The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[muppet]

I never mentioned adoption laws. I have nothing against a same-sex couples adopting.

I'm merely stating that a big part of getting married in a Catholic Church is pro-creation together.

Before getting married a man and a woman are asked if they intend to have children? Both being the biological parents.

I can see why some might vote no as a same-sex couple obviously cannot have children without adopting, or through a sperm donor etc.

But that has nothing to do with them getting married. That's about them raising children.

And as has already been said, this is about civil marriage, not a religious marriage.

So if it passes can two catholic men or women get married in a church?

For about the 50th time on this thread alone, NO!

[Maguire01]

I never mentioned adoption laws. I have nothing against a same-sex couples adopting.

I'm merely stating that a big part of getting married in a Catholic Church is pro-creation together.

Before getting married a man and a woman are asked if they intend to have children? Both being the biological parents.

I can see why some might vote no as a same-sex couple obviously cannot have children without adopting, or through a sperm donor etc.

But that has nothing to do with them getting married. That's about them raising children.

And as has already been said, this is about civil marriage, not a religious marriage.

So if it passes can two catholic men or women get married in a church?

No. I can't believe anyone is asking that question this close to the referendum.

[eddie d]

I never mentioned adoption laws. I have nothing against a same-sex couples adopting.

I'm merely stating that a big part of getting married in a Catholic Church is pro-creation together.

Before getting married a man and a woman are asked if they intend to have children? Both being the biological parents.

I can see why some might vote no as a same-sex couple obviously cannot have children without adopting, or through a sperm donor etc.

But that has nothing to do with them getting married. That's about them raising children.

And as has already been said, this is about civil marriage, not a religious marriage.

So if it passes can two catholic men or women get married in a church?

No. I can't believe anyone is asking that question this close to the referendum.

Fair enough but I did state in a previous post that I don't have a vote. I haven.t been following this thread since day one...just more recent as it gets closer.

[seafoid]

I never mentioned adoption laws. I have nothing against a same-sex couples adopting.

I'm merely stating that a big part of getting married in a Catholic Church is pro-creation together.

Before getting married a man and a woman are asked if they intend to have children? Both being the biological parents.

I can see why some might vote no as a same-sex couple obviously cannot have children without adopting, or through a sperm donor etc.

But that has nothing to do with them getting married. That's about them raising children.

And as has already been said, this is about civil marriage, not a religious marriage.

So if it passes can two catholic men or women get married in a church?

Take it away, Hozier

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYSVMgRr6pw
For about the 50th time on this thread alone, NO!

[seafoid]

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

[easytiger95]

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/referendum/support-for-yes-vote-in-marriage-equality-referendum-plummets-with-one-week-to-go-poll-31228174.html

Bad news coming tomorrow - hope that this acts as a wake up call for yes voters to get out the vote on Friday. It will be close and I always thought it would be.

[Eamonnca1]

Pre-referendum: Straight couples can get married and have children. Gay couples can have children but not get married.

Post-referendum (assuming a yes vote): Straight couples can get married and have children. Gay couples can have children and get married.

Can someone please explain how a yes vote undermines or attacks marriage or families?

[armaghniac]

Pre-referendum: Straight couples can get married and have children. Gay couples can have children but not get married.

Post-referendum (assuming a yes vote): Straight couples can get married and have children. Gay couples can have children and get married.

Can someone please explain how a yes vote undermines or attacks marriage or families?

You've said it yourself. Straight people ger married and have children with that oerson, providing responsible parenting. Gay people have children, you don't say how, but I'll hazard a guess that they don't marry the parent of their children, but rather exclude one of the parents.

But there is really no point in explaining this, you ignore everything that is posted.

[Eamonnca1]

Pre-referendum: Straight couples can get married and have children. Gay couples can have children but not get married.

Post-referendum (assuming a yes vote): Straight couples can get married and have children. Gay couples can have children and get married.

Can someone please explain how a yes vote undermines or attacks marriage or families?

You've said it yourself. Straight people ger married and have children with that oerson, providing responsible parenting. Gay people have children, you don't say how, but I'll hazard a guess that they don't marry the parent of their children, but rather exclude one of the parents.

"Exclude" one of the parents?

Gay couples have children by various means. Adoption, anonymous sperm donation, IVF, surrogacy etc., all various methods that are also used by straight couples. Are they also "excluding" one of the parents, whatever that means? If that's your beef, then why not call for a ban those methods of having children? Or is it only a problem when gay parents wish to avail of the same methods? If so, why is it okay for straight people to use those methods of having children but not gay parents? What's the difference?

In any case, none of this has any bearing on the referendum, as you know.

But there is really no point in explaining this, you ignore everything that is posted.

Humour me.

[Eamonnca1]

Nice bit of evasion, by the way. My question was about how recognizing the marriage of gay couples undermines anyone else's marriage. Please cite examples of straight couples in the US who have had their marriages "undermined" by a gay couple's nuptials in the same state.

[LCohen]

One of the upsides of this referendum is the amount of thought we've all had to do about what constitutes family and the ties that bind us. Win or lose, I think it has been healthy for the nation's pysche.

I thought of what you say here yesterday after reading an article from the Washington Post about the case before the US Supreme Court regarding gay marriage. What struck me was the absurdity of having the validity of laws determined by nine people parsing a text written by a bunch of slave-owning white men from the late 18th century. As you say, whatever the result there is virtue in having a public airing of opinions on the matter.

The irony of these posts are unreal, you can air your opinion as long as you are on the YES side, on the NO side you are homophobic, Jesus wept!

I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I do not think advocating a No vote makes you a homophobe. I think it takes a particularly twisted mindset to read the contrary into what I posted.

Not on this board - time and time again it has been stated here that the only reason one can vote NO is because they are homophobic, appreciate you are not one of the protagonists but you can appreciate the the irony in the above posts in the context of the mass hysteria from the YES campaign on this board.

To clarify. I stated that all the reasons to vote No that had been aired to that point (including on this Board) were homophobic (i.e. they have no logical basis unless you start from a position of "i plain just don't like gays" or "gays are ok but they just shouldn't have equality ---- becasuse they are gay"). Immediately you quoted religious reasons for voting no. The "I'm not homophobic its just my religion " argument is unconvincing and does not escape from a whiff of homophobia. No new arguments have been posted since.

So, yes there could yet be a non-homophobic argument for voting No, but be very clear - we have not heard it yet.

Feel free to be that person that outlines it here. There is no good reason to withold it.

[LCohen]

Can someone in the yes camp clarify if they believe that there are any reasons for voting no other than being a rampant homophobe?

I dont have a vote but would in all likelihood be a yes voter.

On this board everyone is entitled to an opinion unless that opinion is different to the herd and then you are homophobic.

Well . . . Yes!

You are voting to deny homosexuals equal rights to everyone else/

Definition of homophobia

homo|pho¦bia
Pronunciation: /ˌhɒməˈfəʊbɪə/  /ˌhəʊmə-/
Definition of homophobia in English:
noun
Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.

I think that a lot of people are getting overly pushed on the definition of homophobia and think it means you abuse or hate homosexuals or its something akin to racism when I don't think it is and has more layers than that. A dislike of homosexuals is the dictionary definition and I think that generally those voting no have that.

Just to be clear once again, I would vote yes, but if people want to vote no for whatever reason that is their democratic right and they should not be branded homophobic by the gay right activists on this board.

People can vote No. That is their democratic right. I don't think a single person has deied that. It is not a point of difference between the Yes and No camps.
Those who vote Yes or No should have a reason for doing so (this is afterall not only a vote but a vote on a point in the constitution and a vote on equality - those last 2 make it a vote on the king of country RoI is and aspires to be). It is not unreasonable for people on a discussion forum to point out their reasons for voting Yes or No. If any of those arguments are flawed, unconvincing or homophobic it is the very point of a discussion forums to point those things out. It is a quite incredible thing to get excited about.

[Maguire01]

Pre-referendum: Straight couples can get married and have children. Gay couples can have children but not get married.

Post-referendum (assuming a yes vote): Straight couples can get married and have children. Gay couples can have children and get married.

Can someone please explain how a yes vote undermines or attacks marriage or families?

You've said it yourself. Straight people ger married and have children with that oerson, providing responsible parenting. Gay people have children, you don't say how, but I'll hazard a guess that they don't marry the parent of their children, but rather exclude one of the parents.

"Exclude" one of the parents?

Gay couples have children by various means. Adoption, anonymous sperm donation, IVF, surrogacy etc., all various methods that are also used by straight couples. Are they also "excluding" one of the parents, whatever that means? If that's your beef, then why not call for a ban those methods of having children? Or is it only a problem when gay parents wish to avail of the same methods? If so, why is it okay for straight people to use those methods of having children but not gay parents? What's the difference?

In any case, none of this has any bearing on the referendum, as you know.

+1 on both points. I've never heard these arguments made in relation to a straight couple who have difficulties having their own children. But as you said, it's irrelevant to the referendum.

[eddie d]

Pre-referendum: Straight couples can get married and have children. Gay couples can have children but not get married.

Post-referendum (assuming a yes vote): Straight couples can get married and have children. Gay couples can have children and get married.

Can someone please explain how a yes vote undermines or attacks marriage or families?

You've said it yourself. Straight people ger married and have children with that oerson, providing responsible parenting. Gay people have children, you don't say how, but I'll hazard a guess that they don't marry the parent of their children, but rather exclude one of the parents.

"Exclude" one of the parents?

Gay couples have children by various means. Adoption, anonymous sperm donation, IVF, surrogacy etc., all various methods that are also used by straight couples. Are they also "excluding" one of the parents, whatever that means? If that's your beef, then why not call for a ban those methods of having children? Or is it only a problem when gay parents wish to avail of the same methods? If so, why is it okay for straight people to use those methods of having children but not gay parents? What's the difference?

In any case, none of this has any bearing on the referendum, as you know.

+1 on both points. I've never heard these arguments made in relation to a straight couple who have difficulties having their own children. But as you said, it's irrelevant to the referendum.

No one would argue that because a straight couple might not know that they can't have children before they are married. 

[Maguire01]

Pre-referendum: Straight couples can get married and have children. Gay couples can have children but not get married.

Post-referendum (assuming a yes vote): Straight couples can get married and have children. Gay couples can have children and get married.

Can someone please explain how a yes vote undermines or attacks marriage or families?

You've said it yourself. Straight people ger married and have children with that oerson, providing responsible parenting. Gay people have children, you don't say how, but I'll hazard a guess that they don't marry the parent of their children, but rather exclude one of the parents.

"Exclude" one of the parents?

Gay couples have children by various means. Adoption, anonymous sperm donation, IVF, surrogacy etc., all various methods that are also used by straight couples. Are they also "excluding" one of the parents, whatever that means? If that's your beef, then why not call for a ban those methods of having children? Or is it only a problem when gay parents wish to avail of the same methods? If so, why is it okay for straight people to use those methods of having children but not gay parents? What's the difference?

In any case, none of this has any bearing on the referendum, as you know.

+1 on both points. I've never heard these arguments made in relation to a straight couple who have difficulties having their own children. But as you said, it's irrelevant to the referendum.

No one would argue that because a straight couple might not know that they can't have children before they are married.

Even if we ignore those who do... the argument being made is that by using these methods they're "excluding" one of the biological parents. That's the case (for almost all of these methods) whether it's a straight or a gay couple.