The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[muppet]

Any opinion polls recently or due? Would have thought YES would have been 80-20 at least a few weeks ago but can see it being a little bit more twitchy as it gets closer....silent NO vote might be larger than anticipated.

I know some people are getting fed up with having the viewpoint of the Yes campaign rammed down their throats at every turn (no pun intended). 

Anyone who dare express a dissenting viewpoint is shouted down or ridiculed.

There are lots of older people who are silently planning to vote no and are saying nothing publicly, but they're all speaking privately with like minded folks.

Anyone who thinks this is a foregone conclusion is only codding themselves. Referenda typically have had very low turnout and no one can take this for granted

When were you last in Ireland?

August 2014

And when did you speak to the above people?

There are such things as telephones and I heard just this past weekend (from 3 separate individuals) that there is much more support for the No vote than meets the eye. 


http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/silent-no-fears-of-shock-defeat-in-marriage-referendum-grow-31211350.html

Ah right. 3 people.

[Canalman]

This will be a very close run thing imo.

Low turnout, younger voters less likely to vote, complacency,Polls pointing only one way,  perception of hectoring, anger with the current government, alot of people keeping their opinions to themselves,main political parties going through the motions with canvassing etc. All the classic signs of an upset.

Not too bothered either way but result will be very intersting snapshot of Irish society in the newish millenium.

[magpie seanie]

This will be a very close run thing imo.

Low turnout, younger voters less likely to vote, complacency,Polls pointing only one way, hectoring, anger with the current government, alot of people keeping their opinions to themselves,main political parties going through the motions with canvassing etc. All the classic signs of an upset.

Not too bothered either way but result will be very intersting snapshot of Irish society in the newish millenium.

Bookies odds and the over/under moving in the no direction. Still looks a decisive (58-60%) Yes but politically informed guys I know reckon the Yes campaign are in panic.

[easytiger95]

This is a change in the constitution, the fundamental legal basis of the State. The constitution should not changed trivially but only after a thorough investigation of all of the issues. So if you believe there is no evidence then you cannot proceed.

I don't really want to get into this with you armaghniac, because you have chosen to ignore my logic in all my posts. But it was you who suggested that there was no way to measure the impact of gay marriage

What could I read, there is no place in the world where this has gone on for more than decade, how can that period of time show anything useful?

before in the very next sentence suggesting that the impact would be harmful

How can children fail to be impacted by a redefinition of marriage, this "no impact" is one of big lies of this campaign?

. You do see, don't you, how the two points of view are mutually exclusive, yes?

Now, if there is no evidence (which is not true, there are plenty of studies suggesting that children of same sex couples are not disadvantaged by their upbringing), then how can you automatically make the assumption that when any such evidence comes to light, it will be negative? But the crux of your argument seems to be unless the Yes side can make a case for a positive impact then the constitution should not be changed. That for me, fails on many points.

Firstly, as I've said above there are plenty of studies suggesting that children of same sex couples suffer no disadvantage.

Secondly, if you apply your logic to one end of the argument it must apply at the other - you have not been able once to clearly elucidate what shape or form the disadvantageous impact will have on children, or on the institution of heterosexual marriage which you also claim to be at risk.

Thirdly, the issue of children has been largely dealt with by the Children and Family Relationships Bill, so any misgivings you have about the upbringing of children by gay couples, married or not, should be directed to the repeal of that law, not the the blocking of this amendment,

Fourthly, the "unexpected outcomes" argument has been used against every major social change since the Renaissance - including the abolition of slavery, the suffragettes, the Indian Independence movement,the civil rights movements in the USA and Northern Ireland, and the decriminalisation of homosexuality and the liberalising of our laws on contraception and family planning. "Unexpected outcomes" is no excuse to not right a wrong or remove a social inequality. If there was an expected outcome which was demonstrably disadvantageous to the State and the institution of marriage, than it would be madness to pass it. Since the No side have been unable to name this, then it has no weight in the argument, when set against the injustice of a large minority of the people in our Republic being unable to access all the rights available to others through marriage.

Fifthly,

've put forward a coherent and logical proposition that society supports marriage, and has so many laws etc relating to it, because it is in society's interest to bring men and women together in stable relationships to nurture (thanks Hardy) children.

this is untrue within the constitution. Although I agree that the State uses marriage as a primary method of social cohesion, procreation is only one of the benefits it brings. There are married couples who choose not to have children or are unable to do so. Thus the State cannot make a distinction between a marriage without children and a marriage with children, and does not within our constitution - and to remind you again, it is the constitution we are being asked to amend.

Leading to sixthly,

Passing this referendum on the basis that marriage has nothing to do with children greatly damages this and greatly damages marriage itself, as it then becomes about adults and the State has no real business having a lot of rules and regulations about adult relationships.

as stated above, marriage within the constitution is only about the adults - a family is currently defined as a married couple, not a married couple with children. And just to let you know, your view that, without children, the state should not interfere in adult relationships, is far more damaging to the institution of marriage than anything proposed in this referendum. The institution of civil marriage as currently constituted caters for a far wider variety of people than is currently acknowledged by the No side - heterosexual couples are not just one heterogeneous mass of identikit people. There are the childless by choice, there are the childless by situation, there are mixed religion couples, there are mixed race couples ( a situation which was also illegal in many so-called civilized countries before reform happened). By asking the institution to evolve further (though not the religious aspect of it) we are merely continuing a long history of gradual change, begun when secular and social values began to be separated from religious ones.

AZ Offaly said something quite interesting on the other page, along the lines of if the change was mostly semantic, then he couldn't justify voting for it (apologies if I am misquoting you AZ). But for me, this is the very best reason for doing it. We live our lives through symbols and their interpretation, we always have done, and with technological advances do so more now than at any other time. For me, a Yes vote, is as powerful a symbol of compassion and reconciliation as has ever been seen in our state or this Island. This is not about what other people think of us, which is what the No side keep insinuating, this is about what we aspire for our country and ourselves. A Yes vote will be a moment that will be remembered in the same breath as Dev's reply to Churchill,Mary Robinson's election, the Good Friday agreement - moments when we expanded the concept of what Irishness can and should be. That, as much as anything else (and God knows, everyone knows I'm prepared to argues the intricacies of the case) is why I'm voting YES.

[muppet]

This will be a very close run thing imo.

Low turnout, younger voters less likely to vote, complacency,Polls pointing only one way, hectoring, anger with the current government, alot of people keeping their opinions to themselves,main political parties going through the motions with canvassing etc. All the classic signs of an upset.

Not too bothered either way but result will be very intersting snapshot of Irish society in the newish millenium.

Bookies odds and the over/under moving in the no direction. Still looks a decisive (58-60%) Yes but politically informed guys I know reckon the Yes campaign are in panic.

The only problem is getting voters out. Old people always vote in numbers which distorts things. The Church position will compound this. But if there is any decent turnout at all from the U-50s it should be easily carried.

[AZOffaly]

easytiger, that's not exactly what I said. I said if it was just a question of semantics, it would be hard to justify changing the constitution. However if those semantics have a direct and tangible effect on peoples lives then that is a perfect reason to vote yes to iron out inequalities.

If there were no inequality, and it was literally the ability to say we are married, rather than we are in a partnership, then that to me is more of a 'nice to have' rather than inequality.

[AZOffaly]

This will be a very close run thing imo.

Low turnout, younger voters less likely to vote, complacency,Polls pointing only one way, hectoring, anger with the current government, alot of people keeping their opinions to themselves,main political parties going through the motions with canvassing etc. All the classic signs of an upset.

Not too bothered either way but result will be very intersting snapshot of Irish society in the newish millenium.

Bookies odds and the over/under moving in the no direction. Still looks a decisive (58-60%) Yes but politically informed guys I know reckon the Yes campaign are in panic.

The only problem is getting voters out. Old people always vote in numbers which distorts things. The Church position will compound this. But if there is any decent turnout at all from the U-50s it should be easily carried.

I don't think that is the only problem. The Yes side need to clarify their rationale for voting Yes. And don't just spout phrases like 'Yes for Equality'. Show EXACTLY why and where there are inequalities. ML and myself are rooting around this morning, and I still think we have only found 2. There are apparently 21. Those inequalities should be front and centre of this debate.

The position Easytiger puts is compelling as well, and as I've said before, I am predisposed to voting yes. But we are being told this referendum is about equality, so that should be very easy to itemise or identify. Easytiger's rationale is, with all due respect, slightly different than why we are being asked to vote Yes.

If the referendum boils down to 'vote Yes because Gay People should be able to introduce their husband rather than their partner' then I think it will be very close. I'd still probably vote yes for the reasons Easytiger outlines, but it wouldn't be a given. However if there are real, tangible, inequalities that are clearly explained, then it should be a slam dunk.

[easytiger95]

And I'd say that it is hard for us as heterosexuals just how much "nice to have" means to people who can't have it. Symbols and status are hugely important, but can be intangible at times. A constitution is an attempt to make our intangible values substantial - I'd say the words on the line mean a lot more to people excluded from the sentence.

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.

[AZOffaly]

I know I've never thought as much about this as over the last couple of weeks, that's for sure. But I do find it depressing that the No campaign have managed to steer this debate in a certain way, and the Yes campaign can't just put out a concise list of real differences.

You could probably even list your position as a 'real' difference Easytiger. I wouldn't call that inequality per se, but more of a 'differentiation'. So remove the differences, rather than remove the inequality.

[magpie seanie]

This will be a very close run thing imo.

Low turnout, younger voters less likely to vote, complacency,Polls pointing only one way, hectoring, anger with the current government, alot of people keeping their opinions to themselves,main political parties going through the motions with canvassing etc. All the classic signs of an upset.

Not too bothered either way but result will be very intersting snapshot of Irish society in the newish millenium.

Bookies odds and the over/under moving in the no direction. Still looks a decisive (58-60%) Yes but politically informed guys I know reckon the Yes campaign are in panic.

The only problem is getting voters out. Old people always vote in numbers which distorts things. The Church position will compound this. But if there is any decent turnout at all from the U-50s it should be easily carried.

Yeah - they should only get a half a vote if they're not going to vote the right way.

[Bingo]

Ger Brennan has taken some very unfair flak on it. Only person who seems to have addressed his comments any way as they where intended was Conor Cusack.

[armaghniac]

This is a change in the constitution, the fundamental legal basis of the State. The constitution should not changed trivially but only after a thorough investigation of all of the issues. So if you believe there is no evidence then you cannot proceed.

I don't really want to get into this with you armaghniac, because you have chosen to ignore my logic in all my posts.

I didn't find your posts convincing, which is not the same as ignoring them.

But it was you who suggested that there was no way to measure the impact of gay marriage

What could I read, there is no place in the world where this has gone on for more than decade, how can that period of time show anything useful?

before in the very next sentence suggesting that the impact would be harmful

How can children fail to be impacted by a redefinition of marriage, this "no impact" is one of big lies of this campaign?

. You do see, don't you, how the two points of view are mutually exclusive, yes?

Now, if there is no evidence (which is not true, there are plenty of studies suggesting that children of same sex couples are not disadvantaged by their upbringing), then how can you automatically make the assumption that when any such evidence comes to light, it will be negative? But the crux of your argument seems to be unless the Yes side can make a case for a positive impact then the constitution should not be changed. That for me, fails on many points.

Firstly, as I've said above there are plenty of studies suggesting that children of same sex couples suffer no disadvantage.

Secondly, if you apply your logic to one end of the argument it must apply at the other - you have not been able once to clearly elucidate what shape or form the disadvantageous impact will have on children, or on the institution of heterosexual marriage which you also claim to be at risk.

Thirdly, the issue of children has been largely dealt with by the Children and Family Relationships Bill, so any misgivings you have about the upbringing of children by gay couples, married or not, should be directed to the repeal of that law, not the the blocking of this amendment,

A couple of points here. In this discussion everyone has been trying to make me condemn same sex couples having children. My concern is to encourage people to have their own children, a positive aim, not find fault with others.  This reflects that society has evolved an understanding of things that blood bonds are important, and that men and women both have a contribution to make, including to parenting. There has been much talk of "studies", but I don't believe these are conclusive as they usually compare a very particular and untypical set of people with the whole population.

Fourthly, the "unexpected outcomes" argument has been used against every major social change since the Renaissance - including the abolition of slavery, the suffragettes, the Indian Independence movement,the civil rights movements in the USA and Northern Ireland, and the decriminalisation of homosexuality and the liberalising of our laws on contraception and family planning. "Unexpected outcomes" is no excuse to not right a wrong or remove a social inequality. If there was an expected outcome which was demonstrably disadvantageous to the State and the institution of marriage, than it would be madness to pass it. Since the No side have been unable to name this, then it has no weight in the argument, when set against the injustice of a large minority of the people in our Republic being unable to access all the rights available to others through marriage.

This would mean that all change is good, which is not true. And there has been an unhelpful association of this campaign with issues such as slavery, civil rights in NI, interracial marriage and a whole rake of things. These issues were not comparable, most of them were confined to one region or group, and said nothing about society generally.

Fifthly,

've put forward a coherent and logical proposition that society supports marriage, and has so many laws etc relating to it, because it is in society's interest to bring men and women together in stable relationships to nurture (thanks Hardy) children.

this is untrue within the constitution. Although I agree that the State uses marriage as a primary method of social cohesion, procreation is only one of the benefits it brings. There are married couples who choose not to have children or are unable to do so. Thus the State cannot make a distinction between a marriage without children and a marriage with children, and does not within our constitution - and to remind you again, it is the constitution we are being asked to amend.

Procreation is only one of the benefits it brings, but it is an important one and it should be relegated to an importance of zero as those who claim "this has nothing to do with children" would contend. The State cannot make a distinction between a marriage without children and a marriage with children, which is why it should not extend the possibility of marriage to class of relationship for whom having children from the relationship is impossible.

Leading to sixthly,

Passing this referendum on the basis that marriage has nothing to do with children greatly damages this and greatly damages marriage itself, as it then becomes about adults and the State has no real business having a lot of rules and regulations about adult relationships.

as stated above, marriage within the constitution is only about the adults - a family is currently defined as a married couple, not a married couple with children. And just to let you know, your view that, without children, the state should not interfere in adult relationships, is far more damaging to the institution of marriage than anything proposed in this referendum.

My point was that the scale of legal intervention in marriage reflects the importance of children, not the adults. If children are now considered irrelevant than that scale of legal intervention is inappropriate and will probably be scaled back over time.

The institution of civil marriage as currently constituted caters for a far wider variety of people than is currently acknowledged by the No side - heterosexual couples are not just one heterogeneous mass of identikit people. There are the childless by choice, there are the childless by situation, there are mixed religion couples, there are mixed race couples ( a situation which was also illegal in many so-called civilized countries before reform happened). By asking the institution to evolve further (though not the religious aspect of it) we are merely continuing a long history of gradual change, begun when secular and social values began to be separated from religious ones.

Mixed race couples and mixed religion couple are a complete distraction.
As for the others, in any situation there will be individual variation, this does not  undermine the validity of the general thrust of the policy. The GAA may promote underage development squads to improve the quality of senior players, this policy is not invalidated by the fact the some of the these people do not choose to play in later life.

[macdanger2]

And there has been an unhelpful association of this campaign with issues such as slavery, civil rights in NI, interracial marriage and a whole rake of things. These issues were not comparable, most of them were confined to one region or group, and said nothing about society generally.

Those issues said a LOT about the societies in which they existed.

[easytiger95]

Bizarre answer Armaghniac.

I didn't find your posts convincing, which is not the same as ignoring them.

So, the reason I don't find your points convincing is because I'm ignoring them??? You're very confident in yourself. Just to be clear, I've read all your points, and addressed them one after one, which is the very opposite of ignoring them. And I don't find your posts convincing in any way.

couple of points here. In this discussion everyone has been trying to make me condemn same sex couples having children. My concern is to encourage people to have their own children, a positive aim, not find fault with others.  This reflects that society has evolved an understanding of things that blood bonds are important, and that men and women both have a contribution to make, including to parenting. There has been much talk of "studies", but I don't believe these are conclusive as they usually compare a very particular and untypical set of people with the whole population.

I'm not trying to get you to do anything - you do it to yourself as Radiohead would say. It was you who said that children from same sex couples would be excluded from enjoying the full human experience because of their parents. Own your words, Armaghniac. Blood bonds are of course, hugely important, but they are only one way that families are now organised and as has been made clear, abundantly now, that was a debate to be had before the passing of the Children and Family relationship act. You also dismiss the evidence on none side of the debate without producng any evidence on the impact that you say same sex marriage will have on children or even being able to articulate any of the disadvantages it will bring to heterosexual marriages, though you have clearly stated it will.

This would mean that all change is good, which is not true. And there has been an unhelpful association of this campaign with issues such as slavery, civil rights in NI, interracial marriage and a whole rake of things. These issues were not comparable, most of them were confined to one region or group, and said nothing about society generally.

Clearly not all change is good. But in the cases I cited, change clearly was good. And the issues are all clearly comparable - the ending of discrimination based on race, gender or sexuality in any region has clear implications for society as a whole. There is a direct line in inspiration and example say from Gandhi, to Martin Luther King to John Hume. A match struck in one region can flame across the globe and across generations. To say that is not true is to simply try and remove this debate from its rightful context - because who'd like to be on the wrong side of the arguments and icons above?

Procreation is only one of the benefits it brings, but it is an important one and it should be relegated to an importance of zero as those who claim "this has nothing to do with children" would contend. The State cannot make a distinction between a marriage without children and a marriage with children, which is why it should not extend the possibility of marriage to class of relationship for whom having children from the relationship is impossible.

Sorry armaghniac, but this is becoming embarassing - and these are your words!! If the State cannot make a distinction between childless marriages and ones with children, then it directly follows that there should be no exclusion based on the ability to have children. Going by your logic, the possibility of procreation is the criteria (which it is not under our constitution)- good luck with getting newly weds to do fertility tests before they sign the register.

My point was that the scale of legal intervention in marriage reflects the importance of children, not the adults. If children are now considered irrelevant than that scale of legal intervention is inappropriate and will probably be scaled back over time.

the scale of legal intervention in marriage reflects the importance of marriage as an institution. The first legal interventions come long before children or the possibility of children. Registering, name changes, tax status - all become available whether children are there or not. That has always been the way. Saying that this is changing, when it is not, is untrue and scaremongering.

Mixed race couples and mixed religion couple are a complete distraction.

No they are not - both were examples of marriages that were either not sanctioned by the catholic church (eg. Fethard) or banned by the state. They are completely relevant to the debate. Ignoring examples which detract from your argument is not honest debate.

As for the others, in any situation there will be individual variation, this does not  undermine the validity of the general thrust of the policy. The GAA may promote underage development squads to improve the quality of senior players, this policy is not invalidated by the fact the some of the these people do not choose to play in later life.

I literally do not have a clue what you mean.

[twohands!!!]

The only problem is getting voters out. Old people always vote in numbers which distorts things. The Church position will compound this. But if there is any decent turnout at all from the U-50s it should be easily carried.

I'm not sure the "older vote" especially the Church going crowd is as conservative as people think or as inclined to blindly follow what the bishops say as previously - have actually met a lot of older traditional weekly church going folk in the last few weeks and it's come up a fair amount that they are voting yes - been genuinely surprised by a couple of them. Even one old woman in her eighties who basically lives in the Church and kept referring to them as "the gays" who was adamant she's be voting Yes. (There was no malice or anything it's just that she hadn't the lingo down but I was cringing a bit.)  The likes of that priest in Donegal voting Yes and Sr Stan saying she is voting yes have made a massive difference to a lot of these folk.  If the Yes campaign had any sense, they would give the likes of these as much coverage as possible.