Marriage Equality Referendum - how will you vote?

[Charlie Darwin]

They have nothing against gay people, they don't thinks it's natural.

Which is blatently homophobic. As osarusan says, you don't need to lock up gays or spit on them in the street to be homophobic.

[DannyInvincible]

My mother and my in-laws are in their mid-60s and are voting No. I find it offensive to call them homophobic, they come from a different generation and back ground. A lot of people have their reasons to vote No but to label them all backward and homophobic is wrong. Some people just hold conservative views an/or their faith is important to them. It's like labeling everyone who votes Sinn Finn a terrorist sympathizer!!!!

That'd be a rather loaded accusation. I have another analogy. I don't bring them up for reasons of whataboutery - I simply think of them as an effective modern Irish (or British!) means of demonstrating the fallacy in your point and simultaneously acknowledge both sides in the north can be as guilty of irrational hate as the other whilst doing so - but the Orange Order are institutionally anti-Catholic and Protestant-supremacist. That's not just me saying that; the likes of judges and respected academics have expressed so on the basis of the Order's explicitly sectarian philosophy. Loyalists shout in defence, "but that's our culture". It might be their culture, but it doesn't make the Order and their triumphalist provocations any less sectarian. Now, I'm not saying your elders intentionally wish hatred upon gay people, but whilst their disapproving views may be based upon traditions from yesteryear - indeed, they'll say, "but that's just my faith/tradition" - it doesn't make the opinions any less insulting to gay people. No matter what their generation or culture, if people haven't thought enough about the opinions they hold, so as to ensure they are circumspect and logical, it's not anyone else's fault.

They come from a different generation, a generation that homosexuality wasn't the norm. Most of them don't hate gay people, they don't think that's it's natural.

But that's just inherently insulting and homophobic. Ignorant, lazy or casually-formed opinions (and we can all be guilty of them considering we're only human), rather than explicit expressions of hatred, can be just as offensive. For gay people (also of nature, like every other human being in existence), being gay feels like and is the most natural thing in the world.

Either way they aren't to pushed if the Yes vote wins.

Clearly that couldn't be true if they intend on voting 'no' with the aim of preventing a win for 'yes'.

Like most people they don't see the difference between civil partnerships and marriage.

They should research the crucial differences then before jumping to rash conclusions and making decisions of major significance to other people's lives and business on that basis.

[Macy]

Macy, you can disapprove of homosexuality and not be a homophobe.

No, it is not the very definition.

Definition of HOMOPHOBIA

: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

[GypsyBlackCat]

It's still a small percentage of the population (and I would guess it hasn't changed at all).


If you don't allow Muslims to marry, then yes you would be. Sounds like you're sectarian too.

I real hope that last sentence was joke. Not agreeing with someone's religion isn't sectarian. Judging a person solely on their religion is sectarian. I don't judge anyone on their religion, race and sex but by their character.

[GypsyBlackCat]

That'd be a rather loaded accusation. I have another analogy. I don't bring them up for reasons of whataboutery - I simply think of them as an effective modern Irish (or British!) means of demonstrating the fallacy in your point and simultaneously acknowledge both sides in the north can be as guilty of irrational hate as the other whilst doing so - but the Orange Order are institutionally anti-Catholic and Protestant-supremacist. That's not just me saying that; the likes of judges and respected academics have expressed so on the basis of the Order's explicitly sectarian philosophy. Loyalists shout in defence, "but that's our culture". It might be their culture, but it doesn't make the Order and their triumphalist provocations any less sectarian. Now, I'm not saying your elders intentionally wish hatred upon gay people, but whilst their disapproving views may be based upon traditions from yesteryear - indeed, they'll say, "but that's just my faith/tradition" - it doesn't make the opinions any less insulting to gay people. No matter what their generation or culture, if people haven't thought enough about the opinions they hold, so as to ensure they are circumspect and logical, it's not anyone else's fault.



But that's just inherently insulting and homophobic. Ignorant, lazy and casually-formed opinions (and we can all be guilty of that considering we're only human), rather than explicit expressions of hatred, can be just as offensive. For gay people (also of nature, like every other human being in existence), being gay feels like and is the most natural thing in the world.



Clearly that couldn't be true if they intend on voting 'no' with the aim of preventing a win for 'yes'.



They should research the crucial difference then before jumping to rash conclusions and making decisions of major significance to other people's lives and business on that basis.

I agree with a lot you say. I'm just pointing out the faults on both side (badly I might add!!). We seem to quick to lump people into one group. I could have used the line I've heard from the 'No' campaign (or some of them) that you can't be a Christian and gay. That isn't their place to judge. It might go against their faith, but as you said, it might feel natural.

If it was up to me we wouldn't have a referendum as I think the Government should have past the same-sex marriage bill a long time ago. And they should have made it clear that it's civil marriage not religious marriage they are looking to change. In 2015 it isn't hard to have a grown up referendum on the subject. Both sides should have being able to put their points across and debate the subject and let the people decide. Instead it has become a farce!!

End of rant!

[Mr A]

The real crux of a lot of the opposition is in my opinion discomfort or even disgust at the idea of two men having sex. I have yet to hear a No side campaigner who doesn't always mention the two man couple first, adding or two women often as an afterthought. In many cases there's almost a weird fixation there.

[osarusan]

two women .

But sure that's niiiiiiiiiiice.

[Dodge]

I real hope that last sentence was joke. Not agreeing with someone's religion isn't sectarian. Judging a person solely on their religion is sectarian. I don't judge anyone on their religion, race and sex but by their character.

You said you don't like a religion. You can call it whatever you like.

Anyway, we're off topic here.

Back to your parents not wanting wanting gays to marry...

[DannyInvincible]

I agree with a lot you say. I'm just pointing out the faults on both side (badly I might add!!). We seem to quick to lump people into one group. I could have used the line I've heard from the 'No' campaign (or some of them) that you can't be a Christian and gay. That isn't their place to judge. It might go against their faith, but as you said, it might feel natural.

Not only feels natural; it is natural.

If it was up to me we wouldn't have a referendum as I think the Government should have past the same-sex marriage bill a long time ago.

Indeed, perhaps it's a cop-out seeing as the Constitution doesn't actually define marriage as being between a man and a woman, thereby possibly already leaving open the possibility of recognising same-sex unions in law. There's the somewhat out-dated mention of the perceived role of woman and mothers in article 41, of course - so some would argue otherwise and, indeed, the judicial interpretation to date seems to view constitutional marriage as being of an opposite-sex nature - but it doesn't exactly say they are essential components of a family (the're just possibilities deemed worthy of explicit protection and, indeed, there's obviously no obligation imposed upon any wife to become a mother so as to be recognised as a part of a family), so I personally see no reason as to why the Constitution's definition of the family can't already include same-sex couples.

[GypsyBlackCat]

You said you don't like a religion. You can call it whatever you like.

Anyway, we're off topic here.

Back to your parents not wanting wanting gays to marry...

I should have said disagreeing with a Islam. Not liking a religion isn't sectarian. If that's the case then all atheists are sectarian and we should lock up Ricky Gervais for making jokes about the Bible?!

[GypsyBlackCat]

Not only feels natural; it is natural.



Indeed, perhaps it's a cop-out seeing as the Constitution doesn't actually define marriage as being between a man and a woman, thereby possibly already leaving open the possibility of recognising same-sex unions in law. There's the somewhat out-dated mention of the perceived role of woman and mothers in article 41, of course - so some would argue otherwise and, indeed, the judicial interpretation to date seems to view constitutional marriage as being of an opposite-sex nature - but it doesn't exactly say they are essential components of a family (the're just possibilities deemed worthy of explicit protection and, indeed, there's obviously no obligation imposed upon any wife to become a mother), so I personally see no reason as to why the Constitution's definition of the family can't already include same-sex couples.

Well said.

Anyway, it doesn't matter if you and me think it's natural or not. If it's natural and normal to a individual then it's no one else business!

[Dodge]

I should have said disagreeing with a Islam. Not liking a religion isn't sectarian. If that's the case then all atheists are sectarian and we should lock up Ricky Gervais for making jokes about the Bible?!

He should be locked up for being a ****ing eejit, but "not liking" one religion is quite different to not believing in organised religion.

[SkStu]

Get a life Jews!

[culloty82]

The key question seems to be whether the 18-30s have registered and will vote?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/polit...ndum-1.2214674

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

I'm against the way the yes proponents are forcing their views on others. They were in Penney's the other day handing leaflets to everyone in the shop and badgering customers and employees. People should be given the space to make up their own minds on the issue.

Anyone from the yes side that I've heard speak or debate on the issue has being completely discourteous and arrogant towards the person speaking from the other side.

This, also, rankles me.

[jinxy lilywhite]

Going to vote yes. When it first came out that we were going to vote on this about a year and a half ago my initial reaction was that I would vote no. Though the more I thought about it the more I didn't see any logic in it.
The arguments from the no don't make any sense and they keep bringing up aspects that bear no relevance to the campaign. Also the more I hear them talk the more convinced that I am that yes is the correct decision.
One no campaigner called to my door the other night and literally apart her saying it was unnaturally and they could not procreate without a 3rd party involved. I pointed out that I know many a childless marriages and is their marriage diluted because they don't by choice or by circumstance not have any children. She was speechless and then the "everything needs a father and a mother". I did inform her that I am a single parent, that my 2 year old hasn't seen her mother since she was 6 months. She did look aghast but I told her my preference was to vote yes.

It doesn't wash with me either that people use " different generation " lark. It is unacceptable to call someone a ****** or a yid even more so to think of them as lesser than us and it is certainly unacceptable to deny a couple of the same sex the right to get married

[DannyInvincible]

I'm against the way the yes proponents are forcing their views on others. They were in Penney's the other day handing leaflets to everyone in the shop and badgering customers and employees. People should be given the space to make up their own minds on the issue.

Anyone from the yes side that I've heard speak or debate on the issue has being completely discourteous and arrogant towards the person speaking from the other side.

This, also, rankles me.

Whilst wrong, forcing one's views upon others is not inherent to the 'yes' campaign or vote, however, is it? It's a practical shortcoming and disappointing to see if it occurs (I don't doubt that it does), but the over-riding philosophy behind 'yes' is theoretically one of tolerance (despite the practical intolerance of what you've witnessed) and respect for diversity. In what way were they badgering customers and employess, by the way? Were they actually doing anything more than simply handing out leaflets and making a short statement of support to by-passers?

On the other hand, forcing your views onto other people's personal lives, even when it has no impact upon your life whatsoever, is inherent to the 'no' case; it is essentially what a 'no' vote encompasses as it would directly impinge and enforce discrimination upon a certain section of Irish society and their access to a set of rights available to most if they ever wish to avail of them.

You're surely not voting 'no' because of campaigning methods of the 'yes' side you've witnessed?

I'm not sure your portrayal is entirely accurate anyway, as if it is the only way the 'yes' side have been getting their points across. I watched the debate on the 'Late Late' and another on 'Prime Time' last week; I didn't see anything that out-of-order really from either side. The respective views were expressed respectfully. I'm not in Ireland, granted, so I've not got that sort-of-intuitive or passing feel you get when you are in the country for what's being said around the community, in the local papers, on the radio phone-ins and on the day-to-day news broadcasts.

[NeverFeltBetter]

The only people I've seen peddling the "People should be free to make up their own minds" are "No" supporters. It's the classic response to being an apparent minority, to claim that the other side campaigning and trying to convince voters to their way of thinking is somehow immoral. Everyone is making up their own mind.

[IsMiseSean]

I'm against the way the yes proponents are forcing their views on others. They were in Penney's the other day handing leaflets to everyone in the shop and badgering customers and employees. People should be given the space to make up their own minds on the issue.

That's nonsense...
The same can be said about the No campaign. I've had No leaflets handed to me in Shopping Centres in Galway. Priests/Bishops up & down the country badgered people at masses today to vote No.
The whole point of a campaign is to push your side of the argument.

[DannyInvincible]

An old tutor of mine completely debunks inaccurate claims by an old lecturer (as well as the likes of the Iona Institute and the 'no' camp generally) that the marriage amendment will affect children, surrogacy and religious freedom: http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/wi...edom-1.2214358

...

This referendum, if passed, would have two effects. Most obviously, gay people could get married. Related to this, the Oireachtas would no longer be able, solely on the ground that they are of the same sex, to discriminate against gay couples.

Change vs continuity

However, the Oireachtas would retain its power to legislate to protect the best interests of children; and the courts would still have to decide on the basis of each child’s best interests. Such legislation and decisions would be constitutional even if unfavourable to same-sex couples. The Oireachtas would keep the same broad power to regulate or prohibit surrogacy. And freedom of religious conscience – always strongly protected by the courts – would remain unaffected. It is for each voter to decide whether this combination of change and continuity is desirable.

Well worth reading the entire article; he sets out the facts with great clarity. I'm surprised William Binchy, a very highly-esteemed family law professor, amongst other specialisms, has been adding serious academic weight, by virtue of his standing rather than his intellectual contribution, to the most popular and misleading arguments in favour of a 'yes' vote.

I understand that the Minister for Justice and the Chairman of the Referendum Commission have both stated that marriage won't actually be redefined by the passing of the referendum proposal either, which is in line with my own thinking on the matter, but it make you wonder why a referendum and proposed constitutional amendment are necessary at all in order to introduce marital equality when the likelihood is that fully viable and constitutional legislation could be tabled tomorrow to recognise marital rights for same-sex couples if someone wanted to propose it.