superiority of a group and using scare tactics to continue to support inequality...that really only has one name.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Latrade,

Please ,step back a bit . You may well be intellectually correct in your arguments , I strongly contend that if your approach ,however it may be grounded in reason, is a sure fire way to alienate people.
Both sides should refrain from side issues, and from what I see/hear the Yes side have the preponderance of the airways and the No side are getting more strident.
It really is a simple Referendum.

From May 2015 can couples of any hue have a Civil Marriage?

The only negative I can come up with is that Marriage up to May 15 meant man & woman,and this referendum will by definition consign marriages up to May 15 into a more couple based rather than gender based pot. I think marriages up to May 15 will by definition not be the same as those after May 15.
I think the wording should , for clarity at least , acknowledge that.

Latrade , most people are not Gay , so it is difficult for them to get exercised over this, you must rely on their goodwill.

Paddy Power is still well on your side !


----------



## Latrade

Gerry Canning said:


> Latrade,
> 
> Please ,step back a bit . You may well be intellectually correct in your arguments , I strongly contend that if your approach ,however it may be grounded in reason, is a sure fire way to alienate people.
> Both sides should refrain from side issues, and from what I see/hear the Yes side have the preponderance of the airways and the No side are getting more strident.
> It really is a simple Referendum.
> 
> From May 2015 can couples of any hue have a Civil Marriage?
> 
> The only negative I can come up with is that Marriage up to May 15 meant man & woman,and this referendum will by definition consign marriages up to May 15 into a more couple based rather than gender based pot. I think marriages up to May 15 will by definition not be the same as those after May 15.
> I think the wording should , for clarity at least , acknowledge that.
> 
> Latrade , most people are not Gay , so it is difficult for them to get exercised over this, you must rely on their goodwill.
> 
> Paddy Power is still well on your side !


 
What approach am I taking? Go back over my posts to see what my approach has been on this discussion.

Here's the key problem with the negative you identified: marriage was never defined. Family was never defined. This isn't unique in the Constitution, plenty of things were stated but not defined and their application has evolved as society has evolved. Primary education isn't defined, but that doesn't mean we have the primary education of the 1930s just because that is what the scribes must have meant.

We took marriage to mean a man and a woman because that is all that is permitted to be recognised, the issue has only recently come up largely because it is only recently that homosexuality wasn't a criminal offence. However, nothing in the Constitution is taken as being what the scribes thought or had in their minds at the time of writing. If it wasn't defined, then whatever peopel assumed it to mean isn't really relevant.

Family isn't defined, but the inference is that family is linked to marriage and having children. Yet marriage of infertile couples is recognised and their union is recognised by the state as a family without children. Couples who don't want children have their marriage recognised and their union recognised as a family. So children are not central to what a family is and never have been, a union of two people committing to sharing life and property is. Single mothers and fathers are not married, but they and their child(ren) are recognised by the state as a family.

Family has therefore never been dependent on having children, ever, and recognition of family with children isn't dependent on being married (experience with "illegitimate children" and various state practices against the mother and child would indicate that this has changed).

So whatever definition is people's heads or whatever definition the likes of David Quinn put on marriage, these are personal definitions and have never been part of the Irish Constitution. They are by nature definitions that eliminate infertile and childless couples. They are definitions that exclude single parents. If a person's definition of marriage and family doesn't exclude those people, then they are already not operating to the married Mother, Father and Kids definition. They may think they do, but their tollerance of the state recognising those other relationships already shows they do not have the hardened strict definition (that never existed).

We then ask why not then, given how broad already marriage and family has become and has been tollerated, do we not also include recognition of same sex couples? Is it not the same as an infertile couple (1 in 6 couples seek infertility treatment)? To which we usually get no response. No reasoned response, no logical reason why there is a difference and the state shouldn't recognise both unions equally.

The definition arguments is a myth.

But the Constitution has an equally important statement in the Preamble. Beyond the Holy Trinity statement, the last paragraph:



> And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that *the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured*, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,


 
The intimate and committed relationships of same-sex couples, just like those of heterosexual couples, provide mutual support, love, care, stability and between the two individuals involved are a union, a marriage and a family under any interpretation of what composes a marriage and family in modern society. Not the 1930s.

Not only do these couples not have recognition of the state of their union, their family, their commitment, they also do not have the protection afforded to other couples. They cannot be recognised as next of kin without a lenghty court battle and cost. They cannot make equal decisions on care that even I as an unmarried couple could do. They do not have tax breaks, despite making the same comitments to each other. Everything we take for granted as heterosexuals is denied based upon one thing: their sexuality. How much dignity to the individual is assured by that system?

What possible reason is there to deny dignity and equality to homosexual couples that is currently provided to childless and infertile couples? What reason other than their sexuality? I don't hear any reasoning that stands up to even the most simple scrutiny from the No Campaign. And in the absence of such it must be because of their sexuality, which is discrimination, which is contrary to dignity, which is inequality on the basis of sexuality.

The purpose of the dignity statement is to prevent relegating people to second class citizens. In the past where there has been inequality, it has been corrected. Denying same sex couples the same right to equal recognition of their union denies them dignity, condems them to being second class citizens. All statements around "special" and "unique" nature of heterosexuality is infering superiority, it is condeming humans, family members, friends, neighbours, fellow citizens to forever being second class.

The definition of what people believe their marriage and family mean has never existed. We recognise plenty of unions and families that do not meet that definition. However, to deny someone their dignity because we believe our relationship to be worth more than theirs because of sexuality is just wrong.

But last and most important, the No campagin has done well to move this debate to being about us heterosexual couples and how this will affect us and our preconceived notions of what marriage is. It isn't about us, it isn't about our relationships, it's about whether all citizens should be equal in the eyes of the state or whether we are happy to deny dignity and equality to our family, friends, colleagues and neighbours just because of their sexuality and still call them family, friends, colleagues and neighbours.


----------



## Leo

Gerry Canning said:


> Someone can easily hold bigoted views, all that means is that  they are uneducated and with education they will  see the light.I think to put the word Bigot on them would be a bit unfair.



But isn't that the very definition of the word bigot? Are we re-defining that word with this referendum now?


----------



## Sol28

Latrade said:


> But last and most important, the No campagin has done well to move this debate to being about us heterosexual couples and how this will affect us and our preconceived notions of what marriage is. It isn't about us, it isn't about our relationships, it's about whether all citizens should be equal in the eyes of the state or whether we are happy to deny dignity and equality to our family, friends, colleagues and neighbours just because of their sexuality and still call them family, friends, colleagues and neighbours.



Latrade - this is such an eloquent statement and summarises the issues as I see them perfectly. If you wanted to go into campaigning I am sure there are many groups that would love to have you on board. 

I can understand how people are reluctant to change - this is a major mindshift for people, and i applaud those who ask questions to educate themselves about what this change means. But I don't understand how people who are secure in their marriage, who have been secure and protected by the state for many years - are worried how my option to marry will affect their secure/permanent/protected marriage.


----------



## Latrade

Just don't mention how the notion of marriage has already changed....



> Marriage has evolved and is continuing to evolve. Historically marriage had far more to do with arrangements about property and dowries than with the concept of partnership, mutual support and obligation and commitment. Traditional marriage was a very unequal institution for women. Married women did not have complete control over their own property and that did not change until the Married Women’s Status Act, 1957. Prior to the Family Home Protection Act, 1976, most family homes where held in the sole name of the husband who could sell it or mortgage it without his wife’s consent. If a marriage broke down, a wife  could find herself homeless with no property and dependant on a maintenancepayment. A husband had supremacy in determining the religious upbringing of the children. Rape within marriage was legal and legislation protecting spouses from domestic violence was only introduced in 1976. A husband had a proprietary interest in the society and service of his wife and could sue anyone who interfered with that property interest – a wife did not have the same interest. A husband could seek damages against anyone who took in his wife or had sexual intercourse with her. These actions were not abolished until 1981.


 
Yay for traditional marriage.

Source:

[broken link removed]


----------



## Firefly

Remember this? Same thing again...the end of the family as we know it 

[broken link removed]


----------



## Gerry Canning

Leo said:


> But isn't that the very definition of the word bigot? Are we re-defining that word with this referendum now?


We can get into word play etc.
I hope the point I wanted to get across is that since the word BIGOT is a very very hard word ,those that for a variety of society (norms) have bigoted views are not BIGOTs in a real sense , just not educated and to put the name BIGOT on them is a bit unfair?

Maybe its me getting soft?


----------



## PMU

Latrade said:


> Just don't mention how the notion of marriage has already changed....
> 
> 
> Marriage has evolved and is continuing to evolve.



This is rather disengenuous, if not downright misleading.  Marriage, i.e. two persons of opposite sex married to each other, has not changed and has not evolved. It's a man/woman thing and this has not changed over the ages.

The  statement that "Historically marriage had far more to do with arrangements about property and dowries than with the concept of partnership, mutual support and obligation and commitment." is just an insult to the multi-millions of couples who married for love.


----------



## Latrade

PMU said:


> This is rather disengenuous, if not downright misleading.  Marriage, i.e. two persons of opposite sex married to each other, has not changed and has not evolved. It's a man/woman thing and this has not changed over the ages.
> 
> The  statement that "Historically marriage had far more to do with arrangements about property and dowries than with the concept of partnership, mutual support and obligation and commitment." is just an insult to the multi-millions of couples who married for love.


 
It is a statement of fact based upon the laws governing marriage and that society has long-viewed view marriage as a commitment of love rather than ownership and eventually the laws of the land caught up to society's views based on equality for women. As explained in that text, the laws still viewed marriage as an ownership on behalf of the male. Marriage has changed as it is a commitment based on the decision of the couple. It isn't arranged by parents or town elders. It isn't based on permisson of the father. The marriage we talk about now is still a modern construct of marriage.  

It is an insult now to all those couples who wish to enter into a similar commitment of love but are prohibited from doing so because of their sexuality.


----------



## Leo

Gerry Canning said:


> We can get into word play etc.
> I hope the point I wanted to get across is that since the word BIGOT is a very very hard word ,those that for a variety of society (norms) have bigoted views are not BIGOTs in a real sense , just not educated and to put the name BIGOT on them is a bit unfair?
> 
> Maybe its me getting soft?



I hear what you're saying, but by definition, a bigot is one who holds bigoted views regardless of how they developed those views. However, what are regarded as bigoted views does indeed change over time as society evolves and changes. 

It's not that long ago that Irish women who married would be forced to give up their jobs, as the view commonly held at the time was part and parcel of getting married was the assumption that having children post haste was a significant component of marriage. As we moved on from that, the view that a woman's place was in the home became accepted as bigoted over time. The same with inter-racial marriage before that, or slavery before that. There's always a period of transition for a society when norms change.


----------



## michaelm

Gerry Canning said:


> Of course forgive anyone who votes No.


Most No voters will do so on the basis of viewing marriage as gendered and/or view that the proposed change - which is to Article 41 'The Family' - allied with the Children and Family Relationships bill will tie the hands of state agencies such that, all else being equal, no preference over other arrangements can be given to placing a child for fostering or adoption in a gender balanced (mother & father) situation.  Such voters have no need for forgiveness from anyone. 

While the Children and Family Relationships bill will come into force regardless of the outcome of the referendum, a Yes will copper-fasten the bill's vision of engineered situations where a new born child can be deliberately denied either a mother or father.  A No leaves such parts of the bill open for repeal, perhaps even creating an imperative for such.





Sol28 said:


> I will forgive people in time as they come to realise that the sky has not fallen in after the referendum passes, and accept their mistake .


Indeed.  No one is expecting the sky to fall or, as has been mentioned, the earth to stop spinning on it axis, if/when this is carried.  I don't expect many to think they have make a mistake, perhaps just that a mistake has been made.  The weakness in the Yes campaign is inability to see a contrary position as genuinely held; Yes should prevail despite this.  Perhaps there will be a sea change in opinion following a Yes; I doubt it but I suppose time will tell.


----------



## Latrade

michaelm said:


> Most No voters will do so on the basis of viewing marriage as gendered and/or view that the proposed change - which is to Article 41 'The Family' - allied with the Children and Family Relationships bill will tie the hands of state agencies such that, all else being equal, no preference over other arrangements can be given to placing a child for fostering or adoption in a gender balanced (mother & father) situation.  Such voters have no need for forgiveness from anyone.
> 
> While the Children and Family Relationships bill will come into force regardless of the outcome of the referendum, a Yes will copper-fasten the bill's vision of engineered situations where a new born child can be deliberately denied either a mother or father.  A No leaves such parts of the bill open for repeal, perhaps even creating an imperative for such.Indeed.  No one is expecting the sky to fall or, as has been mentioned, the earth to stop spinning on it axis, if/when this is carried.  I don't expect many to think they have make a mistake, perhaps just that a mistake has been made.  The weakness in the Yes campaign is inability to see a contrary position as genuinely held; Yes should prevail despite this.  Perhaps there will be a sea change in opinion following a Yes; I doubt it but I suppose time will tell.



I think there needs to be a greater discussion on this if only to try to put aside fears. However, there will be no impact on the Bill. It will pass and be enacted as is regardless of a yes or no vote.

The bill will also have no impact on adoption. Anyone can adopt or foster as it is irregardless of sexuality. The key thing the bill will introduce is that after a period of time single people and civil marriages can be recognized as the legal patent or guardian. What the bill will do though is put the child at the centre of this and they will have a say.

The problem with the all things being equal argument is that it is an ideal world situation that doesn't and the adoption and fostering system just doesnt work like that. 

There are not enough competent and caring people adopting or fostering, the will be no sophie choice situation closing between a heterosexual couple or same sex. What-if-ery about significantly improbable situations are not in my opinion justification to deny equality. secular child charities and services are in support of the bill and vote and are quite adamant that this will not lead to their have being tied.

The fact is that currently they may have to make the same choice between two equal heterosexual couples. One will have to be denied the child. We trust the state and the agencies to make a decision in that case that is in the best interest of the child, why would they not do the same in an equal choice between a heterosexual and same sex couple?

But...and it's kind of a big but...those decisions could arise today or yesterday because same sex couples can and do adopt. The problem for the argument is that those situations don't arise, couples register and are vetted and eventually approved to adopt. They don't go into a baby Dunnes and fight over the prettiest baby on the shelf.

The only agencies opposed to the bill are those aligned to a religious order as they can discriminate and wish to continue to do so even if it isn't in the best interest of the child and only because of sexuality. 

The impact of this referendum in the bill is zero. The impact of the bill on the adoption process is zero for state agencies, but big for religious agencies who are opposed to same sex relationships.


----------



## Purple

One real issue in this debate is around Civil Partnership versus Marriage.

In many ways, from a cold practical perspective, they are the same but civil partnership is in place due to legislation and has no constitutional protection. It could be removed as easily as it was introduced. That, to me, is unacceptable.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Agree with Purple , the substantive difference as far as I can see is whilst Civil Partnership covers most of marriage rules, its main flaw  is that Civil Partnership is at the whim of politicians.

If I could trust Politicians (eg We were 100% assured Pension Reserve Fund was fully protected!) ,I would see no compelling reason to vote Yes.


----------



## Ceist Beag

michaelm said:


> Most No voters will do so on the basis of viewing marriage as gendered and/or view that the proposed change - which is to Article 41 'The Family' - allied with the Children and Family Relationships bill will tie the hands of state agencies such that, all else being equal, no preference over other arrangements can be given to placing a child for fostering or adoption in a gender balanced (mother & father) situation. Such voters have no need for forgiveness from anyone.


As Latrade said, there probably needs to be greater discussion on this to allay fears but Michael can not see any situation ever arise whereby a gay married couple would actually be a better home for adoption of a child over a straight married couple? If not then imho I think you need to broaden your views a bit as I'm sure there could be examples where the gay couple would be better suited. The thing I don't get is why there is a belief that suddenly those making the decisions over where to place a child for adoption will be unable to place the child in the most suitable home as a result of this decision. In the highly unlikely event that there are two completely equal couples from a suitability point of view, one gay and one straight, how would you expect the agency to make a decision? How do they make their decision today if two completely equal straight couples are looking to adopt a child? My bet is they make their best judgement on the two couples above and beyond the published suitability criteria (given the couples are completely equal based on these). I see no reason to be concerned that they won't continue to do this if this referendum passes. If they deem that a gay couple are the most suitable in this situation I would trust that this is the case and that the child is going to a good home.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Michaelm,

I think he has hit the nail on the head for a lot of No voters.

In that Marriage is felt to be a Gender based institution.
..........................................................................

So if someone believes Marriage is gender based = NO vote.
So if someone believes Marriage to be Equality issue = YES vote.

I consider both positions tenable.

Broadly , am I wrong?


----------



## Firefly

I was thinking about this last night. We have 2 young kids. If one of them was to be denied marriage, whilst the other one being allowed, I think it would incredibly, incredibly sad.


----------



## Sol28

Purple said:


> One real issue in this debate is around Civil Partnership versus Marriage.
> 
> In many ways, from a cold practical perspective, they are the same



This is factually incorrect. They are not equal institutions - apart from the consitutional protection - there are over 160 differences between the two. See HERE for more info.


----------



## Sol28

michaelm said:


> Such voters have no need for forgiveness from anyone.



MichaelM - I admire your stance and your beliefs. I do not agree with them and I do not believe you agree with mine. You are standing by your beliefs - fair play to you. I will never accept your vote - but I dont think you need my acceptance.


----------



## michaelm

Latrade said:


> The impact of this referendum in the bill is zero. The impact of the bill on the adoption process is zero for state agencies, but big for religious agencies who are opposed to same sex relationships.


The contrary view is that the referendum's passage will provide a bulwark for the bill and tie the hands of agencies in terms of preference for a gender balanced situation.  The bill provides for situations, for example, such as two men procuring an egg and a surrogate to create an IVF baby; this child will have a biological mother and a birth mother but in reality it will have two fathers and no mother; this is pick 'n' mix parentage, no matter if some find the term irksome or glib.  I don't agree with such engineering, even in the name of modernity.  Also, this is not about the church or religion, that horse has been flogged to death.





Ceist Beag said:


> Michael can not see any situation ever arise whereby a gay married couple would actually be a better home for adoption of a child over a straight married couple? If not then imho I think you need to broaden your views a bit as I'm sure there could be examples where the gay couple would be better suited. The thing I don't get is why there is a belief that suddenly those making the decisions over where to place a child for adoption will be unable to place the child in the most suitable home as a result of this decision.


Thanks for the counsel ; I'm not saying gay people shouldn't be able to adopt, simply that all else being equal preference should be given to placing a child in a gender balanced situation.  Agencies will unable to consider gender balance as positive nor give it any weighting.





Ceist Beag said:


> In the highly unlikely event that there are two completely equal couples from a suitability point of view, one gay and one straight, how would you expect the agency to make a decision?


Currently, to favour the gender balanced couple; following a Yes I'd expect agencies to take a Caesar's Wife approach and ensure that, all else being equal, a quota of decisions will favour same-sex couples, best interests of the child not withstanding.

The main problem with the referendum is that it proposes to change Article 41 on The Family, this will have ramifications.  A better approach would have been to overhaul civil partnership and, if necessary, give it constitutional protection, but that ship has sailed.


----------



## Leo

PMU said:


> The  statement that "Historically marriage had far more to do with arrangements about property and dowries than with the concept of partnership, mutual support and obligation and commitment." is just an insult to the multi-millions of couples who married for love.



What about the many who continue to enter arranged marriages? I work with a number of people (Irish citizens, albeit not of Irish descent) who met their spouses on their marriage day, or in a couple of occasions, once or twice in the week leading up to the ceremony.  The state recognises these marriages even though they have nothing whatsoever to do with love and everything to do with status, property and esteem.  To pretend the institution of marriage was founded purely on love, and hasn't evolved to that state is ignoring a good chunk of history.


----------



## PMU

Latrade said:


> It is a statement of fact based upon the laws governing marriage and that society has long-viewed view marriage as a commitment of love rather than ownership and eventually the laws of the land caught up to society's views based on equality for women. As explained in that text, the laws still viewed marriage as an ownership on behalf of the male. Marriage has changed as it is a commitment based on the decision of the couple. It isn't arranged by parents or town elders. It isn't based on permisson of the father. The marriage we talk about now is still a modern construct of marriage.


This is all really naive, and frankly, irrelevant. No law has changed the basic fact that marriage is a covenant between two persons of opposite sex.



Latrade said:


> It is an insult now to all those couples who wish to enter into a similar commitment of love but are prohibited from doing so because of their sexuality.


They are not prohibited because of their sexuality. They are probibited because one partner lacks the capacity to enter a marriage, i.e. because he/she is of the same sex as the other partner.
As marriage is a covenant between persons of the opposite sex, 'same sex' marriage is not marriage, it's something else. And no reasonable person would object to a unique same sex covenant receiving legal and, if required, constitutional protection. In fact we have it already in civil partnership. But the proposed amendment doesn't do that. It will provide for laws to be enacted to change the nature of marriage, by allowing marriage to persons without distinction of their sex. And this changes the nature of marriage.


----------



## Sol28

I am a reasonable person and I object to the Equal but Different status - It didnt work in America with the Jim Crow laws - it doesnt work here.



PMU said:


> In fact we have it already in civil partnership.



Incorrect - See my previous post.



Sol28 said:


> They are not equal institutions - apart from the constitutional protection - there are over 160 differences between the two. See HERE for more info.


----------



## terrysgirl33

I have a few questions percolating around that someone here might know more about than me, I would welcome input on them.

Will Civil Partnerships be done away with if the referendum passes?  I have a feeling that the answer is in the literature that came through the door, but I haven't got around to reading it yet!

On the subject of adoption, I know very little.  At the moment it seems there are many (or some?) people every year that adopt children as single parents.  It seems from this that there are people in many situations, couples (married and unmarried) and singletons who are adopting.  So, are all these situations ones where a suitable heterosexual couple weren't available?  I know of a homosexual couple who have an adopted child, but I don't know the details, so it is currently possible, and it is happening, is anyone seriously saying that this is wrong and the child should be taken away? 

I wonder as well, is there a difference in public perception between homosexual couples that are female-female and male-male.  There seems to be a general perception, not limited to homosexual couples that a man who takes care of children is somehow deviant.  From my very very limited viewing of the publicity, it seems that the No side is worrying about children with no mothers, but not about children with no fathers, in spite of studies that show that fathers are important too!

Again, I know very little about this, what I do know is 'a friend of a friend' situation.  I feel that the 'no' arguments are emotionally based with little by way of facts, but I don't know much about it.


----------



## Sol28

Always great to hear someone wanting to educate themselves on the issues. I will try my best to answer from my limited knowledge.



terrysgirl33 said:


> Will Civil Partnerships be done away with if the referendum passes? I have a feeling that the answer is in the literature that came through the door, but I haven't got around to reading it yet!



Civil partnerships will no longer be enacted if this passes. People who are currently Civil Partnered will remain so - they will not be automatically converted to being married - they must choose to do so legally. No new CPs will occur.



terrysgirl33 said:


> It seems from this that there are people in many situations, couples (married and unmarried) and singletons who are adopting.



I am not fully au fait with the new Family Bill that was enacted. But there are (were) many situations where adoption was possible. A married couple could adopt, a single person could adopt (despite sexual orientation - Although only 2 gay men have applied in the last 10 years(?) to do so). A gay couple could apply to foster a child together - but a gay couple could not adopt as they are not married.

This has had bigger implications in families - for many reasons a gay/lesbian person may have a child (previous relationship, IVF etc). The 2nd parent was never able to adopt that child and had no rights of guardianship.



terrysgirl33 said:


> I wonder as well, is there a difference in public perception between homosexual couples that are female-female and male-male.



There certainly is a bias against gay men and children. In my own circumstances - I was a volunteer in Special Olympics Ireland - and I was very protective of myself. A gay man who is shown to be caring to children or people of impaired ability is often viewed with suspicion. A woman in the same circumstance is implicitly trusted. Our society is definitely skewed to believe that women are the best and most natural carers. Obviously this is not always the case.


----------



## Purple

Sol28 said:


> There certainly is a bias against gay men and children. In my own circumstances - I was a volunteer in Special Olympics Ireland - and I was very protective of myself. A gay man who is shown to be caring to children or people of impaired ability is often viewed with suspicion. A woman in the same circumstance is implicitly trusted. Our society is definitely skewed to believe that women are the best and most natural carers. Obviously this is not always the case.


Statistically it is heterosexual men who abuse children, 
That said there's a bias against men generally when it comes to children.


----------



## terrysgirl33

First of all Sol28, thanks for the replies!  I am going to vote yes anyway, unless something truly awful comes out.  There seems no real reason not to let people enter into same sex marriages.

I didn't realise how proscribed adoption is, from citizensinformation.ie:

_The following persons are eligible to adopt:
_

_A married couple living together._
_A married person alone. The other spouse's consent to adopt must be obtained unless the couple is living apart and separated under a court decree or a deed of separation, or the other spouse has deserted the prospective adoptive parent or the other spouse's conduct has resulted in the prospective adoptive parent, with just cause, leaving the other spouse._
_The mother, father or relative of the child (relative meaning a grandparent, brother, sister, uncle or aunt of the child and/or the spouse of any such person, the relationship to the child being traced through the mother or the father)._
_A widow or widower._
_A sole applicant who is not in one of the categories listed above may only adopt where the Adoption Authority is satisfied that, in the particular circumstances of the case, it is desirable. It is not possible for two unmarried persons to adopt jointly._
_There are no legal upper age limits for adopting parents._

On the men with vulnerable people (children and vulnerable adults), that is more than suspicion of gay men (though I imagine it is several degrees worse if you are in that category).  My husband is a SAHD to our three girls (now all in primary school), and there have been many situations he has been wary in, mother-and-baby get togethers, other children coming over on playdates.  I don't think anything was ever explicitly said, but he would be wary of putting himself in a position that looks bad, and he gets a feeling from other parents sometimes.  He has done a great job taking care of our kids.


----------



## Sol28

Purple said:


> That said there's a bias against men generally when it comes to children.





terrysgirl33 said:


> I don't think anything was ever explicitly said, but he would be wary of putting himself in a position that looks bad, and he gets a feeling from other parents sometimes.



Agree with both of the points here - there is an absolute bias against men in charge of children. Men who are looking after children - especially other people's children have to conduct themselves in such a way that there cannot be any confusion. Its a sad state of affairs. And in this referendum the No lobby groups are exploiting that nervousness.


----------



## Sol28

As an aside to all the political debating here and in other media. 

I have to admit that I am having to choke back the tears on an almost daily basis as I see so many people, businesses, politicians all finally stating that they accept that I am an equal member of society and should be treated as such. People who, 10 years ago, would most likely have dismissed me at best, at worst would have down right opposed me, are some of the strongest allies of the LGBT community. 

Thanks to all those who have taken the journey so far.


----------



## Purple

Sol28 said:


> As an aside to all the political debating here and in other media.
> 
> I have to admit that I am having to choke back the tears on an almost daily basis as I see so many people, businesses, politicians all finally stating that they accept that I am an equal member of society and should be treated as such. People who, 10 years ago, would most likely have dismissed me at best, at worst would have down right opposed me, are some of the strongest allies of the LGBT community.
> 
> Thanks to all those who have taken the journey so far.


It's a shame the journey had to be taken at all.

I do agree that attitudes have changed.

I’ve infected my children with my “liberal” views and my oldest boy (16) said that most of his friends agree with him.

I was never able to understand why someone could have a problem with someone else based on their colour or sexual orientation. I remember being 13 or 14 and friends talking about “queers”. I just didn’t see the big deal about being gay but I wasn’t in the majority.
Back then people started out bigoted and with age, maturity and experience of the world they tempered or changed their views. There is a younger generation now which is starting off far less bigoted and racist than mine and mine was far less bigoted and racist than the one that came before me.


I for one am proud of how our country is changing and has changed. I’ll be more proud on the 22nd of next month if and when a group of my fellow citizens finally have the same rights that I have.


----------



## Latrade

Seem to note that the No campaign has started to use the term "bullying" an awful lot in the last few days. Any specific examples of "bullying" to which they refer?


----------



## dereko1969

Can people stop referring to the Children and Family Relationships "Bill"? It's an Act, signed by the President into law (you know, like all other ACTS).

[broken link removed]

It's another No campaign scare tactic to pretend that it is not an Act, so they can continue to spread lies about its POTENTIAL impact. It will have an impact regardless of whether the referendum on MARRIAGE is passed or not.


----------



## Latrade

dereko1969 said:


> Can people stop referring to the Children and Family Relationships "Bill"? It's an Act, signed by the President into law (you know, like all other ACTS).
> 
> [broken link removed]
> 
> It's another No campaign scare tactic to pretend that it is not an Act, so they can continue to spread lies about its POTENTIAL impact. It will have an impact regardless of whether the referendum on MARRIAGE is passed or not.



Facts and the repeated statement of fact have no place in this debate.


----------



## PMU

dereko1969 said:


> Can people stop referring to the Children and Family Relationships "Bill"? It's an Act, signed by the President into law (you know, like all other ACTS).


 Yes, it is an Act but it hasn't commenced.  Section 1 providdes that various sections of the Act shall come into effect only when the relevant Minister has signed a commencement order, and a quick look at the statutory instruments for 2015 doesn't show any to date. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2015/statutory.html.  So it's impact is potential and ministers are unlikey to commence it until the results of the referendum is known.


----------



## dereko1969

PMU said:


> Yes, it is an Act but it hasn't commenced.  Section 1 providdes that various sections of the Act shall come into effect only when the relevant Minister has signed a commencement order, and a quick look at the statutory instruments for 2015 doesn't show any to date. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2015/statutory.html.  So it's impact is potential and ministers are unlikey to commence it until the results of the referendum is known.


You do know that virtually every Act has a commencement section? More speaking out of both sides of the mouth from No supporters. The result of the referendum will have no impact on the provisions or commencement of the Act.


----------



## terrysgirl33

I didn't see this, but I did have a discussion with my DH about it.  On Vincent Browne last night there was a debate on marriage equality, which ended up being more about surrogacy and adoption, I believe.  Apparently reference was made to a court case where a married couple with a child split up, the wife entered into a second relationship (marriage?), she died and the new husband had more rights to keep the child than the father of the child.  Does anyone know the details of the court case referenced?  Like I said, I didn't see the programme and it sounds 'off' to me.

Reference to the programme here: http://theliberal.ie/gay-marriage-h...bate-leads-to-row-over-gay-adoptionsurrogacy/


----------



## Sol28

terrysgirl33 said:


> I didn't see this, but I did have a discussion with my DH about it.  On Vincent Browne last night there was a debate on marriage equality, which ended up being more about surrogacy and adoption, I believe.  Apparently reference was made to a court case where a married couple with a child split up, the wife entered into a second relationship (marriage?), she died and the new husband had more rights to keep the child than the father of the child.  Does anyone know the details of the court case referenced?  Like I said, I didn't see the programme and it sounds 'off' to me.
> 
> Reference to the programme here: http://theliberal.ie/gay-marriage-h...bate-leads-to-row-over-gay-adoptionsurrogacy/



Its an interesting topic - But this has nothing to do with this discussion. Above you are talking about heterosexual families and children's rights. Unfortunately the No side have been clouding the debates by referencing completely unrelated topics (such as surrogacy).

Whether or not this referendum passes or fails there will no be impact on any of the surrogacy, adoption or fathers rights issues that may already exist.


----------



## terrysgirl33

Sol28 said:


> Its an interesting topic - But this has nothing to do with this discussion. Above you are talking about heterosexual families and children's rights. Unfortunately the No side have been clouding the debates by referencing completely unrelated topics (such as surrogacy).
> 
> Whether or not this referendum passes or fails there will no be impact on any of the surrogacy, adoption or fathers rights issues that may already exist.



I agree that the only effect it has is that it brings same sex couples into the debate as well as other couples.  However, I'm wondering if anyone knows the details of the case referred to?

ETA: I am guessing about the sexes of the people involved, it does seem to be the scenario that paints the biological father as the loser in all this.


----------



## Purple

terrysgirl33 said:


> it does seem to be the scenario that paints the biological father as the loser in all this.


 No change there then!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Decided to read the refcom.ie site.  This is purely factual and simply cites current law and the proposed amendment.  Article 41 is worth a read.  It is all about the centrality of the "family" to social order and our society.  Marriage is about the family.  Take just one line:


			
				Article 41 said:
			
		

> In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
> 
> The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.


Much more in this vein.

I think a very simplistic option is being put forward in this referendum.  A more honest approach would be to provide a completely rewritten Article 41. For example, the following addendum to the above clauses would be needed to provide clarity.  _Should a marriage be between people of the same sex and should they decide to have a family then one of them should nominate themselves as the "woman"_ _and moreover the woman shall be deemed to be the "mother"_.

Let's get real.  This is all a total nonsense.  Any such honest attempt to truly make same sex marriage identical to normal marriage in the eyes of the constitution would risk certain defeat and stop the inexorable rush to political correctness.


----------



## Firefly

Sorry to lighten this, but this is so sad it's funny! Love the first comment too!

http://www.thejournal.ie/conversion-therapy-group-galway-ahead-tomorrow-2088588-May2015


----------



## Sol28

Firefly said:


> Sorry to lighten this, but this is so sad it's funny! Love the first comment too!
> http://www.thejournal.ie/conversion-therapy-group-galway-ahead-tomorrow-2088588-May2015



Wonder when the leader of that group will be caught out with another man. Invariably leaders of all these groups seems to be the worst hypocrites.


----------



## Betsy Og

> Let's get real.  This is all a total nonsense.  Any such honest attempt to truly make same sex marriage identical to normal marriage in the eyes of the constitution would risk certain defeat and stop the inexorable rush to political correctness.



What exactly is your point though?, surely it's not disappointment that legislation alone cannot deliver perfect outcomes? Like the time of divorce referendum, all the NO arguments were against marriage breakdown whereas the real question was the right to remarry. Now all the NO arguments are spurious (surrogacy red herring & 'gendered institution' waffle), the reality is there are gay couples (like there were broken marriages - reality don't change), so the only question is, basically, do we leave discrimination on the books or not?? No brainer


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

_Betsy_, do you think our constitution is discriminatory in talking about the role of the "woman" in the home and the role of the "mother"? It seems to me these are discriminatory and I have no problem with that. Discrimination is the human condition, can you imagine a society were applications for a job were decided by lot? 

If this ref was honest it would remove those discriminatory references to the "woman" and the "mother" as that is the implication of the equality of same sex marriage but of course then the ref would fail.


----------



## Purple

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Discrimination is the human condition, can you imagine a society were applications for a job were decided by lot?


 Eh? That's a new one on me. I've never heard anyone suggest that rational selection, without bias, was discrimination.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> If this ref was honest it would remove those discriminatory references to the "woman" and the "mother" as that is the implication of the equality of same sex marriage but of course then the ref would fail.


 I agree. All such references should be removed. Are you sure it would fail?


----------



## Latrade

Purple said:


> I agree. All such references should be removed. Are you sure it would fail?


 
It was discussed at the constitutional convention:



> Only 11 per cent believed the article should remain as it is. But if it were to be changed, 12 per cent were in favour of it being completely deleted with 88 per cent preferring that it be modified.
> A huge majority – 98 per cent – of delegates said they supported a proposal to alter the article to make it gender neutral and to acknowledge the important role of other carers in the home.


 
The main opposition to reform this part has blamed them damn feminists who keep refusing to bow down to 1930s gender stereotypes and roles. However, while as a provision that may be troublesome to our modern progressive eyes, it doesn't lead to any active discrimination. A father can stay at home and the mother work and the state doesn't discriminate. Employers might, however, if the father wishes to return to the workplace, but that isn't forced upon society by the constitution.

The referrendum is honest a group of people are being discriminated against because of their sexuality: yes to provide equal rights and recognition to all civil marriages, no to maintain discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.

No argument against stands up to even the simplest scrutiny. No amount of red herrings, falsehoods, straw men or accusations of bullying can change the fact that we are voting on the right to dignity and recognition for our friends, neighbours and family who only differ from us by virtue of sexuality.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

_Purple_ yes, that was a silly point on the jobs, I was getting excited at the time by the prospects of my 10/1 bet that the Tories would win an overall majority.

But my point on the very simplistic nature of the vote stands.  Whether a more full blown throwing out of all the traditional values in Article 41 would succeed or not is of course speculation.


----------



## Purple

Latrade said:


> It was discussed at the constitutional convention:
> 
> 
> 
> The main opposition to reform this part has blamed them damn feminists who keep refusing to bow down to 1930s gender stereotypes and roles. However, while as a provision that may be troublesome to our modern progressive eyes, it doesn't lead to any active discrimination. A father can stay at home and the mother work and the state doesn't discriminate. Employers might, however, if the father wishes to return to the workplace, but that isn't forced upon society by the constitution.


This is off topic and nothing to do with this referendum. It does show how out dated our constitution is. Changing it completely is the same as removing it. I don't see what it has to do with feminists or anti-feminists. You do seem to have strong negative views about what could be referred to as the "men's rights" movement. Since you argue so strongly for equality on other issues I find that strange.



Latrade said:


> The referrendum is honest a group of people are being discriminated against because of their sexuality: yes to provide equal rights and recognition to all civil marriages, no to maintain discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.
> 
> No argument against stands up to even the simplest scrutiny. No amount of red herrings, falsehoods, straw men or accusations of bullying can change the fact that we are voting on the right to dignity and recognition for our friends, neighbours and family who only differ from us by virtue of sexuality.


Agreed.


----------



## Latrade

Purple said:


> This is off topic and nothing to do with this referendum. It does show how out dated our constitution is. Changing it completely is the same as removing it. I don't see what it has to do with feminists or anti-feminists. You do seem to have strong negative views about what could be referred to as the "men's rights" movement. Since you argue so strongly for equality on other issues I find that strange.


 
I agree entirely, I was just noting that it isn't something that isn't on the radar and was part of a whole suite of constitutional amendments discussed. My negativity towards men's rights is that it isn't an rights movement, but an anti-feminism one and unfortunately in many cases an aggressively misogynistic  one. That's not equality no matter how much you dress it up.

Anyway, this debate does get pulled off topic, usually by red herrings. It is still important to discuss/address those to highlight why they aren't relevant to the debate and thus keep the debate on track. Like the surrogacy or adoption issue, ignoring or dismissing it has only kept it relevant and part of a certain element of the No campaign's message of fear (while claiming they're being bullied). As has been seen on this thread, a few posts can refute the issue of surrogacy or adoption as having any relevance.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Latrade said:


> Anyway, this debate does get pulled off topic, usually by red herrings.


Many people agree with this statement which shows how disingenuous this whole charade is.  They want to present this as simply an issue of "equality".  What modern man or woman could possibly be against "equality"?  Issues about the family are red herrings, so they claim.  Well that might be the Ref that these people want but according to the Ref Commission it is not the ref that is before us.  The Refcom site and brochure puts Article 41 right up front as the central issue. Article 41 is all about the family.

But here is a bizarre and sinister twist.  In the Refcom.ie site the whole of Article 41 is reproduced.  But, to my shock, when I got the brochure in the post this morning it only produces what it calls an Extract.  In fact the Extract gives 3 of the 4 original clauses, so it is not in the interests of brevity, that some of the original Article is redacted.  The clause that is redacted is the very one I cited above about the role of the woman and the mother.  Why this very selective redaction?

Undoubtedly this very dishonest ref will be passed, but the Refcom have surely left the door open for a robust challenge to its impartiality.


----------



## Purple

Latrade said:


> I agree entirely, I was just noting that it isn't something that isn't on the radar and was part of a whole suite of constitutional amendments discussed. My negativity towards men's rights is that it isn't an rights movement, but an anti-feminism one and unfortunately in many cases an aggressively misogynistic  one. That's not equality no matter how much you dress it up.


There most certainly are anti-feminists and misogynists in the mix but there are some real issues at the centre of it and you do many men a disservice with such sweeping generalisations. The irony is that the same sort of sweeping generalisations and characterisations were used 40 years ago to dismiss feminists and feminism.


----------



## Purple

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Many people agree with this statement which shows how disingenuous this whole charade is.  They want to present this as simply an issue of "equality".  What modern man or woman could possibly be against "equality"?  Issues about the family are red herrings, so they claim.  Well that might be the Ref that these people want but according to the Ref Commission it is not the ref that is before us.  The Refcom site and brochure puts Article 41 right up front as the central issue. Article 41 is all about the family.
> 
> But here is a bizarre and sinister twist.  In the Refcom.ie site the whole of Article 41 is reproduced.  But, to my shock, when I got the brochure in the post this morning it only produces what it calls an Extract.  In fact the Extract gives 3 of the 4 original clauses, so it is not in the interests of brevity, that some of the original Article is redacted.  The clause that is redacted is the very one I cited above about the role of the woman and the mother.  Why this very selective redaction?
> 
> Undoubtedly this very dishonest ref will be passed, but the Refcom have surely left the door open for a robust challenge to its impartiality.


That's both interesting and concerning but it doesn't change my opinion that while there certainly are side issues this is still fundamentally an issue of equality.


----------



## michaelm

Duke of Marmalade said:


> They want to present this as simply an issue of "equality". What modern man or woman could possibly be against "equality"? Issues about the family are red herrings, so they claim.


That's the best strategy for the Yes campaign; stick to the Equality mantra; no profit in recognising that we will be changing the Article 41 on 'The Family' or that such might have any ramifications.

Given the tsunami of support for the proposal from the political classes, state agencies, media, unions, business (not their business) and various sports and entertainment people, allied with the pillorying and negative characterisation of naysayers (as bigots, homophobes, religious zealots, etc.), it's little wonder that intending No voters have largely shied away from open discussion.  In reality, the only danger to the Yes campaign is the Yes campaign . . Nice 1 and Lisbon 1 show that the polls can be wide of the mark.


----------



## michaelm

Duke of Marmalade said:


> But here is a bizarre and sinister twist.


The clause does read as dated but its omission is hard to fathom.  Although the Referendum Commission had previously been neutered by Government, heretofore it had not been submissive.  It seems that the powers that be deem gender balance to be important in the Board Room and to political candidature but not relevant to parentage.

Dismissing the view that marriage is gendered, indeed dismissal of all No arguments, as being disingenuous and sexual discrimination is akin to dismissing arguments against the Age of Presidential Candidates referendum as being disingenuous and age discrimination.  That notwithstanding, many who will vote Yes to change Article 41 on 'The Family' will vote No to the other proposition, with no sense of duplicity.


----------



## Latrade

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Many people agree with this statement which shows how disingenuous this whole charade is.  They want to present this as simply an issue of "equality".  What modern man or woman could possibly be against "equality"? * Issues about the family are red herrings, so they claim*.  Well that might be the Ref that these people want but according to the Ref Commission it is not the ref that is before us.  The Refcom site and brochure puts Article 41 right up front as the central issue. Article 41 is all about the family.
> 
> But here is a bizarre and sinister twist.  In the Refcom.ie site the whole of Article 41 is reproduced.  But, to my shock, when I got the brochure in the post this morning it only produces what it calls an Extract.  In fact the Extract gives 3 of the 4 original clauses, so it is not in the interests of brevity, that some of the original Article is redacted.  The clause that is redacted is the very one I cited above about the role of the woman and the mother.  Why this very selective redaction?
> 
> Undoubtedly this very dishonest ref will be passed, but the Refcom have surely left the door open for a robust challenge to its impartiality.


 
But the issue on the family _is_ a red herring because there hasn't been an argument put forward that stands up to any scrutiny to say why a same sex couple cannot and should not be considered a family. Why they cannot and should not be parents. Why they cannot and should not have their union recognised and protected by the state.



Purple said:


> There most certainly are anti-feminists and misogynists in the mix but there are some real issues at the centre of it and you do many men a disservice with such sweeping generalisations. The irony is that the same sort of sweeping generalisations and characterisations were used 40 years ago to dismiss feminists and feminism.


 
We're getting miles off topic, but I strongly disagree with you. There are issues for men that need to be campaigned for and, as an umarried father, I am personally impacted by such lack of rights. But the problem is who is delivering the message. Take John Waters, he is absolutely right about fathers. 100%. But, he uses this as a stick to be against same sex marriage. Similarly there is a very pervasive and demonstrable anti-feminist stance among the Men's Rights Groups. So even though they may have valid points on where men are impacted, their policies are impacted by saying feminism has gone too far and that it is feminists that are now holding back men. Believing in equality doesn't mean I have to align myself with a group or sympathise with them, even if they have a point, when their policies are abhorent. That would make me George Galloway.



michaelm said:


> That's the best strategy for the Yes campaign; *stick to the Equality mantra*; no profit in recognising that we will be changing the Article 41 on 'The Family' or that such might have any ramifications.
> 
> Given the tsunami of support for the proposal from the political classes, state agencies, media, unions, business (not their business) and various sports and entertainment people, allied with the pillorying and negative characterisation of naysayers (as bigots, homophobes, religious zealots, etc.), it's little wonder that intending No voters have largely shied away from open discussion.  In reality, the only danger to the Yes campaign is the Yes campaign . . Nice 1 and Lisbon 1 show that the polls can be wide of the mark.


 
This is the same as the negative characterisation of naysayers. You imply there is something else or someother motive to the Yes campaign other than Equality. If there is, what is it? Have you listened to anything the people directly impacted by this referrendum have said? The ones who have to ask us for our permission to be considered equal citizens? What other agenda is there than Equality?

There is a pervasive theme in the No campaign inferring that the Yes side are being disingenuous by stating it is about equality but without actually explainig what other agenda we might have or why we may be lying that it is about equality.

The isuse of ramifications on family has been openly discussed, constitutional lawyers haven't found any, so what are they? Shying away from discussions is one thing, but even those who are not shying away are not putting forward any tangible examples of ramifications, at least none that aren't easily refuted by simple research.

Even if you believe that the union of a man and woman (conditional on them being able to naturally have children) is special, or that man and women is the only unit to raise children (so long single parents, back to the mother and baby homes) then it is still about equality because you are saying that homesexual couples are not equal to that standard. So it is, by each and every definition about equality, just whether you feel a group of people are equal or not, but it is still equality.

Unless you have some other agenda that might be behind the Yes campaign.


----------



## michaelm

Latrade said:


> This is the same as the negative characterisation of naysayers.


Hardly.





Latrade said:


> Even if you believe that the union of a man and woman (conditional on them being able to naturally have children) is special


Such unions are fundamental and indispensable to society . . not conditional, couples who cannot or do not have children do not deny any child either a mother or a father.





Latrade said:


> or that man and women is the only unit to raise children


Again, not the only unit but, all else being equal, the best unit.





Latrade said:


> so long single parents, back to the mother and baby homes


Please .


Latrade said:


> then it is still about equality because you are saying that homesexual couples are not equal to that standard.


Different.  We can put into the Constitution that an Apple is the same as an Orange, but that won't make it so.


----------



## Latrade

michaelm said:


> Hardly.


It is suggesting that the Yes campaign is being disingenuous with regards to its motivations without providing an alternative as to what you believe their motivations are. "Equality Mantra" is deliberately demeaning the views and dignity of those specifically and directly impacted by the current laws. You may not believe they are equal enough to deserve equality, but that does not mean it isn't about equality



michaelm said:


> Such unions are fundamental and indispensable to society . . not conditional, couples who cannot or do not have children do not deny any child either a mother or a father.


 
Nobody is denying biology. But the point is that as far as the constitution is concerned having children is not conditional on marriage and being a family is not conditional on marriage. Outside of the male/female marriage that bears children, there are already familiy units that do not conform to that or follow that model. They have recognition and protection.

You make a point on a child being denied a mother or a father, but I don't see how this is the case with same sex couples. No one will be denied anything. There aren't enough couples wishing to adopt or foster as it is, we need more.



michaelm said:


> .Again, not the only unit but, all else being equal, the best unit.
> Different. We can put into the Constitution that an Apple is the same as an Orange, but that won't make it so.


 
I think these are points which are a matter of belief. However, the problem comes down to the fact that there rarely is a situation where all things are equal. New legislation will just remove sexuality of a couple as being a barrier to adopting, all other conditions and criteria regarding age, health, lifestyle, income, stability, etc will have to be assessed. Rightly, in order to adopt you have to jump through numerous hoops and proof of ability to be a parent.

And the apple and orange anology is grossly inaccurate. We are all humans, the one difference is sexuality, not separate species. Apples and oranges would work if we were comparing equality with other primates, not other human beings.


----------



## Ceist Beag

michaelm said:


> Different. We can put into the Constitution that an Apple is the same as an Orange, but that won't make it so.


True, but that's not what we're voting on here Michael! To use your example, we're voting on whether the apple and orange deserve equal rights. We're not saying they're the same.


----------



## michaelm

Ceist Beag said:


> True, but that's not what we're voting on here Michael!


We are being asked to redefine both marriage and the family . . it is unfortunate that the Government could not have sought to removed inequalities, real and perceived, by overhauling civil partnership and giving it constitutional protection if required, rather than distorting Article 41.


----------



## terrysgirl33

I dunno, the main problem the 'No' campaign comes up with is the surrogacy and adoption question. 

At the moment, does anyone even know how many children are adopted in this country?  How many domestic and how many international adoptions?  How many to couples, how many to singletons?  How many as a result of an open competition for a child, how many inter-family?  The argument seems to be based on a picture of a baby being auctioned off, with no consideration given to the Adoption Authority or Real Life.

The other insidious part is that it sets up a two dad couple against a perfect hetrosexual couple.  No mention of assessing the suitability of either set of parents, no consideration of two women, because two women would be much more sympathetic than two men.

I have only discussed this referendum with people in Real Life this week, and everyone I've talked to so far has been dead set against it.  There is a big silent NO vote out there.


----------



## Leper

terrysgirl33 said:


> I have only discussed this referendum with people in Real Life this week, and everyone I've talked to so far has been dead set against it.  There is a big silent NO vote out there.



The above is not the full quote of terrysgirl33 and I am taking the quote from its full context?

There is a big silent No vote out there - What a great pity!

In case somebody looking in here thinks that I am setting myself up in the high moral ground.  Let's all ask ourselves the question:- Can any of us say we were never homophobic in any way whatsoever?  Answer:- I think we were all guilty, at least at some stage.  

Dreadful wrongs have been done to our homosexual community, for one reason or another.  We cannot make excuses.  But, we have a chance to make some retribution and that is by voting Yes in a couple of weeks time. The referendum is about Equality, nothing else.


----------



## Ger

Leper said:


> ........Dreadful wrongs have been done to our homosexual community, for one reason or another.  We cannot make excuses.  But, we have a chance to make some retribution and that is by voting Yes in a couple of weeks time. ........



There is a saying that 'Hard cases make bad law' and I think that this is happening here. i.e. People may be voting 'Yes' out of some misplaced and emotional sense of guilt. .....Not a good reason (imo)


----------



## Purple

Ger said:


> There is a saying that 'Hard cases make bad law' and I think that this is happening here. i.e. People may be voting 'Yes' out of some misplaced and emotional sense of guilt. .....Not a good reason (imo)


They might be but they are probably voting yes because they want all equality under the constitution.


----------



## Betsy Og

Was at mass this morning, we had extract from bishops letter, sermon and handing out of full text bishops letter on the way out the door. Depressing. Wondered what I was doing there. Refused the full letter. Apart from the 'think of the children' we had alleged media bias, removal of posters, alleged Garda support. Such a cacophony of McQuaidist horse manure - only drove home again what dearth of argument there is on the No side. After having to listen to that BY JANEY but I'm going to be certain I vote.


----------



## Leper

Betsy Og said:


> Was at mass this morning, we had extract from bishops letter, sermon and handing out of full text bishops letter on the way out the door. Depressing. Wondered what I was doing there. Refused the full letter. Apart from the 'think of the children' we had alleged media bias, removal of posters, alleged Garda support. Such a cacophony of McQuaidist horse manure - only drove home again what dearth of argument there is on the No side. After having to listen to that BY JANEY but I'm going to be certain I vote.



Anybody who thought the NO camp would remain mute during this campaign is well short of the mark.   The YES camp is loud too.  Both sides will use all at their disposal to promote their case.  Referenda have always been like this and we live in a democracy.  The Irish people are being presented with case for Marriage Equality.  It is a simple case of Yes or No and the Irish people are not stupid, you know!


----------



## The_Banker

Betsy Og said:


> Was at mass this morning, we had extract from bishops letter, sermon and handing out of full text bishops letter on the way out the door. Depressing. Wondered what I was doing there. Refused the full letter. Apart from the 'think of the children' we had alleged media bias, removal of posters, alleged Garda support. Such a cacophony of* McQuaidist horse manure* - only drove home again what dearth of argument there is on the No side. After having to listen to that BY JANEY but I'm going to be certain I vote.


 

I like that turn of phrase... I might use it at some stage in the future...


----------



## One

Excuse my ignorance but _legally_ what changes if the referendum passes?

I think that homosexual couples have the right to adopt after 3 years. The _Children and Family Relationships Act 2015_ provides that civil partners and cohabiting couples who have lived together for three years will be eligible to adopt jointly. The referendum doesn’t appear to address the difficulty of the right of the non-biological parent, but it seems to me that the _Children and Family Relationships Act 2015 does. _The rights of the non-biological parent are tricky to legislate for.

Civil partners are subject to taxation in the same way as married couples.

The inheritance laws seem to be the nearly the same, apart from the allowance for a court order which could reduce the entitlement of a civil partner to a legal right share or the share on intestacy.

I understand that legally the word marriage will be extended to include same sex couples, but legally what else changes? What extra constitutional protections are given to a homosexual couple (in a Civil Partnership) by voting ‘Yes’ in this referendum?


----------



## Latrade

One said:


> Excuse my ignorance but _legally_ what changes if the referendum passes?
> 
> 
> Civil partners are subject to taxation in the same way as married couples.
> 
> The inheritance laws seem to be the nearly the same, apart from the allowance for a court order which could reduce the entitlement of a civil partner to a legal right share or the share on intestacy.
> 
> I understand that legally the word marriage will be extended to include same sex couples, but legally what else changes? What extra constitutional protections are given to a homosexual couple (in a Civil Partnership) by voting ‘Yes’ in this referendum?


 
Quite a lot would change, see Sol28's post a couple of pages back:



Sol28 said:


> This is factually incorrect. They are not equal institutions - apart from the consitutional protection - there are over 160 differences between the two. See HERE for more info.


----------



## Deas

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Many people agree with this statement which shows how disingenuous this whole charade is.  They want to present this as simply an issue of "equality".  What modern man or woman could possibly be against "equality"?  Issues about the family are red herrings, so they claim.  Well that might be the Ref that these people want but according to the Ref Commission it is not the ref that is before us.  The Refcom site and brochure puts Article 41 right up front as the central issue. Article 41 is all about the family.


 
Issues of children etc. are the red herrings.  I am one of a married couple without children.  As such, we are a family as defined by the constitution.  I personally have no issue with a same sex couple being allowed the same privilige on the basis of equality.

In fact, the fact that we don't have children flies in the face of every argument put up by IONA and the likes that marriage is for pro-creation purposes.


----------



## michaelm

Deas said:


> In fact, the fact that we don't have children flies in the face of every argument put up by IONA and the likes that marriage is for pro-creation purposes.


I don't think it does.  Most married couples go on to have children.  Gendered marriage is open to pro-creation and childless married couples will not deliberately deny any child either a mother or a father at any point.


----------



## Deas

michaelm said:


> I don't think it does.  Most married couples go on to have children.  Gendered marriage is open to pro-creation and childless married couples will not deliberately deny any child either a mother or a father at any point.


 

Of course they do!  Children are often the pawns in protracted separations with the father being denied access.  Either way, this has nothing to do with allowing same sex people to marry.


----------



## Ceist Beag

So now this referendum, if passed, will mean that married couples will have a constitutional right to children* - honestly is there no limit to the depths some on the No side will stoop to in this campaign! We also had a state expert on adoption clearly state that this referendum will have absolutely no impact on adoption policies but of course the No side on the show last night just dismissed this and insulted the expert by claiming he's just a government sponsored Yes man! It seems a lot of people on the No side think they know better than every expert advocating a yes vote here when it comes to the potential impact of allowing same sex couples to marry.

* Quote from a lawyer in the Claire Byrne show last night.


----------



## Sol28

Ceist Beag said:


> We also had a state expert on adoption clearly state that this referendum will have absolutely no impact on adoption policies but of course the No side on the show last night just dismissed this and insulted the expert by claiming he's just a government sponsored Yes man!



Some facts we learnt from the debate last night. 

Surrogacy is not impacted by this vote. The government still has to legislate for surrogacy.
Adoption practices will not change whether or not this referendum passes.
The No side are confusing the discussion with points that are not impacted by the referendum.


----------



## elacsaplau

michaelm said:


> Gendered marriage is open to pro-creation



I couldn't agree more. Indeed, any marriage that is not "open to pro-creation" is not a traditional marriage and my personal view is that such a marriage is intrinsically flawed. Marriage is all about the natural pro-creation of beautiful children which is a truly wonderful thing. This view was very ably set out in a speech by the Bishop of Elphin at the outset of this debate.

The undeniable fact is that heterosexual couples, where one or other is sterile, whilst fully deserving of our tolerance, even sympathy, should in no circumstances be allowed to take the vows of matrimony. It goes without saying that any post-menopausal woman, with the greatest respect for women and obviously not wishing to be ageist, is completely ruled out of entering a marriage as she simply cannot satisfy the "open to pro-creation" test. Of course, as sexual activity should properly only occur within the confines of marriage, this may prove challenging to such ladies. I understand that traditional activities such as bingo and knitting, as well as new-style social media related activity, can help pass the time. Additionally, there are also some very good evening classes to do with furthering one's understanding of pet cats. It, also, goes without saying that those whose marriages are not "open to pro-creation" are fully deserving of our love and empathy,  - however and with the deepest regret, we simply cannot recognise their union as legitimate. I, myself,  have known people of this persuasion and very nice people they are too. 

Of perhaps even more serious concern are those heterosexual and married couples who selfishly decide that the time is not right for them to have children. Such a union is fundamentally dishonest because whilst it superficially purports to be a normal marriage, through the use of artificial means and/or interventions - which in my day would never have been allowed and again further illustrates the divergence from centuries-old practices - there is not current pro-creative intent. One must suspect, although, admittedly, I have only anecdotal evidence to support this view, that some of these people may be engaged in bedroom activity, the sole function of which is the gratification of very primitive desires. Call me old-fashioned and bigoted - but this is a step too far. The traditional and proper question from a father to son, say 6 to 9 months after the wedding of the son, of "anything stirring?" was to remind the son of his pro-creative responsibilities. It is no exaggeration to say that there is a risk that this question could now be replaced by questions along the lines I could not possibly put on paper.

Whilst writing, some other aspects of this referendum are troubling me. It is quite clear that every child deserves a mother and father, living at home with them, in perfect harmony. You know - with parents who are loving but do not spoil, generous with their time and attention but not overly so; think of the apple pie cooling down on an open window as the home-made ice-cream is taken from the freezer by smiling and enthusiastic children, etc. It is clear from all the research that this is the proper way to raise a child. I think even the most entrenched Yes voter would concede this truth. Now, where a couple gets divorced, this can no longer happen. The children suffer as dad and mam no longer live together. Thankfully, to date the incidence of divorce is very rare, unlike surrogacy which has become so frighteningly ubiquitous. I may be straying off topic (and I apologise for this because I fully acknowledge that no other poster has so done) - but wouldn't it make imminent sense to disallow divorce where couples have children? Doesn't every child have the right to a mother and father at home? Apart from the obvious evidence-based welfare of the children, there is additional merit to this proposal as it logically follows that only childless couples should be allowed to divorce - and this is completely appropriate as they, in my opinion, probably were never truly married in the first place for the multiple indisputable reasons set out earlier. It further follows, therefore, that a termination of such a childless union is best characterised as an annulment. In so doing, all divorce would be eliminated and right-thinking traditional values restored.

I think even the Yes side would concede that divorce has caused many problems not just to some vague notion of Irish society - but to its very fabric. It is undeniably for the sake of our children that the divorce laws should be repealed with immediate effect. Of course, this is nothing against divorced people - who also deserve or understanding, support and compassion. I, myself, have gone (admittedly unintentionally) into one or two bars noted for attracting the "second chance" market. What struck me was how normal everyone seemed. After initial apprehension, I got chatting to some of them and was amazed at how open they were about their marital status in spite of the undeniably harm this had caused their children. I remember meeting two women, both of whom had been beaten senseless by their husbands and both had reluctantly, after years of counselling and other interventions, left their husbands for their safety and the safety of their children. And very nice people they were too. But, we all realise, that such examples of tough cases make for really bad laws. National law is not about compassion at the individual level - it is about the greater good - and it is time we truly redefine marriage in which the "pro-creation test" is central.


----------



## terrysgirl33

michaelm said:


> I don't think it does.  Most married couples go on to have children.  Gendered marriage is open to pro-creation and childless married couples will not deliberately deny any child either a mother or a father at any point.



Does this mean that marriages where there is no chance of procreation should not be allowed?  Menopausal or post hysterectomy women, or sterile men?  I know some who have been married like this, but according to this logic they should not be married.


----------



## Purple

Best post so far in this debate elacsaplau and with the quality of Latrade's posts that's saying something.


----------



## michaelm

terrysgirl33 said:


> Does this mean that marriages where there is no chance of procreation should not be allowed? Menopausal or post hysterectomy women, or sterile men? I know some who have been married like this, but according to this logic they should not be married.


You may be confusing logic with dramatics, perhaps deliberately.  Mercifully, all this will have been put to bed in 10 days time and then we can all live happily ever after.

Does AAM ever run polls (I can't recall such) . . I'd be interested to compare the actual result on the 22nd with the current polls (76% yes) and an AAM poll, just to see how representative AAM is of wider Irish society.


----------



## Leo

elacsaplau said:


> ...it is time we truly redefine marriage in which the "pro-creation test" is central.



Is the logical extension of this that all marriages should be annulled within a set time period if the procreation test criteria have not been met?

I also found it interesting to hear the Iona Institute are now suggesting that should the referendum be passed, we're going to see a glut of heterosexual people of the same gender marrying just so they can avail of the tax benefits of inheritance. To me, that suggests they're aware of an issue presently where people of the opposite gender are getting married for that very reason. Maybe they're the couples failing the procreation test? I might be cynical, but I can't see too many straight people rushing into a same sex union on the chance they'll outlive their chosen partner and make a mint through inheritance.


----------



## One

Latrade said:


> Quite a lot would change, see Sol28's post a couple of pages back:


 
Thanks. That has changed my mind from being 98% sure to vote Yes to being 100% sure to vote Yes.


----------



## terrysgirl33

This is a link to an analysis of how the state and courts support the right to children now:

http://constitutionproject.ie/?p=503


----------



## dereko1969

michaelm said:


> You may be confusing logic with dramatics, perhaps deliberately.  Mercifully, all this will have been put to bed in 10 days time and then we can all live happily ever after.
> 
> Does AAM ever run polls (I can't recall such) . . I'd be interested to compare the actual result on the 22nd with the current polls (76% yes) and an AAM poll, just to see how representative AAM is of wider Irish society.



She's not confusing logic with dramatics, she's pointing out the logical end-game of the position adopted by the No campaign. Of course, the no campaign don't see the hurt caused by their campaign to those who can't procreate, who were adopted or born into a loving family as the result of surrogacy.

It's also interesting to note that the No campaign are now looking for an anti-government/austerity angle to drum up votes as their campaign of fear and lies is failing. Listen how often the referendum is posited as a Government initiative and how Government spokespersons are castigated for austerity measures in any discussions with the No campaign.


----------



## michaelm

I flicked back over the thread and counted the number of different posters; 27 in total.  If I discount the 7 who's voting intentions are not immediately apparent that leaves 17 firm Yes and perhaps 3 No votes.  So 85% Yes is probably not that far off being representative of the likely outcome . . time for my rearguard action on this thread to end methinks, back to my spider hole.


----------



## terrysgirl33

michaelm said:


> I flicked back over the thread and counted the number of different posters; 27 in total.  If I discount the 7 who's voting intentions are not immediately apparent that leaves 17 firm Yes and perhaps 3 No votes.  So 85% Yes is probably not that far off being representative of the likely outcome . . time for my rearguard action on this thread to end methinks.



I think a point of view where you are able to explain your point is always welcome!

ETA, I think the vote will be a lot closer than that on the day.


----------



## Leper

terrysgirl33 said:


> I think a point of view where you are able to explain your point is always welcome!
> 
> ETA, I think the vote will be a lot closer than that on the day.



Terrysgirl33 is right, the result will be much closer than what is predicted

I watched the Claire Byrne debate last night and the NO camp won hands down.

1. Before the YES people jump on their feet in protest let me explain.

2. Before I explain please note I will be voting YES.

Mr Coveney allowed himself to be interrupted continuously on his microphone time. Although he is a good speaker, he appeared to be out of his depth.  It should be noted that he is too much of a gentleman to interrupt the interrupters. The NO lawyer in the audience had him twisted in knots and he failed to answer some questions that were asked.  He was not left away with this either and looked bereft of cogent ideas from time to time. Many of the NO people in the audience had their homework done and played as a team. They were clear and had carte-blanche to play on any issue.

The "expert" on adoption looked like he was forced onto the programme and spent more time informing people that he was totally neutral than at anything else. But, he made his points well.

The subject of surrogacy was allowed onto the debate and although the debate was of equality only the surrogacy issue remained prominent. Equality played little in the programme.  Let's be clear, Equality is what this Referendum is all about.

There is also the point that with Civil Partnership, there were no problems with issues of Social Welfare, Inheritance rights etc.  Some members of the public thought these were the only issues for the referendum.

The NO side hammered away of the increasing number of people who had intended voting for change and had changed their minds. If nothing else this would make neutrals think to say the least.  But, this was another loss for the YES contingent.

Ireland is ready for Gay Marriage.  But, Ireland is not yet ready for public same sex affection.  My homosexual friends inform me that Ireland should 'get-over-it' - Ireland will get over it, but it will take some time.  Ireland cannot transform from non gay public affection to open gay affection overnight. Gay Community, please come to terms with this although I agreeyou are entitled to show public affection, but Ireland is not fully ready for this yet. I know I am setting myself up for a firing squad to be waiting for me, but at this moment Ireland is not ready for such openness especially in rural areas.

The Referendum will pass.  There are some trying times for the YES side immediately ahead.  The NO campaign is just about getting started and public opinions will ebb and flow.  The public is getting more interested in the whole subject and many who would have stayed away from the polls will vote.  So, it's time for cool heads and prevention of own goals.


----------



## Leper

The Canvass:- I've had people from both sides visit.  A gay female couple called three weeks ago, were very nervous but represented their side well.  If anybody had any hang-up over gay couples these two ladies blasted that out of the water.  They informed me it was their first door-to-door campaign of any description.  They were nervous to bits and had laid their souls bare at each door.  I shoved on the kettle and they informed me that they would look on the like of Airtricity agents, ticket sellers, etc in a different light.

A guy from the YES side called last night.  He was well versed, confident and careful of what he said.  I think he feared Gay Marriage more than his possible future inability to pay his mortgage and survive the recession.  This guy would have been a good foot-soldier in McQuaid's time.


----------



## Ceist Beag

Leper said:


> The NO lawyer in the audience had him twisted in knots and he failed to answer some questions that were asked.


Is that the same lawyer who claimed a Yes vote would mean a constitutional right to children for married couples? I stopped listening to him after that ridiculous claim! Personally I didn't hear one logical rational argument from the No side on the debate. I'm not really interested in who interrupted who or who shouted loudest, in terms of presenting coherent factual points on the question to hand, I thought the Yes side were much more persuasive.



Leper said:


> A guy from the YES side called last night. He was well versed, confident and careful of what he said. I think he feared Gay Marriage more than his possible future inability to pay his mortgage and survive the recession. This guy would have been a good foot-soldier in McQuaid's time.


I'm guessing that was someone from the NO side there Leper!


----------



## Purple

Ceist Beag said:


> Is that the same lawyer who claimed a Yes vote would mean a constitutional right to children for married couples? I stopped listening to him after that ridiculous claim! Personally I didn't hear one logical rational argument from the No side on the debate. I'm not really interested in who interrupted who or who shouted loudest, in terms of presenting coherent factual points on the question to hand, I thought the Yes side were much more persuasive.


Unfortunately the electorate rarely votes based on fact.


----------



## Leper

Ceist Beag said:


> Is that the same lawyer who claimed a Yes vote would mean a constitutional right to children for married couples? I stopped listening to him after that ridiculous claim! Personally I didn't hear one logical rational argument from the No side on the debate. I'm not really interested in who interrupted who or who shouted loudest, in terms of presenting coherent factual points on the question to hand, I thought the Yes side were much more persuasive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing that was someone from the NO side there Leper!



Thanks for that Ceist - Senior moment for Leper - Must remember to tick the right box in the referendum!

Would like to agree with you, but appearance is everything.  The NO side turned up, played as a team, confused where they could not win.  The YES side while 100% truthful batted as individuals and made almost fatal mistakes.



I have no doubt the Referendum will be carried, but the distance between the two is closing fast.


----------



## Leper

I wish that entertainers, footballers, actors who just because of their fame and with no arguments given, would stay out of the limelight regarding the Equality Referendum. Their input is useless - this is a serious referendum and we can do without the glamour seekers.


----------



## Sol28

Leper said:


> I wish that entertainers, footballers, actors who just because of their fame and with no arguments given, would stay out of the limelight regarding the Equality Referendum. Their input is useless - this is a serious referendum and we can do without the glamour seekers.



To be honest I disagree with you - Some people are definitely only there for the spotlight - but having the captain of the soccer team say its ok to be gay, from a sport that's notorious for homophobia, having the GPA - representatives of the GAA players, a community thats considered to be rural - and rural is perceived to be less modern and very 'macho', state that its ok to be gay will support a lot of folk who trouble with their sexuality. Even having wee Daniel O'Donnell support the vote will make some of his fans at least think about how they are voting.

Growing up through the 70s and 80s there was no positive affirmations of homosexuality. The closest we got was John Inman in 'Are you being served', a character who never once said he was gay, it was just joked at, and who did a lot of damage to peoples coming out process. Nowadays young people are getting the message that gay people are in every walk of life, we are everywhere, and we are just as normal as everyone else.

This time period is over populated with talk about homosexuality - but if not now - then when? I understand that people are probably getting sick of the discussions - I know I am. So lets just vote Yes - and we will never have to discuss this again !


----------



## cork

I don't think that the money that the YES brigade accepted was wrong.

This is our constitution. Yet, they accept money from abroad to influence public openion.


----------



## Agent 47

I think the silent "No" will come out in force to vote on Friday. I particularly find it irksome to be pushed with Yes propaganda at every juncture and between radio and television, even calling to my door yesterday afternoon. 
De-facing of "No" posters in the Coolmine area really got up my nose as I did not come across de-facing of yes posters. I do believe there is serious money behind the "Yes" campaign, I hope it is well spent because it will be well spent by Friday.


----------



## dereko1969

Agent 47 said:


> I think the silent "No" will come out in force to vote on Friday. I particularly find it irksome to be pushed with Yes propaganda at every juncture and between radio and television, *even calling to my door* yesterday afternoon.
> De-facing of "No" posters in the Coolmine area really got up my nose as I did not come across de-facing of yes posters. I do believe there is serious money behind the "Yes" campaign, I hope it is well spent because it will be well spent by Friday.


It's a referendum, you didn't have to open your door. Given the time-keeping on the Radio and TV ensuring exact even times for both camps I think you're stretching things.
Why are you voting no?
I'm voting yes because I believe in equality, I believe that we shouldn't have second-class citizens who are given a (in the view of the no campaign who opposed civil partnership when it was introduced but think it's just dandy now) separate but equal status that can be taken away by an act of the oireachtas at any time in the future.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

As I have said before this is a truly silly referendum which should never have been put to the people.  The No campaign are absolutely right that this is potentially about fundamentally changing the meaning of marriage and the family in our society - a point which the refcom disingenuously played down.

However, it has been turned into an "equality" referendum.  Miriam O'Callaghan hit the spot for me when she pointed out last night that if the Yes vote wins the No supporters will shrug their shoulders and move on.  However, if the No vote wins it will be perceived by a minority in our society as a terrible kick in the stomach and as a definite statement of second class citizenship to them.  That is not what the No threesome on last night's programme were arguing.  But it is what the Yes side want to portray and it is unfortunately how many people see it.

For that reason I sorta want Yes to win but probably will not vote.


----------



## Purple

Agent 47 said:


> I think the silent "No" will come out in force to vote on Friday. I particularly find it irksome to be pushed with Yes propaganda at every juncture and between radio and television, even calling to my door yesterday afternoon.
> De-facing of "No" posters in the Coolmine area really got up my nose as I did not come across de-facing of yes posters. I do believe there is serious money behind the "Yes" campaign, I hope it is well spent because it will be well spent by Friday.


All of the No posters about children are disingenuous, to say the least. The idea that vindicating the rights of one group will disadvantage another is nonsense. If additional rights for children are required, such as the right to know who their biological parents are, then legislate for it or even have another referendum but don't deny equality to adults on the grounds of a nebulous or spurious fear that children will somehow be disadvantaged.


----------



## Purple

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The No campaign are absolutely right that this is potentially about fundamentally changing the meaning of marriage and the family in our society - a point which the refcom disingenuously played down.


 I've heard that said many times but I don't see anything to support it. The divorce referendum was a fundamental change. I don't see how this is.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Purple said:


> I've heard that said many times but I don't see anything to support it. The divorce referendum was a fundamental change. I don't see how this is.


_Purple_ I said "potentially".  The refcom deliberately left one sub-clause of Article 41 out of its brochure.  This clause refers to the special role of the "mother" in the home and of the state's duty to prevent "her" from being forced by economic circumstances of not carrying out that role.  If the wording of the ref was extended to include "nothing in this amendment shall act to minimise the role of the mother in society as expressed elsewhere in this constitution" then I would buy it but of course some (possibly a minority) on the Yes side would be dead against this - they want to roll back all traditional constraints and have a free for all.


----------



## elacsaplau

Duke of Marmalade said:


> For that reason I sorta want Yes to win but probably will not vote



Another excellent example of the quality of your logic in all this....


----------



## Latrade

Duke of Marmalade said:


> As I have said before this is a truly silly referendum which should never have been put to the people.


 
You couldn't be more correct. It's an abdication of responsibility by the government (and preceeding governments). There is nothing stopping them just producing legislation on this apart from a lack of courage, this way, if passed, their votes wouldn't be on record, parties wouldn't have to force the whip, wouldn't face losing TDs, etc.



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The No campaign are absolutely right that this is potentially about fundamentally changing the meaning of marriage and the family in our society - a point which the refcom disingenuously played down.


 
This I disagree with and don't believe it to have been played down. Article 41.2.1 amd 2.2 have been played down by the courts, and applied to fathers...or at least described by Justice Murray as:



> ‘the Constitution … is to be interpreted as a contemporary document. The duties and obligations of spouses are mutual and, without elaborating further since nothing turns on the point in this case, it seems to me that [the Constitution] implicitly recognises similarly the value of a man’s contribution in the home as a parent.’


 
There is a separate recommendation for the wording of that clause which is likely to be another referendum at some point.

I do not believe that there is anything nefarious in the omission by the commission in their brochure. The brochure is available online for those who don't have it handy and it is clear that they have quoted the clauses directly impacted by this referendum, that being those that directly quote family or marriage. The two referencing the mother do not.

In addition, the vote will have absolutely no impact on this section as motherhood isn't dependent on marriage. If there is a yes vote, then heterosexual and homosexual mothers will be protected by the state and have a special place and heterosexual and homosexual men will not be. That is how it is, that is how it will be until that clause is changed. It therefore isn't a sinisister coverup or misleading, it's just that that  wording has no relevance on what is being voted for, it is sexist for sure, but it is not related to marriage and is not related to what is defined as a family (homosexual mothers have the same protection, rights and recognition as their heterosexual counterparts, the difference is if they were to marry, their partners wouldn't).

Add to that we don't have any "heterosexual mothers social welfare" legislation and we have equality legislation which entitles and men to be stay at home dads and receive the same benefits, to be carers and receive the same allowances and protection, the already negligable impact is reduces further.

Refcom hasn't played anything down with regards to the family. It discusses openly the factual impact of the vote on marriage and family, it excluded in its brochure clauses that wouldn't be impacted either way. I will admit, that it would have been better to include the whole lot as on the website, but I don't believe there to be any hidden agenda by its omission.


----------



## Sol28

Agent 47 said:


> I think the silent "No" will come out in force to vote on Friday. I particularly find it irksome to be pushed with Yes propaganda at every juncture and between radio and television, even calling to my door yesterday afternoon.
> De-facing of "No" posters in the Coolmine area really got up my nose as I did not come across de-facing of yes posters. I do believe there is serious money behind the "Yes" campaign, I hope it is well spent because it will be well spent by Friday.



Agent47 - There is money behind both sides of this refererendum - there always is - Who is funding the Iona Institute - Breda O'Briend had to admit on the Last Word on Today FM ono Monday that she did not know. Who's funding the Catholic church - who are advocating a No. This is a non issue.

I am a gay man - I had No leaflets pushed through my door today. They denigrate me as a person. How does a Yes campaigner asking for your vote denigrate you.

And as for defacing the posters - That has happened on both sides - and the Yes Equality groups have condemned this practice. However - I know Yes canvassers and badge wearers berated and attacked for whom they are. Physical attacks as well as Verbal.

Both sides have extremists - Including this No voter who wrote a horrific bigoted and racist letter to Una Mullally, the Irish Times journalist, a woman in her early 30s who has just been diagnosed with stage three cancer. Telling her its a punishment for her stance - and while shes ugly - least she is not black.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

_Latrade
_
Okay, you seem better informed than I.  I am not normally prone to conspiracy theories so I will give refcom the benefit of the doubt i.e. they made a mistake in producing the abridged version of Article 41 in the brochure; besides I have heard nobody else argue my point so I must have the wrong end of the stick.

Separately, you talk of "homosexual mothers".  I am not trolling here, does this in your book include males?  I saw a newspaper photo recently captioned "_Martina Navratilova and her wife Julia Lemigova_".  If it was captioned the other way round would it read "_Julia and her husband Martina_"?  Serious question, I don't really understand how far this has gone.  If gender determines the title "wife" fair enough, Martina and Julia are wives of each other.  But if one is the husband, well goodness me this is a family blog, please don't tell me how it is decided which is husband and wife.


----------



## Latrade

Duke of Marmalade said:


> _Latrade
> _
> Okay, you seem better informed than I.  I am not normally prone to conspiracy theories so I will give refcom the benefit of the doubt; besides I have heard nobody else argue my point so I must have the wrong end of the stick.
> 
> Separately, you talk of "homosexual mothers".  I am not trolling here, does this in your book include males?  I saw a newspaper photo recently captioned "_Martina Navratilova and her wife Julia Lemigova_".  If it was captioned the other way round would it read "_Julia and her husband Martina_"?  Serious question, I don't really understand how far this has gone.  If gender determines the title "wife" fair enough, Martina and Julia are wives of each other.  But if one is the husband, well goodness me this is a family blog, please don't tell me how it is decided which is husband and wife.


 
Well I'd agree that it seems odd that it is omitted from the brochure and not the website, but I'd err towards this being due to the lack of reference to marriage and family.

As to mothers, I specifically refer to gender as the constitution uses "her" in reference to mothers. How gay couples refer to each other or assign roles is up to themselves. I know males who are both husbands and were both grooms, females who are both wives and were both brides and plenty others who just say partner.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Brian Dobson really put Henda thru the wringer on RTE 6.0c news.  He kept asking will a Yes vote not inevitably entitle same sex marriages to the same surrogacy rights as other marriages once the surrogacy laws come into force.  Henda kept refusing to answer by saying that Friday's vote had nothing to do with surrogacy.  Why didn't he say "well, if we believe in equality I would hope that the surrogacy laws would not discriminate between different married set ups".  Wow, that would kill the Yes vote

This is the most dishonest campaign I have ever witnessed.  I will, for the first time, follow the advices of Sinn Fein where I grew up _"vote early and often"_ and it will be *"No, No, No....."*


----------



## elacsaplau

Another very helpful contribution Duke.

A prominent supporter of the YES campaign says this evening that this referendum has nothing to do with the law in relation to surrogacy. And this absolute breaking news has resulted in changing your mind from a tentative wish for a YES outcome this afternoon to now a definite no.

I have one specific question - did you not realise this was the general position of the YES campaign before this evening?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

elacsaplau said:


> Another very helpful contribution Duke.
> 
> A prominent supporter of the YES campaign says this evening that this referendum has nothing to do with the law in relation to surrogacy. And this absolute breaking news has resulted in changing your mind from a tentative wish for a YES outcome this afternoon to now a definite no.
> 
> I have one specific question - did you not realise this was the general position of the YES campaign before this evening?


Yes, the Bryan Dobson interview made it clear to me that the upcoming legislation on surrogacy is very relevant.  Personally I would have a constitutional ban on all surrogacy.  But the idea that two males can pay some misfortunate female to incubate their child object makes me physically sick.  I really must go to my local SF office to see how I can make multiple votes.


----------



## Betsy Og

Duke of Marmalade said:


> This is the most dishonest campaign I have ever witnessed.



As Dell Boy would say "Leave it out", its as galling to hear the No side talk about dishonesty as Sinn Fein talk about..well...pretty much anything...but particularly anything questioning the integrity of other politicians. The No side has been about anything other than the real issue. Their entire position is an imagined (or concocted) bogeyman story about surrogacy - its straight from the Fr. Ted sketch re the missing flashlight and the demise of the neighbourhood "Next thing the pimps will be giving the whores crack to keep them down", we're faced with the spectre of all those kids who deserve a mother and a father (lets not forget) being forsaken and left to languish in the clutches of a same sex couple. And the funniest thing is that the line is being led by the Catholic Church, who you'd have thought you be staying a mile away from anything to do with the care of children. I despair as to when the Catholic Church will finally understand that their real role is to be some sort of link to Christ - not a self-appointed moral police service, or an educational body, or a health care provider. As for surrogacy or adoption or whatever (not that its relevant to Fridays vote), if with all the expertise and legislation and what not the relevant authority feels a child's best interest is served by care in a same sex couple then who are we to second guess or moralise or display our prejudice. 

Anyway, back to the real issue - do gay people deserve the same rights as straight people? - that's pretty much all you need to consider. Very much looking forward to moving on from this debate....


----------



## elacsaplau

Duke of Marmalade said:


> This is the most dishonest campaign I have ever witnessed.





Duke of Marmalade said:


> Yes, the Bryan Dobson interview made it clear to me that the upcoming legislation on surrogacy is very relevant.



Your hypocrisy is really becoming a little annoying - you go on about our Taoiseach not answering a straight question and then happily obfuscate yourself. And it's obvious why who didn't answer my specific question directly and properly - and chose to give a classic politician's answer - as either (a) you knew the stated position regarding surrogacy all along so the apparent conversion this evening is complete b/s or (b) you did not know this all along in which case you really haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Either way, seems to me to be very dishonest positioning from someone so preachy about honesty. Reminds me of a certain organisation - yes, the one that made surrogates out of thousands of Irish women by coercing unmarried mothers to give up their newborns for adoption.

Maybe you'll accept this like your conspiracy theory clime-down earlier; maybe you'll attempt to find some way to explain a position that satisfies (a) and (b) - if so, you will truly have entered the world of Sinn Fein. 



Duke of Marmalade said:


> But the idea that two males can pay some misfortunate female to incubate their child object makes me physically sick



What does this mean exactly? Seems to me to imply that if the renters are a heterosexual couple you'd be less physically sick. Why else would you have worded it this way? Please explain!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

elacsaplau said:


> I have one specific question - did you not realise this was the general position of the YES campaign before this evening?


I had bought the line that it was a distraction thrown in by the No side until now.


elacsaplau said:


> And it's obvious why who didn't answer my specific question directly and properly - and chose to give a classic politician's answer - as either (a) you knew the stated position regarding surrogacy all along so the apparent conversion this evening is complete b/s or (b) you did not know this all along in which case you really haven't a clue what you're talking about.


Definitely (b)

Bryan Dobson opened my eyes.  I decided to look again at the Refcom website.  There is a very telling Q and A with the chairman.  The A is long and carefully constructed by a legal mind but the Noddy version is as follows:

_*Q.*  Will it be more difficult to differentiate between same sex marriages and conventional marriages when it comes to the forthcoming surrogacy regulations if this amendment is passed?

*A.*  Yes_

Now congratulations again to the Refcom website for its clear exposition of the issues.  Pity again that the shortened version of the Q and A as presented above was not in the brochure.

So back to topic.  It should be abundantly clear that the forthcoming surrogacy regs are *not* irrelevant to this debate.  Why else did Refcom include the issue on its website?

You may argue that the issue has been blown out of proportion by the No side (that's what I thought until now).  But it is totally dishonest to do what our Teashop did and say that it has absolutely no relevance for Friday's vote.

So let's examine the above Q and A.  Most people (including this very duke) are 100% in favour of equality.  But many would share an old fashioned duke's queasiness when it comes to the idea of (especially) two males commercially acquiring new human life.  I suggest that the consensus in the Dail and with the populace when it comes to formulate the surrogacy regs would be to differentiate very much between the variety of couple types.  The Refcom chairman has clarified that with the passing of this amendment to the constitution that type of differentiation will be very much more difficult if not impossible.  The No posters were right after all!

BTW I think the RC church's position is also totally dishonest.  They are against same sex marriages simply coz they think same sex relationships are immoral, end of.


----------



## Sol28

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Most people (including this very duke) are 100% in favour of equality. But many would share an old fashioned duke's queasiness when it comes to the idea of (especially) two males commercially acquiring new human life.



I have been very reticent to use terms that are deemed offensive - but this smacks of total B.S.
Either you find the thought of two men together revolting - or you are totally sexist about the ability of a man to care for a child. Either way your statement of favouring equality is totally in question.

Why is it that all the 'reasons' to vote No seem to always be focussing on the concept of two men forming a loving family? There has been little discussion about the ability of two women to do so.


----------



## terrysgirl33

I guess the question then is, is it right to differentiate between homosexual and heterosexual couples when it comes to surrogacy?

I can't see any reason why not.  There is a long tradition of men being regarded with suspicion around children, but most children are abused in families.  If a gay man wants access to children for nefarious purposes the easiest way is to marry a woman and have children.  Much cheaper and easier, and no-one will suspect him.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Sol28 said:


> I have been very reticent to use terms that are deemed offensive - but this smacks of total B.S.
> Either you find the thought of two men together revolting - or you are totally sexist about the ability of a man to care for a child. Either way your statement of favouring equality is totally in question.
> 
> Why is it that all the 'reasons' to vote No seem to always be focussing on the concept of two men forming a loving family? There has been little discussion about the ability of two women to do so.


To me there is a difference between a woman carrying a baby (albeit not her partner's) for nine months and then giving birth compared to a man calling back in 9 months time and picking up his goods for delivery. I appreciate that there is no difference for the enlightened amongst you.  But this is a democracy and the enlightened are I suggest in a minority.  If people like our Teashop honestly admitted the implications for future surrogacy regs this wouldn't pass.


----------



## Sol28

terrysgirl33 said:


> I can't see any reason why not.  There is a long tradition of men being regarded with suspicion around children, but most children are abused in families.  If a gay man wants access to children for nefarious purposes the easiest way is to marry a woman and have children.  Much cheaper and easier, and no-one will suspect him.



Terrysgirl33 - I totally understand the point of your message - but you need to change one word in this. I have fixed it for you below.



> If a PAEDOPHILE wants access to children for nefarious purposes the easiest way is to marry a woman and have children.


----------



## michaelm

elacsaplau said:


> Another very helpful contribution Duke.


Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but at least you're consistent in that regard.

The passage of this referendum, changing as it will the article on 'The Family', will render the state gender blind when it comes to marriage and family (we might even be able to agree on that).  The next step for many same-sex married couples, underscoring the normality, naturalness and sameness of their marriage compared to a gender balanced marriage, will be to beget children; and they will effectively have a constitutional right to do so.

These rights will be exercised and this will require various combinations of donated sperm, ova and surrogate mothers.  The state will be facilitating engineered situations whereby children are created, by design, to be raised without either a mother or a father.  The No posters reflect this; it is a genuine concern for many No voters however most of those with a locked-in Yes Equality mindset are blind to this.  It is entire understandable that those Yes people who do recognise this have refused to countenance it, as this would sap support for a Yes.

To be fair, a No vote won't necessarily in itself stop this, however a Yes vote will guarantee it does happen.  Given the forces and resources lined up on the Yes side and the simple but effective (cult-like) campaign, it will be a miracle if it is defeated.  Stranger things have happened.


----------



## terrysgirl33

What are the plans for future surrogacy regulations?  I haven't heard anything about this yet.

What is to stop a hetrosexual couple ordering a baby and collecting it in 9 months?  While female-female and hetrosexual couples theoreticaly (sp) have the ability to have a baby themselves, are they banned from surrogacy?  Where surrogacy happens, how many couples involved are gay or straight?  How many are couples, how many single?

ETA: I am assuming in surrogacy there is provision for looking after the interests of any children of surrogacy, rather like in adoption.


----------



## elacsaplau

Dear Duke

The reason I have gone to the bother of challenging you is because you are, without much argument, one of the most capable contributors to this site - a genuine thought leader. I am genuinely really saddened by your contributions to this debate. I have just looked at RTE player - there was absolutely nothing new in what the Taoiseach said that was not well and truly in the public domain before now. Accordingly, whilst I find your moment of enlightenment yesterday very hard to fathom, I have made known my points in respect of your contributions - it's time for us to respectfully agree to differ. East is east and west is west.


----------



## terrysgirl33

Sol28 said:


> Terrysgirl33 - I totally understand the point of your message - but you need to change one word in this. I have fixed it for you below.



_If a PAEDOPHILE wants access to children for nefarious purposes the easiest way is to marry a woman and have children._

Ah, that is true.  I think what I was trying to say is that for a gay paedophile it's easier to go into a marriage with a woman and have children to get at children, rather than to marry a man and then go through surrogacy.  In both cases they end up with children, but the surrogacy route is longer, slower and more complicated.  In both cases I'm assuming they are mainly attracted to children.


----------



## Sol28

Duke of Marmalade said:


> This is the most dishonest campaign I have ever witnessed. I will, for the first time, follow the advices of Sinn Fein where I grew up _"vote early and often"_ and it will be *"No, No, No....."*



Oh and just to point out one more fact - Sinn Fein have been the strongest proponents of equality for all. What ever else you think about their politics - they have been one of the original parties with a mandate to ensure equality for LGBT citizens of this country.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

elacsaplau said:


> Dear Duke
> 
> The reason I have gone to the bother of challenging you is because you are, without much argument, one of the most capable contributors to this site - a genuine thought leader. I am genuinely really saddened by your contributions to this debate. I have just looked at RTE player - there was absolutely nothing new in what the Taoiseach said that was not well and truly in the public domain before now. Accordingly, whilst I find your moment of enlightenment yesterday very hard to fathom, I have made known my points in respect of your contributions - it's time for us to respectfully agree to differ. East is east and west is west.


_elac_ I listened to RTE player again.  The Teashop was deffo on the ropes on the surrogacy issue, rabitting on about the welfare of the child.  He asserted not once but twice that _"surrogacy has nothing to do with the question on Friday_".  This may indeed not be a new positioning but it is clearly at best disingenuous as references to surrogacy on the Refcom website testify.

I am instinctively a Yes voter and flowed along with the line that all this surrogacy stuff and posters of mothers kissing babies was wild and irrelevant exaggeration by the No side (I must stop reading Gene Kerrigan).  But the Dobson interview really got me rethinking and then when I referenced the Refcom website and read the comments of the chairman I had a genuine change of mind.  What a shame this silly ref was ever put forward.


----------



## Ceist Beag

Duke of Marmalade said:


> To me there is a difference between a woman carrying a baby (albeit not her partner's) for nine months and then giving birth compared to a man calling back in 9 months time and picking up his goods for delivery.


... but if the man in question was married to a woman then that's alright then? 
I think your real issue here is with surrogacy Duke, not with two men being allowed to marry each other.


----------



## elacsaplau

Duke of Marmalade said:


> This may indeed not be a new positioning



My dear D

Interesting acknowledgement. Thank you. My honest appraisal of your Damascian conversion is "conversion bias". I am definitely guilty of the same myself. No matter what poor Enda said, bless him, would have been seized upon by you. I'm ok with you voting no - you are fully entitled to your opinion. Most of your opinions are superb and your facility to express them almost unparalleled. In my opinion, you just have a blind spot here. It happens. In this debate, I find your contributions vulgar but nonetheless fully accept your right to express them. I hope you accept my right to challenge them? We disagree very strongly - that's all and that's healthy. Can we just leave it at this please? Or do you need to have the last word? East is still east, no?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

elacsaplau said:


> East is still east, no?


Here's an interesting trivia question.  What are the most southern, northern, western and eastern states of the USA?


Answer:

Southern:  Hawaii
Northern:  Alaska
Western:  Alaska
Eastern:  Alaska

East is defined in terms of degrees longtitude, zero running through London and running from 0 to 180 either side.  Alaska straddles the East/West dividing 180 degree longtitude.


----------



## michaelm

elacsaplau said:


> My dear D
> 
> Interesting acknowledgement. Thank you. My honest appraisal of your Damascian conversion is "conversion bias". I am definitely guilty of the same myself. No matter what poor Enda said, bless him, would have been seized upon by you. I'm ok with you voting no - you are fully entitled to your opinion. Most of your opinions are superb and your facility to express them almost unparalleled. In my opinion, you just have a blind spot here. It happens. In this debate, I find your contributions vulgar but nonetheless fully accept your right to express them. I hope you accept my right to challenge them? We disagree very strongly - that's all and that's healthy. Can we just leave it at this please? Or do you need to have the last word? East is still east, no?


It's unclear whether your post is intentionally smarmy or if you hoped it would prove ameliorative; perhaps both.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Ceist Beag said:


> ... but if the man in question was married to a woman then that's alright then?
> I think your real issue here is with surrogacy Duke, not with two men being allowed to marry each other.


Spot on.  I really shudder at the concept of *any* surrogacy and God help us it appears to be on its way to a shop near you here in Ireland.

But if surrogacy we must have there are clear differences between the situations according to my old fashioned compass.  From least worst I would cite:

1)  A conventional marriage/partnership unable to have children of their own.
2)  Two women in a partnership/marriage with one of them carrying the baby.
3)  Two men in a partnership/marriage.
4)  A conventional marriage/partnership able to have their own children but farming out the incubation to a surrogate mother.

The point is that, according to the chairman of the Refcom, if passed this ref will seriously impede the flexibility in regulating this surrogacy abomination.


----------



## Leo

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The point is that, according to the chairman of the Refcom, if passed this ref will seriously impede the flexibility in regulating this surrogacy abomination.



There's been very little said of what will be forthcoming in the surrogacy legislation being spoken of, the only thing we can be sure of is that it won't happen in this Dail term, too risky a subject for them to take on. It has though been strongly hinted there will be no free for all, or commercial surrogacy. Anyone have the current stats on surrogacy?

I have yet to see any compelling, independent evidence to suggest same-sex couples do a better or worse job of raising children. To quote an oft used expression in this referendum run-in, all things being equal, the outcomes for the children seem to be no better, no worse. To assume anything else without the evidence to back it up is prejudice. 

To deny same sex couples the right to marry based on the fear of a very edge case seems very unfair.


----------



## Ceist Beag

I think it is certainly a bit of a leap to suggest that free for all or commercial surrogacy is on its way to a shop near you Duke. I would completely share your concerns around surrogacy (in that I would be very much against it) but I see absolutely no reason to involve those in the decision making thoughts for tomorrows referendum.


----------



## dereko1969

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Spot on.  I really shudder at the concept of *any* surrogacy and God help us it appears to be on its way to a shop near you here in Ireland.
> 
> But if surrogacy we must have there are clear differences between the situations according to my old fashioned compass.  From least worst I would cite:
> 
> 1)  A conventional marriage/partnership unable to have children of their own.
> 2)  Two women in a partnership/marriage with one of them carrying the baby.
> 3)  Two men in a partnership/marriage.
> 4)  A conventional marriage/partnership able to have their own children but farming out the incubation to a surrogate mother.
> 
> The point is that, according to the chairman of the Refcom, if passed this ref will seriously impede the flexibility in regulating this surrogacy abomination.



So your point is basically, all surrogacy wrong, but some surrogacy worse than others? Why is two men worse than two women or a man a woman? Why is a same sex surrogacy situation worse than an opposite sex surrogacy? It really can come down to just one reason, disgust/abhorrence with homosexuality, you can dress it up and call it Shirley but that's what it is.

The FACTS are, and I know NO voters don't like these little impediments, there is currently no legislation on surrogacy (so it is de facto legal) in the country so currently all 4 of the options above are/can be used in this country. There are currently very very few of these situations going on and the vast majority are heterosexual couples, like a couple I know, who availed of the services of a foreign lady in another jurisdiction so that they would have a genetic link to their lovely child.


----------



## Purple

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Spot on.  I really shudder at the concept of *any* surrogacy and God help us it appears to be on its way to a shop near you here in Ireland.
> 
> But if surrogacy we must have there are clear differences between the situations according to my old fashioned compass.  From least worst I would cite:
> 
> 1)  A conventional marriage/partnership unable to have children of their own.
> 2)  Two women in a partnership/marriage with one of them carrying the baby.
> 3)  Two men in a partnership/marriage.
> 4)  A conventional marriage/partnership able to have their own children but farming out the incubation to a surrogate mother.
> 
> The point is that, according to the chairman of the Refcom, if passed this ref will seriously impede the flexibility in regulating this surrogacy abomination.


Option 5) a single man or woman using donated sperm or egg and a surrogate mother. This is also legal at the moment.


----------



## michaelm

dereko1969 said:


> Why is a same sex surrogacy situation worse than an opposite sex surrogacy? It really can come down to just one reason, disgust/abhorrence with homosexuality, you can dress it up and call it Shirley but that's what it is.


Or it's nothing to do with homosexuality and it's abhorrent that with same-sex surrogacy a child is denied either a mother or a father, by design. 

After a Yes male-male married couples will need a surrogate to exercise their new right as a family, and thus a fundamental unit of society, to have children; the government's hands will be tied on the issue, which will suit them just fine.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

dereko1969 said:


> So your point is basically, all surrogacy wrong, but some surrogacy worse than others? Why is two men worse than two women or a man a woman? Why is a same sex surrogacy situation worse than an opposite sex surrogacy? It really can come down to just one reason, disgust/abhorrence with homosexuality, you can dress it up and call it Shirley but that's what it is.


I think any situation where the mother is the surrogate is the ultimate in exploitation.  That one human being would deliberately carry a child for nine months, give birth to it and have it delivered to its "owner" for thirty pieces of silver can't be right.  If the mother is not the surrogate I am much less queasy.  So, yes, it is the idea that two males will possibly get surrogate rights as a result of this referendum that makes me vote No.  I note that in your book that makes me a "homophobe" which shows just how much the pendulum of prejudice has swung.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> Or it's nothing to do with homosexuality and it's abhorrent that with same-sex surrogacy a child is denied either a mother or a father, by design.
> 
> After a Yes male-male married couples will need a surrogate to exercise their new right as a family, and thus a fundamental unit of society, to have children; the government's hands will be tied on the issue, which will suit them just fine.


Where in our constitution does it say that anyone has the right to a family or the right to children?


----------



## michaelm

Purple said:


> Where in our constitution does it say that anyone has the right to a family or the right to children?


Our Constitution recognises married couples as families under Article 41 'The Family'.  The Supreme Court has previously stated that the fact that the Constitution so clearly protects the institution of marriage necessarily involves a constitutional protection of certain marital rights including the right to beget children.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> Our Constitution recognises married couples as families under Article 41 'The Family'.  The Supreme Court has previously stated that the fact that the Constitution so clearly protects the institution of marriage necessarily involves a constitutional protection of certain marital rights including the right to beget children.


The right to beget children is not the same as the right to have children so my question stands.


----------



## Leo

michaelm said:


> Or it's nothing to do with homosexuality and it's abhorrent that with same-sex surrogacy a child is denied either a mother or a father, by design.



Why is that so abhorrent? Any evidence to confirm the traditional mother / father arrangement results in better outcomes for the children involved? 



michaelm said:


> After a Yes male-male married couples will need a surrogate to exercise their new right as a family, and thus a fundamental unit of society, to have children; the government's hands will be tied on the issue, which will suit them just fine.



There is no automatic right in existence or suggested in future legislation for heterosexual couples, why are some people so intent on suggesting there will be for same-sex couples if this referendum is passed?


----------



## Latrade

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Spot on.  I really shudder at the concept of *any* surrogacy and God help us it appears to be on its way to a shop near you here in Ireland.
> 
> But if surrogacy we must have there are clear differences between the situations according to my old fashioned compass.  From least worst I would cite:
> 
> 1)  A conventional marriage/partnership unable to have children of their own.
> 2)  Two women in a partnership/marriage with one of them carrying the baby.
> 3)  Two men in a partnership/marriage.
> 4)  A conventional marriage/partnership able to have their own children but farming out the incubation to a surrogate mother.
> 
> The point is that, according to the chairman of the Refcom, if passed this ref will seriously impede the flexibility in regulating this surrogacy abomination.



Surrogacy is already here but unregulated, but there are enough cases each year to warrant regulation. 

The reason it's another red herring is because marriage and relationship is irrelevant. A single person can arrange for a surrogate child. The very early drafts of the regulation deal with how they will recognise parentage and strict rules on Surrogacy not being a commercial contract. 

As it is there is nothing stopping a gay male couple having a surrogate child. The only difference is recognition of parentage for both fathers. That is what will be addressed, the state will have no involvement of regulation of the Surrogacy.

Incidentally, where Surrogacy is permitted, like the states and elsewhere and there is recognition of gay marriage, the is still a preference within the male gay community for adoption and not Surrogacy. 

Of course the Surrogacy legislation will not allow the state to discriminate in that process because by what process a baby is born and to who is none of the states business so long as it is consensual. That is how it is now and how it will be. The state's intervention will be on it not becoming a commercial operation and to provide legitimacy to the people who will raise the child.

It will also give the child the rights to discover their biological mother when they are 18 if they don't already know.

Another example of a great fear that is not in the least impacted by the referendum.


----------



## michaelm

Purple said:


> The right to beget children is not the same as the right to have children so my question stands.


I'm no wordsmith but you can't get a cigarette paper between beget and have, not to mention produce, create, generate . . of course proponents of the Yes side aren't arguing same-sex couples shouldn't have a right to beget children anyway, rather they fully expect that the right to have children will vindicated and enshrined in law, albeit it would seem, after the next election.  Anything short of that would surely reek of discrimination.





Leo said:


> Any evidence to confirm the traditional mother / father arrangement results in better outcomes for the children involved?


This question is bogus.  There in no onus to provide any such evidence.  A child deserves to be raised by a mother and father where practical.





Latrade said:


> Of course the Surrogacy legislation will not allow the state to discriminate in that process because by what process a baby is born and to who is none of the states business so long as it is consensual.


The state should put children first and, at a minimum, restrict surrogacy and assisted reproduction to gender balanced couples who can offer the child a mother and father.  Although this is not their intention anyway, after a Yes this will not be possible at all.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> I'm no wordsmith but you can't get a cigarette paper between beget and have, not to mention produce, create, generate . . of course proponents of the Yes side aren't arguing same-sex couples shouldn't have a right to beget children anyway, rather they fully expect that the right to have children will vindicated and enshrined in law, albeit it would seem, after the next election. Anything short of that would surely reek of discrimination.


Beget means to bring a child into the world through the means of reproduction. In other words the constitution safeguards the right to consensual shagging, without a condom, by married couples, for the purposes of putting a bun in the oven. It doesn't mean that a married couple, be they heterosexual or homosexual have a right to a child or children through any other means. 



michaelm said:


> This question is bogus. There in no onus to provide any such evidence. A child deserves to be raised by a mother and father where practical.


 There is if you are seeking to use it as a grounds to justify discrimination.



michaelm said:


> The state should put children first and, at a minimum, restrict surrogacy and assisted reproduction to gender balanced couples who can offer the child a mother and father.


 You are entitled to that opinion, just as someone would be entitled to be of the opinion that people of different ethnic backgrounds shouldn't be allowed to marry or have access to surrogacy or assisted reproduction or be allowed to adopt children. Such children could face bias and bullying due to the fact that their parents are of mixed race but should societal bias be grounds for such discrimination?
The extrapolation of your point is that same sex couples are not, and cannot be, equal to different sex couples as parents. You need something more than an opinion to back that up.


----------



## michaelm

Purple said:


> You are entitled to that opinion, just as someone would be entitled to be of the opinion that people of different ethnic backgrounds shouldn't be allowed to marry


Wow.  That's how far we've come, equating the belief that a child should not, by design, be denied a mother and a father with racism.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> Wow.  That's how far we've come, equating the belief that a child should not, by design, be denied a mother and a father with racism.


Children are denied fathers every day by design. All it takes is the mother not putting the fathers name on the birth cert.
Suggesting that we should deny equal rights to one group of people in case it limits the rights of another is a dreadful and contemptible argument. If we want to ensure that children have an automatic right to know who their biological parents are then we can legislate for it or even put it in our constitution.
The No campaign latching onto this is base in the extreme. It cannot be beyond the wit or intellect of our esteemed law makers to come up with a framework that protects children but to legislate to deny same sex couples the right to adopt or have the same access to IVF or surrogacy as different sex couples is to treat them as second class.
If surrogacy is bad then it's bad for all. If it is good it is good for all.

People are either equal or they are not.


----------



## elacsaplau

Well said Purple. Ever get the feeling of......

.........wall like to talking the


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

_Purple_ it is clear that you are fully aware of the implications for future surrogacy regs and you will still be voting Yes.  That's fair enough (see I'm as broad minded as the next guy).  But if I only became aware of the implications after last night's interview and a read of the refcom website then I suggest that many, many more lack this awareness.  Certainly the No campaign have tried to highlight it but IMHO the Yes campaign has been overwhelmingly successful in demonising this message as homophobe, irrelevant, scaremongering etc.

IMHO if the populace were fully aware that the No message on surrogacy etc. is in fact substantially correct as verified by the refcom chairman (pity he didn't say so in the brochure), then the majority would, unlike yourself, reluctantly vote No.

The inevitable Yes vote will have been gained by a dishonest campaign, exemplified by the evasive duplicity of our Teashop in last night's interview.


----------



## Leo

michaelm said:


> There in no onus to provide any such evidence.  A child deserves to be raised by a mother and father where practical.



Accepting that premise without question or justification is bigotry, plain and simple. 

If there's no discernible benefit to the child, then what you are supporting will likely lead to children being placed in a less suitable situations just so out dated gender based discrimination can be continued.


----------



## Ger

Leo said:


> Why is that so abhorrent? Any evidence to confirm the traditional mother / father arrangement results in better outcomes for the children involved?



There is evidence that non biological fathers are much more likely (by over 20 times) to molest their children. e.g. "A 1992 survey studying father-daughter incest in Finland reported that of the 9,000 15-year old high school girls who filled out the questionnaires, of the girls living with their biological fathers, 0.2% reported father-daughter incest experiences; of the girls living with a stepfather, 3.7% reported sexual experiences with him."   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse

Doctor Phil claims that "When children are in a home where there is a non-biological male in the home (i.e. mom’s boyfriend or step-father), those children are 31 times more likely to be molested." (I actually heard this myself).     



[broken link removed]

Biology does matter (imo) and its best when children are with there biological parents (all things being equal)


----------



## Leper

Hey Guys! With respect, the Referendum is tomorrow.  If somebody has not his/her mind made up by now on which way to vote, it is a sad day for the people of Ireland.  The radio/tv media have observed a moratorium since 2.00pm today.  I think this Forum should do the same with immediate effect. Let the People decide in the Referenda!


----------



## michaelm

Purple said:


> You are entitled to that opinion, just as someone would be entitled to be of the opinion that people of different ethnic backgrounds shouldn't be allowed to marry





Leo said:


> Accepting that premise without question or justification is bigotry, plain and simple.


Really?  People who believe that ideally children should have a mother and father are bigots (as well as akin to racists).  The world has gone mad.


----------



## Latrade

michaelm said:


> Really?  People who believe that ideally children should have a mother and father are bigots (as well as akin to racists).  The world has gone mad.



No, but denying that other alternatives can have equal status and even in the numerous circumstances like adoption and fostering where no mother and father is denied is bigoted. Your ideal world construct of 'all being equal' doesn't exist no matter how many times you've posed it. To deny a child access to loving patents on this non-fantasy real world based on the sexuality of the parents is bigoted.

Describing same sex Surrogacy as abhorrent is bigoted.


----------



## elacsaplau

Leper said:


> Hey Guys! With respect, the Referendum is tomorrow.  If somebody has not his/her mind made up by now on which way to vote, it is a sad day for the people of Ireland.  The radio/tv media have observed a moratorium since 2.00pm today.  I think this Forum should do the same with immediate effect. Let the People decide in the Referenda!



You may have a point here, Leper. It's kinda clear people have stopped listening to each other and that the no brigade are upping the scaremongering ante in one final desperate and shamefully dishonest effort to resist a better future - when another pillar in the architecture of homophobia will be dismantled.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

It is now clear that the emotive posters of the No campaign were a mistake and an easy target for the Yes campaign.  I remember when I first saw the posters that my immediate reaction was "ahh, this is the same nutters who where anti-choice and who insisted that marriage should be a life sentence".  When I read Gene Kerrigan's article tearing this poster campaign apart I couldn't agree more.

But now, very late in the day, the refcom chairman tells us that the No message as portrayed in those posters was essentially correct.  Unbelievable


----------



## elacsaplau

Duke of Marmalade said:


> It is now clear that the emotive posters of the No campaign were a mistake and an easy target for the Yes campaign.  I remember when I first saw the posters that my immediate reaction was "ahh, this is the same idiots who where anti-choice and who insisted that 'marriage should be a life sentence'".  When I read Gene Kerrigan's article tearing this poster campaign apart I couldn't agree more.
> 
> But now, very late in the day, the refcom chairman tells us that the No message as portrayed in those posters was essentially correct.  Unbelievable



Gerry - for this is how I shall remember you in future - seems a better fit that the Duke. This is absolutely scandalous. 

Here is the exact wording of what you are referring to - there is nothing new in this. And it wasn't late in the day - these were points of detail which the Chairman answered last week in advance of one of the RTE debates. 

You have been really dishonest in all of this. Really really dishonest. Your bias is almost beyond belief!

I'm going to log off now - I'm tired of this absolute crap.

_2. If the Marriage Referendum is passed, will it be constitutionally permissible to favour opposite sex married couples over same sex married couples in any laws, regulations, or policy of a statutory agency, governing surrogacy and assisted human reproduction?_

There are no specific Constitutional provisions on surrogacy or assisted human reproduction and this referendum does not propose introducing any such provisions.

Surrogacy is not regulated in Ireland at present. Laws have been passed dealing with assisted human reproduction but are not yet in effect.

If legislation was passed which treated same sex married couples and opposite sex married couples differently, and if that legislation was challenged, the Courts would have to decide whether the Constitution permitted such different treatment. The following are relevant considerations:

• If the Marriage Referendum is passed, the Constitution will provide for a single institution of marriage available to couples of the same sex and couples of the opposite sex.
• As well as considering Article 41 as amended in this referendum, the Courts would also have to consider Article 40.1, which provides that all citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.
• As the referendum envisages only one constitutional status of marriage, any law which treated one type of married couple differently from another would be likely to be very carefully scrutinised by the Courts and the circumstances in which such different treatment could ever be permitted would likely be exceptional.
• Were such different treatment possible, and such laws introduced, they would be upheld only if they did not create invidious or arbitrary discrimination between opposite sex and same sex couples. This means – in practical terms – that the reason for the different treatment would have to be a very good reason, which served a legitimate legislative purpose. The difference in treatment would also have to be relevant to its purpose and both opposite sex and same sex couples would have to be treated fairly. Whether these requirements are satisfied in any given circumstance would depend on the evidence presented.


----------



## Purple

_
"Also, because surrogate fathers are typically in undefined parenting roles, they may be less able to enforce rules or convince children to obey them, and some surrogate fathers may resort to physical force or psychological control to demonstrate power over children"_
So if the non-biological father does have a defined parenting role, say being the child's father, then that problem should be reduced, right?
If this is such a big issue then why are the people in the yes campaign not out trying to stop men who are not the biological parents of children living with them? Should separated, divorced or widowed mothers not be allowed to form relationships with men? What about women who are not the biological parents of children living with separated, divorced or widowed men? After all, we've all hear Hansel and Gretel, not to mention Sleeping Beauty. Dem birds in those books are bleedin' nuts!

No, people should be allowed to marry just the once. They should be forced to stay together, even if they are beating lumps out of each other or one is mad or a raving alcoholic, as that's what's best for the children. If one died or just buggers off the other should not be allowed to re-marry (obviously nobody who is not married should be allowed to have children) just in case their new husband or wife abuses or beats or kills the kids (or, obviously again, leads them into the forest to die or treats them as a maid to their new step sisters).


----------



## Latrade

Ger said:


> There is evidence that non biological fathers are much more likely (by over 20 times) to molest their children. e.g. "A 1992 survey studying father-daughter incest in Finland reported that of the 9,000 15-year old high school girls who filled out the questionnaires, of the girls living with their biological fathers, 0.2% reported father-daughter incest experiences; of the girls living with a stepfather, 3.7% reported sexual experiences with him."   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse
> 
> Doctor Phil claims that "When children are in a home where there is a non-biological male in the home (i.e. mom’s boyfriend or step-father), those children are 31 times more likely to be molested." (I actually heard this myself).
> 
> 
> 
> [broken link removed]
> 
> Biology does matter (imo) and its best when children are with there biological parents (all things being equal)



You've put forward a great argument (if Dr Phil is to be a good source) as to why we should make it harder for men in heterosexual relationships to be non-biological parents. Considering that is what the statistics show. 

Unfortunately that has nothing to do with the referendum.


----------



## Sol28

Duke of Marmalade said:


> but IMHO the Yes campaign has been overwhelmingly successful in demonising this message as homophobe, irrelevant, scaremongering etc.



If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.....



Duke of Marmalade said:


> The inevitable Yes vote will have been gained by a dishonest campaign



You dont think the No side have been totally dishonest as they clutter the airwaves with nonsense and scaremongering!

To all the Yes voters on this thread - I thank you for supporting my equality. There has been such a positive vibe around this country in the last while, that I feel sorry for the No supporters. And hopefully they will realise that the world will continue on as normal for the majority of the population. But a small minority will finally be allowed to be equal in law.


----------



## Vanilla

Well I voted yes bright and early this morning, I really hope the yes vote is carried.


----------



## Purple

Sol28 said:


> To all the Yes voters on this thread - I thank you for supporting my equality. There has been such a positive vibe around this country in the last while, that I feel sorry for the No supporters. And hopefully they will realise that the world will continue on as normal for the majority of the population. But a small minority will finally be allowed to be equal in law.


 Yep, It's not the end of the world.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

PaddyPower going 25 to 1 *ON* a Yes result.


----------



## Purple

I voted an hour ago. Yes and yes.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

My two sons intended to vote Yes and me and the duchess No so in order to help save the planet we agreed not to drive to the polling station and we tore up our polling cards.


----------



## Betsy Og

Surprised no-one has posted already. Delighted with the result, a great day for Ireland, well done to all. Lots of gushing stuff on the radio historic/beacon yadda yadda, sure nice to listen to but I wouldnt be getting too carried away either. Have to admit I found myself a little emotional listening to people saying what it meant to them - and this is someone with no direct or indirect personal stake in the outcome.

Now that this issue has been resolved, if there really is such a gap in law about surrogacy and all the other bogeyman issues, then hopefully this government or the next will deal with it - hope it doesnt require a referendum tbh, can you imagine the level of guff we'd have to wade through.

I think its a pity the Irish song didnt get through to Eurovision (not that give a hang about the competition), but it would have been interesting to see if Ireland would have gotten a 'bounce' for the day thats in it - since many commentators think it is now a camp festival/TV event. I see my original post was more or less right, at least its all over now....phew!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Betsy Og said:


> Surprised no-one has posted already. Delighted with the result, a great day for Ireland, well done to all. Lots of gushing stuff on the radio historic/beacon yadda yadda, sure nice to listen to but I wouldnt be getting too carried away either. Have to admit I found myself a little emotional listening to people saying what it meant to them - and this is someone with no direct or indirect personal stake in the outcome.
> 
> Now that this issue has been resolved, if there really is such a gap in law about surrogacy and all the other bogeyman issues, then hopefully this government or the next will deal with it - hope it doesnt require a referendum tbh, can you imagine the level of guff we'd have to wade through.
> 
> I think its a pity the Irish song didnt get through to Eurovision (not that give a hang about the competition), but it would have been interesting to see if Ireland would have gotten a 'bounce' for the day thats in it - since many commentators think it is now a camp festival/TV event. I see my original post was more or less right, at least its all over now....phew!


When it came to the bit I am glad it was passed.  A No would have been an awful kick in the teeth to a minority.  Another good corollary is that the RC church has been demonstrated to have absolutely no moral authority in Irish society any more.  I hear on the radio the No side being bad losers, claiming the outcome is a result of a decade of scheming, financed by dark forces.

Nonetheless, I would like to see similar constitutional protection against commercial surrogacy.


----------



## Purple

I'm proud to be Irish today. 
To Sol, who had the courage to come on this forum and speak about something very personal to him; well done and hopefully the day will come when nobody is identified by their sexuality because it should be irrelevant.


----------



## Leper

I would like to throw my lot in with Purple and congratulate Sol on his posts on the subject of marriage for homosexuals.  He was not pressganged onto the forum.  He had nothing to gain and must have felt pressure occasionally from some of the posts.  [But, if you contribute to a forum such as this, you must expect that everybody will not agree with you].

We live in a democracy where people live and let live.  Dreadful wrongs have been done to our Gay Community in the past.  Perhaps they can live in more peace now?


----------



## Vanilla

Relieved the yes vote for same sex marriage has passed, hope we can now move on from many years of injustice and prejudice against our gay citizens.


----------



## Gerry Canning

Thanks be to God (now you athiests keep quiet and don,t argue about a God) the Referendum is over.
............................................................................................
I know there have been some heavy recriminations,posturing and implausible positioning during the campaign ,  but on balance it was great to see things as reasonable as they were.
It was great to see a decisive result and even better to see a high turnout. The People have genuinely decided.

On a flippant note (forgive me ) the closet Yeses came out!


----------



## Firefly

A big congrats to all the gay and lesbian people this will have such a positive effect on. Especially congrats to Sol28. A great day for our little country it must be said!

Firefly.


----------



## Sol28

Thanks to Everyone for their congratulations. But it is not me that should be congratulated. I was naturally going to stand for my equality. What made this possible was every one of you who went out and voted Yes, especially to those of you who started conversations with people, who took an old taboo subject and made it a matter of fact discourse. 

If you did not witness any of the celebrations that were occurring across the country then you missed out on a euphoria that many will never see again. (I've heard many people - straight and gay describe it as very similar to Italia 90). 

The past couple of months have been very difficult for a lot of us. Our lives were being picked apart, we were challenged on irrelevant facts. I have never outed myself to so many people - including my own father - 2 weeks ago. There have been times when I wanted to shout a few obscenities on this thread - but that would do no one any favours - so I counted to 10....

However - the past few months have also been incredibly positive too - as we were supported from all corners of the country. To see such a turnout, to read the #HomeToVote stream. To get such a strong Yes has been amazing.

Ireland has gone from a forced decriminalisation in 1993 through a muted tolerance, via acceptance to full on support for a minority. This referendum was never just about marriage - it was about being seen and supported by the population of Ireland as normal, standard, regular citizens.

This Picture (on https://www.facebook.com/PositivelyIrish) is of the parents of a friend of mine. Snapped on the streets of Dublin without their awareness. I think it sums up the whole process for me. An elderly straight couple hand in hand, showing open support for the LGBT population.



(Sorry for the delay in responding - but I was out celebrating all weekend - I have no voice left today!)


----------



## Leper

Right Guys! The celebrations are nearly complete.  But, some of the hangovers continue. The churches have got their bashing (Remember it was not just the Catholic church that could not come to terms with homosexuality).  Since Saturday circa 2.00pm we (the Irish people) are now all equal.  No doubt, the low earning poverty stricken homosexuals in negative equity feel as equal as the rich homosexuals languishing in silk.  The poor among the hetrosexual community likewise feel equal, I'm sure! 

Many retired homosexuals who suffered loss of promotion prospects in their jobs because of their homosexuality probably feel equal too.  Homophobia was always active in any place I worked, for example.  And, of course, homophobic activity ceased last Saturday also . . . or did it?

Religious institutions have had to come to grips of terrible wrongdoings (understatement) and pay compensation etc for what happened in the recent and distant past. During the Referendum Campaign I listened to tens of stories of homophobic activity suffered in jobs over the years.  Would I be right in thinking that many of the aggrieved will rightly be seeking compensation for the dreadful ways in which they were treated?


----------



## Sol28

Leper said:


> During the Referendum Campaign I listened to tens of stories of homophobic activity suffered in jobs over the years.  Would I be right in thinking that many of the aggrieved will rightly be seeking compensation for the dreadful ways in which they were treated?



Personally I dont see a flurry of lawsuits now that the referendum has passed. Mainly because laws have been in place to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation (and 6 other facets) for years. To be bullied, abused in a formal environment (eg work) has been illegal for years - and labour relations have already taken place.

I think, for us, the only effect is that same sex couples can marry. Thats it.

For other countries the effect is a galvanization of the fight for equality, the States, Germany, Australia and Italy have all been discussing rights due to our vote. Northern Ireland is the only section of Western Europe where SSM is not in place.


----------



## Betsy Og

There was an awful lot of "taking the power back" comment on Saturday- I thought this was a bit 'off' from the point of view that a) Catholic Church influence is long since much diminished and it is more of a landmark for the gay community (and Ireland's image in general) than our relationship with the church &  b) the victory is won, is there really a need to despatch the POW's??, a bit of graciousness wouldnt go astray - especially when you have the Archbishop (I think) talking about the church needing a reality check - they certainly took that message if it was the message people were giving (I'm not convinced), dont think we need to "sew it into them". [& I know I was critical of the church 3 or 4 posts ago].  Also I think there's a rude awakening for those who think this is the road paved for abortion referendum - I think the "cothrom na feinne" (fair play) that motivated most people to vote Yes will motivate most people to vote No to abortion. I know I was a Yes, but couldnt see myself as other than a No on the abortion debate. Obviously no link between the issues, other than some people losing the run of themselves.


----------



## Purple

Totally agree Betsy Og


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

The Vatican reaction seems a bit OTT.  Ireland represents less than 1 per 1,000 of humanity


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Betsy Og said:


> There was an awful lot of "taking the power back" comment on Saturday- I thought this was a bit 'off' from the point of view that a) Catholic Church influence is long since much diminished and it is more of a landmark for the gay community (and Ireland's image in general) than our relationship with the church &  b) the victory is won, is there really a need to despatch the POW's??, a bit of graciousness wouldnt go astray - especially when you have the Archbishop (I think) talking about the church needing a reality check - they certainly took that message if it was the message people were giving (I'm not convinced), dont think we need to "sew it into them". [& I know I was critical of the church 3 or 4 posts ago].  Also I think there's a rude awakening for those who think this is the road paved for abortion referendum - I think the "cothrom na feinne" (fair play) that motivated most people to vote Yes will motivate most people to vote No to abortion. I know I was a Yes, but couldnt see myself as other than a No on the abortion debate. Obviously no link between the issues, other than some people losing the run of themselves.


I also agree.  The essential difference is as follows.  Saturday's vote is a game changer for LGBT folk but not really a game changer for society as a whole.  Yes it may encourage more gays to "come out".  But it is not going cause a rush of "straights" to become gays.  Possibly at some future date we will read stats like 4% of marriages were same sex.  So what?  Abortion is different.  Free access to abortion could lead to stats like "over 50% of conceptions are aborted" and surely that would be bad.

BTW I notice that even gays refer to their opposite numbers as "straights".  Seems strange coz the opposite of straight (e.g. "bent") is presumably verboten when referring to gays.


----------



## Sol28

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The Vatican reaction seems a bit OTT.  Ireland represents less than 1 per 1,000 of humanity


The Vatican has always loved a bit of drama - one of the campest institutions out there. And as for the prior popes Ruby Slippers... Sorry Red Slippers


----------



## Purple

Sol28 said:


> The Vatican has always loved a bit of drama - one of the campest institutions out there. And as for the prior popes Ruby Slippers... Sorry Red Slippers


The whole red shoes and satin dresses thing always seemed to be a bit camp to me but I'm not religious so they (religions) are all just different brands of crazy to me.


----------



## michaelm

Betsy Og said:


> There was an awful lot of "taking the power back" comment on Saturday- I thought this was a bit 'off' from the point of view that a) Catholic Church influence is long since much diminished and it is more of a landmark for the gay community (and Ireland's image in general) than our relationship with the church & b) the victory is won, is there really a need to despatch the POW's??, a bit of graciousness wouldnt go astray


The Catholic Church has little influence in general and did little to oppose the referendum save for releasing a few statements.  This was a David and Goliath referendum where the Goliath Yes campaign won the day.  Given that there were two No votes for every three Yes votes and that the total number of No votes @ 734,300 was not inconsiderable, one might have though that graciousness might have been warranted.  Time will tell whether the concerns of No voters were misplaced.


----------



## Purple

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The Vatican reaction seems a bit OTT.  Ireland represents less than 1 per 1,000 of humanity



Yes, but 


Purple said:


> I'm not religious so they (religions) are all just different brands of crazy to me.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

I keep hearing references to the "old" vote, as if this is expected to be deeply traditional. What does "old" mean? I spent my teens in catholic Belfast in the 60s, (remember flower power, the permissive society and all that).  I guess that makes me an old vote.  But believe me, I and my peers were adamantly rejecting the catholic ethos, a fact that can be seen today in the likes of Gerry Adams.  So the dreadful revelations against catholic clergy were for me and my generation not a matter of shock and 'orror, more a case of "I told you so".   I suppose folk in their 80s were indeed committed to the traditional view.


----------



## Marion

I don't know. Who can determine an old or a young vote? 

If there was a strong representative young vote, why did the presidential age vote fail?

Just wondering.

Marion


----------



## Leper

Marion said:


> I don't know. Who can determine an old or a young vote?
> 
> If there was a strong representative young vote, why did the presidential age vote fail?
> 
> Just wondering.
> 
> Marion



I voted Yes and Yes.  Having spoken with many others of various ages I reckon that if the age of those being chosen as president was lowered to 30, it would have been carried.  I think many people had reservations of a 21 year old "child" president.

I know it would have been nearly impossible to have a 21 year old elected president but it was that word "nearly" made the difference. Earlier on this thread somebody mooted that the people wanted to say "No" to something as some kind of protest and the age for the presidency was that chance.


----------



## Leper

Just a thought.  Through Eurovision (especially the semi finals) the Gay Flags were prolific especially when the Russian entry was being sung.  Strangely, in the final during the Russian performance there was not a Gay Flag to be seen.  So perhaps the semi finals have become Gay events?

But, in the spirit of Equality, I think it is time for the introduction of a Hetrosexual Flag . . . Any ideas on design?  Let me suggest a cured Leper giving thanks and a green background.


----------



## Firefly

Interesting letter in today's Indo!

*Think of the children*

As we read the shocking Hiqa report on its grave concerns about the welfare of the 1,600 children living in direct provision in this state, one wonders where is the outrage from the Iona Institute and all those who spent the marriage referendum campaign telling us how much they care about children.

The children living in direct provision are nine times more likely to be the subject of a referral relating to child welfare or safety issues than children in the wider community. This is so wrong and cannot be allowed to continue.

_Zoe Lawlor_

_South Circular Road, Limerick_

Irish Independent


----------



## Sunny

Direct provision and the treatment of children in it and in care in general is a blight on all of us. How many of us have ever raised the issue when politicians call to the door. Out of sight, out of mind. There will be tribunals galore in 20 years and our kids and grandkids will think we were all gutless selfish cowards for allowing this to happen. They will be right.


----------



## Sol28

Firefly said:


> The children living in direct provision are nine times more likely to be the subject of a referral relating to child welfare or safety issues than children in the wider community. This is so wrong and cannot be allowed to continue.



Absolutely agree that this is a scandal - I would say that this topic should be spawned out into a new thread of its own. More people might engage with it that way.


----------



## cork

Firefly said:


> one wonders where is the outrage from the Iona Institute and all those who spent the marriage referendum campaign telling us how much they care about children.
> 
> 
> 
> Irish Independent


 
Maybe if the millions of dollars that came came from the States were spent on services.


----------



## Purple

cork said:


> Maybe if the millions of dollars that came came from the States were spent on services.


That's not a full sentence.


----------



## Sol28

And now the States look set to formally recognise SSM. Ireland beat them to it! 

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/us-court-ends-samesex-marriage-ban-31332590.html


----------



## Sol28

I just returned to this site after a bit of an absence - and looked back at some of my past posts and this thread popped up, It would be interesting to see if some of the active commentators on this thread have changed their mindset or seen any societal differences 4 years post referendum?


----------



## Purple

Welcome back Sol28.

I haven’t changed my views other than I think we are all a big self congratulatory when it comes to how “right-on” we are. There is still considerable homophobia and transphobia in Ireland (some of the transphobia coming from Lesbians). While it’s great to have a generally very progressive society, for those who are “different” in the margins I’m not sure enough has changed.


As for the societal change, I think that happened before and during the referendum.


It is also a positive that the marriage equality referendum gave unmarried fathers, for the first time in Irish law, automatic rights to their own children.


----------



## Leper

Hi Sol. Welcome back to the site. Like Purple said things haven't changed much especially in the older generation. However the oldies do not matter as they are an expiring entity. I'm an oldie too, but never had anti gay feelings. 

Our "oldies" were brought up when homosexual was the worst possible way to be. Our church (from the pulpit) informed us it was an illness. The state advised it was a crime. Suddenly, homosexuality was deemed not to be a crime and the whole population was expected to accept homosexuality in an instant like turning on a switch. Things don't work like that and everything takes time. I'm not trying to justify anything here.

Unfortunately, homosexuality is not accepted by some. These are usually the ignorant and those who don't want to accept other than what they call the norm. I know hardened university graduates who will not accept homosexuality. There is no point in chasing rainbows (no pun intended); no matter what is done these anti gays are not going to change. However, they will expire and you won't have too long to wait.

About three years ago I listened to a gay politician from Cork asking homosexual people to accept "trans" people openly. He pointed out (like Purple above) that some gay people were shunning "trans" people. I'm probably not using the right words, forgive please.

Again, welcome back to the site. I hope you get involved in the day-to-day debates/discussions/banter here. I'm sure you have a lot to contribute.


----------



## michaelm

I'm another who's views haven't changed.  As for societal differences it seems to me that identity politics and equality of outcome are increasingly in vogue.  

Go easy on the sherry in the mornings Leper.


----------



## Purple

michaelm said:


> I'm another who's views haven't changed.  As for societal differences it seems to me that identity politics and equality of outcome are increasingly in vogue.
> 
> Go easy on the sherry in the mornings Leper.


What have identity politics and equality of outcome got to do with the two issues here; marriage equality and, for the first time in the history of the State, unmarried men having automatic rights to their own children?


----------



## Betsy Og

I think "Equality of Outcome" is an interesting point. The State should give fair opportunity ("equal" doesn't exist, some can always pay for more, we cant commit to equalling the top available) -outcome depends on the individual and their choices. The State can't Nanny everyone. If you want to live in Dublin in social housing you have to know its a long wait. Housing could probably be found further afield in the 26 a lot quicker, so make your choice. Good education should be made available to all (& generally is), but you can only lead a horse to water. If someone doesn't engage I don't see why everyone else has to be cough up so they don't feel bad about it - & this is not about academics, I know rakes of lads who wouldn't have considered themselves "good at school" but would buy & sell me in terms of what they have done (in trades etc.) and fair play to them.

On the main topic, my views haven't change. I'm surprised gay people wouldn't accept trans people. It's all so complicated now that I'm in the "I don't give a hang what you like, were, will be, do, don't do. What business of mine is it?, hope you are happy & the best of luck."


----------



## Sol28

Betsy Og said:


> I'm surprised gay people wouldn't accept trans people. It's all so complicated now that I'm in the "I don't give a hang what you like, were, will be, do, don't do. What business of mine is it?, hope you are happy & the best of luck."



Some gay people dont like trans folk - but 99% of the gay people I know are fully accepting. Once again - its the few extreme people who get their views aired. Just like, back in the debates about marriage equality, there were a couple of gay guys who did not want equal marriage, and whom were paraded on the debate shows by the No side. The LGBT community is as diverse in their likes/dislikes/tolerances/intolerances as the main stream populace.

But I like your stance, Betsy Og. If no one is getting hurt or being taken advantage of, if people have the capacity to make their own decision and it does not harm you or me - they let them at it! My rights' should not impinge on my neighbours' rights and theirs should not impinge on mine - after that - away with you!


----------



## Purple

Sol28 said:


> But I like your stance, Betsy Og. If no one is getting hurt or being taken advantage of, if people have the capacity to make their own decision and it does not harm you or me - they let them at it! My rights' should not impinge on my neighbours' rights and theirs should not impinge on mine - after that - away with you!


Yep, that's what I try to teach my children. There's no "them and us", there's just "us".


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Sol28 said:


> Some gay people dont like trans folk - but 99% of the gay people I know are fully accepting.


The mathematical pedant in me says that you therefore know at least 100 gay people
Defining “know” as someone who I know and who knows me (cuts out Leo etc.) I think I count 3 people in that category.  If I further qualify it by being required to know their attitude to trans folk I’m afraid it becomes a void constituency.


----------



## Purple

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The mathematical pedant in me says that you therefore know at least 100 gay people
> Defining “know” as someone who I know and who knows me (cuts out Leo etc.) I think I count 3 people in that category.  If I further qualify it by being required to know their attitude to trans folk I’m afraid it becomes a void constituency.


That mathematical pedant is a real difficult person and may be the reason you only know 3 people


----------



## Leo

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The mathematical pedant in me says that you therefore know at least 100 gay people



The pedant in me says it's actually 67 people allowing for rounding!!


----------



## Sol28

Duke of Marmalade said:


> The mathematical pedant in me says that you therefore know at least 100 gay people
> Defining “know” as someone who I know and who knows me (cuts out Leo etc.) I think I count 3 people in that category.  If I further qualify it by being required to know their attitude to trans folk I’m afraid it becomes a void constituency.



Well, I helped set up numerous sports groups etc. for LGBT people and their friends - so I can confidently state that I would know well over 100 gay people!


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Leo said:


> The pedant in me says it's actually 67 people allowing for rounding!!


In fact we can pin down Sol's knowledge of gay people who have revealed their thoughts to him on trans to Nx(67:199) I'm intrigued to know what N is.

I'm only slagging Sol, sorry


----------



## Purple

Duke of Marmalade said:


> In fact we can pin down Sol's knowledge of gay people who have revealed their thoughts to him on trans to Nx(67:199) I'm intrigued to know what N is.
> 
> I'm only slagging Sol, sorry



When people tell me they've never met a Trans person I always ask them now they know they didn't.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

Purple said:


> When people tell me they've never met a Trans person I always ask them now they know they didn't.


What I can say is that none of my acquaintances of any ilk have expressed an opinion on trans folk so I am not in any position to offer statistical analysis on that front.  Made me wonder though what are my acquaintances’ views on other topical subjects.  The following statistical analysis does not necessarily reflect my own views though we do tend to inhabit echo chambers
100% against The Donald
100% against Brexit
100% for the Backstop
100% against Irexit
100% think bitcoin is a nonsense
80% against SF (with my Northern background I have no statistically significant figures for other Southern political parties)
80% against abortion on demand up to 12 weeks (big generational split here)
50% in favor of marriage equality (though this is not a very strongly held position either way)
50% support ManU 10% ABU (quite strong views here, I myself am ABU)
50% have the Folsom blues against everything capitalist, corporate or American


----------



## RedOnion

@Duke of Marmalade 
And their views on the value of Bitcoin?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade

RedOnion said:


> @Duke of Marmalade
> And their views on the value of Bitcoin?


Thanks, survey updated


----------

