Marriage equality referendum - "rights" to kids etc.

[terrysgirl33]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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).

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.

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]

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]

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:

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

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]

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.

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.

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.