Marriage equality referendum - "rights" to kids etc.

[Firefly]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.