But isn't that the very definition of the word bigot? Are we re-defining that word with this referendum now?
Marriage equality referendum - "rights" to kids etc.
- Thread starter Betsy Og
- Start date
But isn't that the very definition of the word bigot? Are we re-defining that word with this referendum now?
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.
Gerry Canning
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,504
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,504
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.
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,445
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,504
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.