The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[easytiger95]

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.

Muppet also mentioned the failure to release records of clerical child abuse - an ongoing situation Armaghniac. Not the first time you've been caught out selectively quoting.

I would disagree that several reasons have been posted - several theories certainly have, such as ssm "diluting" heterosexual marriage - but no evidence offered to prove it. Kind of frustrating, as we've been asking for that evidence for nigh on a month now.

The discussion of polygamy is not perfectly reasonable, as no one on the yes side is advancing this proposal, nor has any intention of proposing it. The link between the two has been proposed by No posters as a scare tactic. Should you find any evidence of anyone on the yes side doing so, please post it. As for "seemingly any discussion of anything is verboten" free speech warriors, please read below

The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 additionally states that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[

i would suggest that comparing law abiding homosexual citizens of this country with paedophiles and the practices of incest and bestiality falls under the section I have highlighted. Just because this referendum has heightened emotions doesn't give anyone on the Yes or No side the right to fling filth at the other - in a civilised society such hate speech would be verboten. I wouldn;t let my 3 year old son throw insults at another child - it is not unreasonable to expect the same standard from people who can type.

Finally, the church's strong opposition to this referendum makes them key players in this debate. Unfortunately their past and ongoing behaviour leaves them open to charges of hypocrisy in this, but it doesn't particularly exercise me. I think the church, given their position, were duty bound to oppose this referendum. The interesting question will be how far or how little their stated position has diverged from their flock.

[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.

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!

Play the ball not the man, don't be patronising.

[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.

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.

The only other argument suggested was the change to the institution of marriage. Which is at best abstract and at worst, more nonsense. It will not change anything for those of us already married nor for all of those who will get married regardless of this referendum. It will change nothing for children of those marriages.

The only thing that will change is the Constitutional protection that will be afforded same-sex marriage. It is already civilly protected and thus all the arguments regarding children and institutions are all completely irrelevant.

[foxcommander]

The discussion of polygamy is not perfectly reasonable

According to you.

It's just as valid as the referendum that's been called and should have been included since we're promoting equality for all.

or does equality not mean equality for those calling for it? just when it suits eh?

[PadraicHenryPearse]

This is what we are voting on:

"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex"

Voting "yes" does not redefine Marriage only redefines who can marry

Voting "yes" does not change the adoption process, the process is not concerned with gender or sexual orientation.

Voting "yes" does not affect surrogacy - there is no right of access to surrogacy.

No child will be negatively affected because of the passing of the Marriage Equality Referendum. In fact, some children will benefit because finally their parents will be able to marry. Lesbian and gay people have been successfully parenting in Ireland for many years. Saying yes to this referendum will not change this but will offer stronger protection to those families.

The referendum is not about adoption or parenting or other rights and protections for children – these are clearly important issues and ones that people care about deeply. However, these issues have been dealt with separately in the Children and Family Relationships Act.  The referendum simply asks whether any two people, regardless of their gender, can marry in a civil ceremony.

The idea of family has greatly changed over the years.  Who am I to say what is, or isn't a valid family?  Families come in all shapes and sizes, let's recognise them all as equal.  Redefining marriage does not redefine family.  It provides legal recognition to same-sex couples who are already families, with or without children.

A lot of the No campaign is based on the belief that children should have both a mother and a father.  This referendum does not affect whether a child will have a mother and father present in their lives.  Saying No does not provide them with both.

There are many single parents out there doing a great job.  There are many children without both parents in their lives.  The most important thing for a child is to have good role models, preferably of both genders, but that's not essential.  These role models need to be present in the child's life.  They do not need to be related to exert a good influence.  The child of a same-sex couple should be entitled to have two legally recognised parents of any gender.  A No vote deprives them of this.

The referendum will make no difference to the ability of a same-sex couple to have a child or adopt together.  It will impact the legal status of their family.  We should take away the uncertainty faced by those families and give their children the right to have a family that is recognised as their next of kin.  This is one of the reasons why leading children's charities are supporting a Yes vote.

Marriage is not about procreation, heterosexual man and women may not be able to have children, heterosexuals who are older in there 60/70's can get married and they can get married multiple times yet a no vote denies a homosexual the right to marriage.



Progression of Marriage:

1981 - Husbands own all the property
1993 - legal martial rape
2015 -


ISPCC, Childrens Right alliance & Barnardos all support a yes vote.

[foxcommander]

ISPCC, Childrens Right alliance & Barnardos all support a yes vote.

Charity organisations should really remain impartial. They'll lose support for choosing sides.

[foxcommander]

The idea of family has greatly changed over the years.  Who am I to say what is, or isn't a valid family?  Families come in all shapes and sizes, let's recognise them all as equal.  Redefining marriage does not redefine family.

Again highlights why polygamy should have been included in this referendum.

[PadraicHenryPearse]

.......polygamy should or shouldn't be in the the referendum is another discussion.

What is in this referendum is:

"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex"

[foxcommander]

.......polygamy should or shouldn't be in the the referendum is another discussion.

What is in this referendum is:

"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex"

Who dictates the context of the referendum? Why shouldn't polygamy be on the ticket?
It's just as valid a lifestyle choice.

[easytiger95]

The discussion of polygamy is not perfectly reasonable

According to you.

It's just as valid as the referendum that's been called and should have been included since we're promoting equality for all.

or does equality not mean equality for those calling for it? just when it suits eh?

No fox, I'm promoting the passing of this referendum, which is concerned with the issue of same sex marriage. I support that for a number of reasons, one of which is equality for monogamous, committed couples who are homosexuals. i would not support equality for polygamists, firstly because there is no call for it, and secondly most societies who have a history of polygamy have eventually moved towards the monogamous couple model, which is usually considered to be the most stable social unit (though in my own personal view, i don't believe that couples need a marriage license to prove their stability - but neither should homosexuals be prohibited from obtaining that license).

does equality not mean equality for those calling for it? just when it suits eh?

Again, there is no one calling for it Fox, I wouldn't support it personally as explained above, just as you do not have to support gay marriage should you not wish to. But I will call foul when you conflate the two issues as they are completely different - you might as well as accuse me of not supporting equality for people who wish to wear tinfoil caps on their heads and talk only in Esperanto all day. There may well be an abstract reason for permitting it (equality for all!!) but i don't believe it adds anything beneficial to our society, any more then I believe there is a constituency of polygamists out there suffering discrimination.

Whereas I believe this referendum will have positive benefits for our society, making it more inclusive and welcoming for our gay citizens (who are a sizeable minority and are, in the main, asking us to do this). I believe more marriage between committed monogamous couples can only strengthen the institution of civil marriage.

So to sum up, no to tinfoil caps and polygamy and yes to same sex marriage.

[easytiger95]

.......polygamy should or shouldn't be in the the referendum is another discussion.

What is in this referendum is:

"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex"

Who dictates the context of the referendum? Why shouldn't polygamy be on the ticket?
It's just as valid a lifestyle choice.

The Constitutional Convention decided on the referendum, a panel of ordinary citizens tasked with reforming the constitution by considering and proposing numerous changes.

https://www.constitution.ie/Convention.aspx

You're welcome.

[armaghniac]

The only other argument suggested was the change to the institution of marriage. Which is at best abstract and at worst, more nonsense. It will not change anything for those of us already married nor for all of those who will get married regardless of this referendum. It will change nothing for children of those marriages.

It has been suggested that there may be legal question on the validity of marriages concluded after Friday until legislation is passed. I'm not a lawyer, so cannot comment of the likelihood of this particular problem but it is clear that there will be legal chaos resulting from this.

This is what we are voting on:

"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex"

Voting "yes" does not redefine Marriage only redefines who can marry

Bollix. It means that marriage is now one of two things, heterosexual marriage or homosexual marriage, a profound redefinition.

Voting "yes" does not change the adoption process, the process is not concerned with gender or sexual orientation.

This is true in the short term. What is less clear is how adoption policy will evolve against the background of this change.

Voting "yes" does not affect surrogacy - there is no right of access to surrogacy.

#

I'll bet you €100 that when surrogacy legislation is proposed that this part of the constitution will be invoked.

No child will be negatively affected because of the passing of the Marriage Equality Referendum. In fact, some children will benefit because finally their parents will be able to marry. Lesbian and gay people have been successfully parenting in Ireland for many years. Saying yes to this referendum will not change this but will offer stronger protection to those families.

The vast majority of children with married heterosexual parents will not be in family whose structure is weakened. There may be some other people who benefit, but I cannot see who they are.

The referendum is not about adoption or parenting or other rights and protections for children – these are clearly important issues and ones that people care about deeply. However, these issues have been dealt with separately in the Children and Family Relationships Act.  The referendum simply asks whether any two people, regardless of their gender, can marry in a civil ceremony.

If you believe that there is no connection between marriage and children then there is no talking to you, as you obviously have an ability to completely disregard both the structure of society and its best interests.

The idea of family has greatly changed over the years.  Who am I to say what is, or isn't a valid family?  Families come in all shapes and sizes, let's recognise them all as equal.  Redefining marriage does not redefine family.  It provides legal recognition to same-sex couples who are already families, with or without children.

So you believe that everything is equal? Where do you stand on polygamy, are you happy to say that polygamous families are not proper familes?

A lot of the No campaign is based on the belief that children should have both a mother and a father.  This referendum does not affect whether a child will have a mother and father present in their lives.  Saying No does not provide them with both.

It certainly affects marriage and the prospect of people getting married or staying married and their children will pay the price for your actions.

There are many single parents out there doing a great job.  There are many children without both parents in their lives.  The most important thing for a child is to have good role models, preferably of both genders, but that's not essential.  These role models need to be present in the child's life.  They do not need to be related to exert a good influence. 

It isn't denying the work of single parents to say that two good parents of different genders are better than one. Why dilute the institution of marriage that provides this?

The child of a same-couple should be entitled to have two legally recognised parents of any gender.  A No vote deprives them of this.

A same sex couple cannot have a child. If they adopt one the law already provides them legal status.

The referendum will make no difference to the ability of a same-sex couple to have a child or adopt together.  It will impact the legal status of their family.  We should take away the uncertainty faced by those families and give their children the right to have a family that is recognised as their next of kin.  This is one of the reasons why leading children's charities are supporting a Yes vote

.

As said above, charities should not have got involved, will you be donating extra to make up for the donations lost by their support for the dilution of marriage? Probably not. And children are always the next of kin of their parents or their relationship is specified by adoption law.

Marriage is not about procreation, heterosexual man and women may not be able to have children, heterosexuals who are older in there 60/70's can get married and they can get married multiple times yet a no vote denies a homosexual the right to marriage.

If you believe that marriage is not about procreation, despite all the evidence to the contrary, then there is little point in talking to you.

[muppet]

The only other argument suggested was the change to the institution of marriage. Which is at best abstract and at worst, more nonsense. It will not change anything for those of us already married nor for all of those who will get married regardless of this referendum. It will change nothing for children of those marriages.

It has been suggested that there may be legal question on the validity of marriages concluded after Friday until legislation is passed. I'm not a lawyer, so cannot comment of the likelihood of this particular problem but it is clear that there will be legal chaos resulting from this.

'It has been suggested that there may be....' = 'it is clear that there will be legal chaos'

[armaghniac]

The only other argument suggested was the change to the institution of marriage. Which is at best abstract and at worst, more nonsense. It will not change anything for those of us already married nor for all of those who will get married regardless of this referendum. It will change nothing for children of those marriages.

It has been suggested that there may be legal question on the validity of marriages concluded after Friday until legislation is passed. I'm not a lawyer, so cannot comment of the likelihood of this particular problem but it is clear that there will be legal chaos resulting from this.

'It has been suggested that there may be....' = 'it is clear that there will be legal chaos'

There will be legal chaos, there are dozens of pieces of legislation referring to husbands, wives and the like and some of these will prove problematic.  The suggestion about the particular problem with the weddings after Friday I am not sure about, what do you think?

[PadraicHenryPearse]

in order:

there will only be Marriage, narrow minded people will like to make a distinction to feel superior.

adoption will evolve regardless of this vote so this point is completely moot. the process is not concerned with gender or sexual orientation.

As there is no Surrogacy laws i think you are right. it won't be framed by voting yes or no.

Children who are part of a Civil partnership who will now have the same protections as those of a Marriage.

irrelevant point, if that is put forward in a referendum i will look at all the relevant info.

where did i say there is no connection between marriage and children. but society has functioned since single mother and children outside marriage came along.

How?? "it certainly affects marriage and the prospect of people getting married or staying married and their children will pay the price for your actions. "

how is it diluted?? if single parents are ok why not homosexual couples?

No it provides the adoptive parent legal rights but not the other parent.

Unbelievable and typical of the no vote ... if you dont get what you want you dont support charities that help children exactly, you are one sad b**tard. the mind boggles....

how can marriage be only about procreation when you can procreate without it and you can get married without procreation through choice or by not being medically able to have children or being at a stage in your life where having a child is not possible. what evidence to the contrary?