Marriage equality referendum - "rights" to kids etc.

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 ?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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)
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 .
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

If the meaning of words never changed, the field of etymology would be a dull place.
 
Leo said:
If the meaning of words never changed, the field of etymology would be a dull place.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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)
 
Leper said:
Hold on there, Sol. This is not true and there is no need to be criticising the non gay people unfairly.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.)
 
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!.
 
The constitution is there to protect citizens from the tyranny of the majority.
 
Purple said:
The constitution is there to protect citizens from the tyranny of the majority.
Click to expand...
But the majority can change it. I'd have thought that the constitution is there to protect citizens from the government of the day.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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"
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register