But isn't that the very definition of the word bigot? Are we re-defining that word with this referendum now?
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 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.
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.
We can get into word play etc.But isn't that the very definition of the word bigot? Are we re-defining that word with this referendum now?
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.
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?
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.Of course forgive anyone who votes No.
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.
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.
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.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.
One real issue in this debate is around Civil Partnership versus Marriage.
In many ways, from a cold practical perspective, they are the same
Such voters have no need for forgiveness from anyone.
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.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.
Thanks for the counselMichael 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.
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.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?
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.
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.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.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?