The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[Eamonnca1]

this is a referendum in the Republic of Ireland not the usa so don't worry about it unless u have a vote here or want to come back and marry a man here.

Since I'm an Irish citizen with an Irish passport I don't feel the need to ask your permission to express an opinion on the subject. But if you insist that only the people directly affected by it (i.e. gays in Ireland who want to get married) should be getting involved in the discussion, I have to ask why you're getting involved in it. Got a big day planned soon? Do your female relatives have to buy hats?

[foxcommander]

Don't seem to remember anyone saying it's "open season," but to answer your bizarre question which you answer in your next sentence, no. Polygamy is not on the ballot. We're not talking about polygamy. Nor are we talking about bestiality, BDSM, the recipe for Coca Cola, or any other red herrings that you'd like to throw in at random.

Since this seems to be a referendum on lifestyle choices I think it's just as valid to ask people if they want to include certain things or not.
Awful waste of money to run a referendum on just 2 questions. It's an opportunity for the public to get a say without the added extra of political parties getting in the way.

[annapr]

this is a referendum in the Republic of Ireland not the usa so don't worry about it unless u have a vote here or want to come back and marry a man here.

Since I'm an Irish citizen with an Irish passport I don't feel the need to ask your permission to express an opinion on the subject. But if you insist that only the people directly affected by it (i.e. gays in Ireland who want to get married) should be getting involved in the discussion, I have to ask why you're getting involved in it. Got a big day planned soon? Do your female relatives have to buy hats?

Maybe he is actually Gay have you thought about that?
All your I would vote Yes and equal rights for Gays and your first reaction is to use being gay against him and make fun of him?

Not saying he is Gay just I'm surprised that someone who is so vocal about a Yes vote would use a a person being Gay as a means of poking fun at that someone.

[easytiger95]

The children are up early this morning...

[Rudi]

This is a humdinger as well as deeply moving
http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/ursula-halligan-referendum-led-me-to-tell-truth-about-myself-1.2212960

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter" – Martin Luther King.

I was a good Catholic girl, growing up in 1970s Ireland where homosexuality was an evil perversion. It was never openly talked about but I knew it was the worst thing on the face of the earth.

So when I fell in love with a girl in my class in school, I was terrified. Rummaging around in the attic a few weeks ago, an old diary brought me right back to December 20th, 1977.







Campaigners on both sides of the Same-sex Marriage Referendum (above). Referendum Commission chairman Mr Justice Kevin Cross has said any law that treated one type of married couple differently would be carefully scrutinised by the courts and would likely only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Photographs: Brenda Fitzsimons/The Irish TimesState may still favour opposite-sex parents if vote passes - judge


   
"These past few months must have been the darkest and gloomiest I have ever experienced in my entire life," my 17-year-old self wrote.

"There have been times when I have even thought about death, of escaping from this world, of sleeping untouched by no-one forever. I have been so depressed, so sad and so confused. There seems to be no one I can turn to, not even God. I've poured out my emotions, my innermost thoughts to him and get no relief or so-called spiritual grace. At times I feel I am talking to nothing, that no God exists. I've never felt like this before, so empty, so meaningless, so utterly, utterly miserable."

Because of my upbringing, I was revolted at the thought that I was in love with a member of my own sex. This contradiction within me nearly drove me crazy. These two strands of thought jostled within me pulling me in opposite directions.


Plagued with fear

I loved a girl and I knew that what wasn't right; my mind was constantly plagued with the fear that I was a lesbian. I hated myself. I felt useless and worthless and very small and stupid. I had one option, and only one option. I would be "normal", and that meant locking myself in the closet and throwing away the key.

I played the dating game. I feigned interest in men. I invented boyfriends. I listened silently to snide remarks about homosexuals. Tried to smile at mimicry of stereotypical gay behaviour.

In the 1970s, homophobia was rampant and uninhibited. Political correctness had yet to arrive. Homosexuals were faggots, queers, poofs, freaks, deviants, unclean, unnatural, mentally ill, second class and defective humans. They were society's defects. Biological errors. They were other people. I couldn't possibly be one of them.

Over the years I watched each of my siblings date, party, get engaged, get married and take for granted all the joys and privileges of their State-acknowledged relationship.

My coping strategy was to pour myself into my studies and later into my work. I didn't socialise much because I had this horrible secret that must never come out. It was a strategy that worked until I'd fall in love again with a woman and the whole emotional rollercoaster of bliss, pain, withdrawal and denial resumed. It was a pattern that would repeat itself over the years.

And never once did I openly express my feelings. I suppressed everything and buried myself in books or work. I was careful how I talked and behaved. Nothing was allowed slip. I never knew what it was like to live spontaneously, to go with the flow, to trust my instincts . . . I certainly couldn't trust my instincts.



Repressing my humanity

For years I told no one because I couldn't even tell myself. It was a place I didn't want to go. It was too scary; too shameful. I couldn't cope with it. I buried it.

Emotionally, I have been in a prison since the age of 17; a prison where I lived a half-life, repressing an essential part of my humanity, the expression of my deepest self; my instinct to love.

It's a part that heterosexual people take for granted, like breathing air. The world is custom-tailored for them. At every turn society assumes and confirms heterosexuality as the norm. This culminates in marriage when the happy couple is showered with an outpouring of overwhelming social approval.

For me, there was no first kiss; no engagement party; no wedding. And up until a short time ago no hope of any of these things. Now, at the age of 54, in a (hopefully) different Ireland, I wish I had broken out of my prison cell a long time ago. I feel a sense of loss and sadness for precious time spent wasted in fear and isolation.

Homophobia was so deeply embedded in my soul, I resisted facing the truth about myself, preferring to live in the safety of my prison. In the privacy of my head, I had become a roaring, self-loathing homophobe, resigned to going to my grave with my shameful secret. And I might well have done that if the referendum hadn't come along.

Now, I can't quite believe the pace of change that's sweeping across the globe in support of gay marriage. I never thought I'd see the day that a Government Minister would come out as gay and encounter almost nothing but praise for his bravery. But that day did come, and the work done down the decades by people like David Norris, Katharine Zappone, Ann-Louise Gilligan and Colm O'Gorman made me realise that possibilities existed that I'd never believed would ever exist.

I told a friend and the world didn't end. I told my mother, and the world didn't end.

Then I realised that I could leave the prison completely or stay in the social equivalent of an open prison. The second option would mean telling a handful of people but essentially go on as before, silently colluding with the prejudices that still find expression in casual social moments.

It's the easier of the two options, particularly for those close to me. Because those who love you can cope with you coming out, but they're wary of you "making an issue" of it.



Game-changer
The game-changer was the marriage equality referendum. It pointed me toward the first option: telling the truth to anyone who cares. And I knew if I was going to tell the truth, I had to tell the whole truth and reveal my backing for a Yes vote. For me, the two are intrinsically linked.

That means TV3 taking me off referendum coverage. The rules say they must, and when I told them my situation, they reorganised their coverage in half a day.

Twenty years ago or 30 years ago, it would have taken more courage than I had to tell the truth. Today, it's still difficult but it can be done with hope – hope that most people in modern Ireland embrace diversity and would understand that I'm trying to be helpful to other gay people leading small, frightened, incomplete lives. If my story helps even one 17-year-old school girl, struggling with her sexuality, it will have been worth it.

As a person of faith and a Catholic, I believe a Yes vote is the most Christian thing to do. I believe the glory of God is the human being fully alive and that this includes people who are gay.

If Ireland votes Yes, it will be about much more than marriage. It will end institutional homophobia. It will say to gay people that they belong, that it's safe to surface and live fully human, loving lives. If it's true that 10 per cent of any population are gay, then there could be 400,000 gay people out there; many of them still living in emotional prisons. Any of them could be your son, daughter, brother, sister, mother, father or best friend. Set them free. Allow them live full lives

I have made up my mind and will vote No for a number of reasons. None of which I can be arsed to list here.
The article above is brilliant and I sincerely wish the woman well. However the bible is contrary to this opinion in bold. How does she feel about paedos?, a brother who wants to marry his sister, a guy who wants to have a wife and a husband, a guy who wants to marry his dog, a woman who wants 3 husbands. I am not  religious, however she claims to be a "person of faith" this is contrary to her faith, Levictus and all that.

[easytiger95]

The article above is brilliant and I sincerely wish the woman well. However the bible is contrary to this opinion in bold. How does she feel about paedos?, a brother who wants to marry his sister, a guy who wants to have a wife and a husband, a guy who wants to marry his dog, a woman who wants 3 husbands. I am not  religious, however she claims to be a "person of faith" this is contrary to her faith, Levictus and all that.

Her opinions on "paedos", incest, polygamy and bestiality are irrelevant - in this referendum we are being asked about same sex marriage, which is not remotely comparable to any of the above.

Really hoping this guy is a yes voter who's just trying to troll the No side.

[Tubberman]

I have made up my mind and will vote No for a number of reasons. None of which I can be arsed to list here.
The article above is brilliant and I sincerely wish the woman well. However the bible is contrary to this opinion in bold. How does she feel about paedos?, a brother who wants to marry his sister, a guy who wants to have a wife and a husband, a guy who wants to marry his dog, a woman who wants 3 husbands. I am not  religious, however she claims to be a "person of faith" this is contrary to her faith, Levictus and all that.

See said she believes it's the most Christian thing to do, not that's it's the most Catholic thing to do. They're not one and the same.
The rest of your post is just pathetic drivel that doesn't warrant a decent response. 

[muppet]

I find it ironic that the main argument against the referendum is a Church organised mantra, based on the straw man 'Think of The Children' rhetoric.

Aside from the referendum having nothing to do with children and not changing the status of children or their families in any way, I find the hypocrisy of the Church staggering, even for them. They still refuse to release all information regarding clerical child abuse and they are the same organisation that prioritized itself, over food for starving children during the famine, because it was food from Protestants. 'Think of the Children' goes out the window very quickly when it suits.

Other than the Church mantra, it is hard to see any reason to vote No that don't involve prejudice to some degree.

[AZOffaly]

I'm more thinking it should be a compelling case to vote Yes, rather than 'why are you voting No'. People resist change naturally, unless they can clearly see why this is a good thing to change. In this case I think the Yes side has done a spectacularly bad job informing the public what rights are denied people in a Civil Partnership. Basing an entire campaign on Vote Yes For Equality, without defining the inequalities, is a very lax approach I think.

Then allowing yourself be sidetracked by the Baby posters is rank amateur.

[bcarrier]

I presume this is buried somewhere in here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jp1g2UIm4s

[Rudi]

The rest of your post is just pathetic drivel that doesn't warrant a decent response.

I was originally on the yes side, however on social media sites I was pissed off with comments like the above. Play the ball and not the man. I don't agree with your opinion its shite and your a t@at. Its a discussion forum for f'ck sake. The first part of your post was fine, you should have left it at that.

[JoG2]

The rest of your post is just pathetic drivel that doesn't warrant a decent response.

I was originally on the yes side, however on social media sites I was pissed off with comments like the above. Play the ball and not the man. I don't agree with your opinion its shite and your a t@at. Its a discussion forum for f'ck sake. The first part of your post was fine, you should have left it at that.

you were voting Yes, now No just to spite Yes voters who have annoyed you? you cant have had your heart that set on voting Yes originally surely?

[Tubberman]

The rest of your post is just pathetic drivel that doesn't warrant a decent response.

I was originally on the yes side, however on social media sites I was pissed off with comments like the above. Play the ball and not the man. I don't agree with your opinion its shite and your a t@at. Its a discussion forum for f'ck sake. The first part of your post was fine, you should have left it at that.

Bringing paedophiles and men marrying dogs into a discussion on same-sex marriage can hardly be taken seriously.

[J70]

The rest of your post is just pathetic drivel that doesn't warrant a decent response.

I was originally on the yes side, however on social media sites I was pissed off with comments like the above. Play the ball and not the man. I don't agree with your opinion its shite and your a t@at. Its a discussion forum for f'ck sake. The first part of your post was fine, you should have left it at that.

You're voting "No" because some idiots on social media sites hurt your feelings?

How old are you? Six?

"I'm taking my ball and I'm going home!"

Vote "Yes" or "No" because you think it is the right thing to do, not because you're having a hissy fit!

[armaghniac]

I find it ironic that the main argument against the referendum is a Church organised mantra, based on the straw man 'Think of The Children' rhetoric.

Aside from the referendum having nothing to do with children and not changing the status of children or their families in any way, I find the hypocrisy of the Church staggering, even for them. They still refuse to release all information regarding clerical child abuse and they are the same organisation that prioritized itself, over food for starving children during the famine, because it was food from Protestants. 'Think of the Children' goes out the window very quickly when it suits.

How is that for whataboutery, the famine 170 years ago!!  That's a strong argument.

Other than the Church mantra, it is hard to see any reason to vote No that don't involve prejudice to some degree.

Several reasons have been posted, which you have carefully ignored.

Bringing paedophiles and men marrying dogs into a discussion on same-sex marriage can hardly be taken seriously.

Fair enough. But discussion of polygamy seems perfectly reasonable if we are discussing the character of marriage, certainly more relevant that recipe of Coca-Cola, but seemingly any discussion of anything is verboten.

Vote "Yes" or "No" because you think it is the right thing to do, not because you're having a hissy fit!

This advice could also be applied to those who seem to seek to have point to prove about what the Church did 170 years ago, or whatever other chips on their shoulder they have.