Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A NEW POLL shows 76% support for same-sex marriage in Ireland, ahead of this summer’s referendum.
The Red C poll was carried out by phone among 1002 people. The referendum will be held in May.
It shows that 81% of women and 72% of men polled supported marriage for same-sex couples. People aged 18 – 24 were most likely to support it, with support generally declining as the age of those polled increased.
The news has been welcomed by Ireland’s human rights watchdog, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties. Its director, Mark Kelly, said that the poll ”is further evidence of the deep repository of goodwill amongst voters in Ireland towards full equality for same sex couples.”
Labour Party TD for Dublin North West and Co-Chair of Labour LGBT, John Lyons, also welcomed the poll.
“Today’s poll builds upon consecutive national polls which show consistent support to afford gay and lesbian couples the right to civil marriage,” he said.
He described it as “important for anyone who supports marriage equality to not become complacent”.
Strong support in polls does not mean a done deal, particularly when it comes to referenda.
To read the full details from today’s opinion poll – the first of the year – read our earlier article here.
First published 6.14pm
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Now just don’t forget to vote when the time comes!
But the Enda factor is going to work against those who want this – everything he touches sours ..
“The right of a child to a mother and a father”
Eh you do know that having children is neither a requirement of or a prerequisite for marriage?
So with that in mind what have children got to do with the issue?
Praise Hope: The commentator who has previously revered the Iona “Institute” and announced on here that Fianna Fáil is the party for him/her. Anybody with that warped of a mindset in common with him/her should go ahead and hold steadfast to these views.
Everyone else, care to pick apart this seemingly-reasonable but well-trodden pseudo-utopian claptrap?
“It’s not discrimination to treat different situation differently”
You wouldn’t be saying that if the thing that changed the situation was skin colour, would you?
In fact, if someone was to treat you differently because you were black (remember – there used to be laws against interracial marriage too) then there would be uproar, because it IS discrimination, it’s racist.
Things don’t stop being discrimination because you say so.
Ps – the only time consumption is ever actually checked or asked about is if you wish to dissolve the marriage. No one goes around after the ceremony to ensure the marriage has been consummated. It’s what you would call a moot point.
Shanti, the gay ‘marriage’ crowd need to stop trying to hijack the civil rights movement. There is no scientific evidence that people are born gay, unlike skin colour or race. Gays should of course have property rights etc but diminishing a centuries old institution is not the way. There are gay people on both sides of this debate.
@Praise Hope: But few are as breathtakingly ignorant as your cyber anonymity allows you to behave.
People in glass houses and all that!
I don’t get the argument that marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman. It’s a word, if it needs to be redefined, redefine it. Allowing gay people to marry doesn’t change anything for straight people. We can still get married, we can still do all the things we could do. What exactly is the problem with allowing gay people to marry? Apart from it not fitting the definition of the word they use in their argument, how or why is it an issue?
Show me one, Praise Hope?
Show me one gay person who thinks marriage equality is a bad thing, for them and society.
There’s no evidence you’re born heterosexual.
And there’s evidence all over the natural world of homosexuality, which leads science to conclude that it’s a natural phenomenon.
Unlike homophobia. Which is only observed in people who choose to discriminate against people because of who they are attracted to.
Paddy Manning and Richard Waghorne. There’s two.
Natural phenomenon or abnormalities in other words? Just because two penguins might be gay does not mean we should legislate and destroy a millennium old institution.
Praise Hope, both are true eccentrics.
They seek to provoke and to achieve notoriety from a right wing and reactionary position, which is their legitimate entitlement. I doubt that they present the views of the majority of homosexual people.
As I see it, their position is more ideologically driven than social, equality or justice driven.
Ah bless, Praise seems to be a bit confused!
No one told them that straight couples will still be allowed to marry….
How exactly is it destroying an institution? If it allows more people into that institution what’s the problem? It’s not saying straight people can no longer join this institution, so what exactly are you afraid of?
The only thing that can mess this one up is for the govt parties to come out in major support of the bill! The protest vote might just beat what the gays want
The amount of people getting married is decreasing year on year. Making it an archaic institution, allergic to change will destroy it. Praise hope hasn’t a clue unfortunately.
Extending marriage will not destroy it, nor will it redefine it.
Consummation is nobodies business and is a draconian element to marriage.
Children are not a prerequisite for marriage and marriage is not a prerequisite for children.
Children do not have a right to a mother or father. If that was the case, absent parents would be arrested.
Praise, as ever you are clutching at straws. Not one of your points is solid. Try again.
Praise.
That “centuries old institution” has changed several times..
It’s no longer about property for a start. In this country you generally get to choose who you marry rather than being sold off with some land and cattle. You can get divorced now too.
Surely – if anything was going to “destroy” the institution of marriage it would be divorce? Given that divorce is in itself the destruction of a marriage.
For what it’s worth, discrimination is treating one person less favourably than another person has been, would be or is treated on the basis of 9 grounds, one of which is sexuality. So yeah, it is discrimination.
Praise Hope
You say people are not born gay. This implies we have a choice about our sexualities. Perhaps you might tell us when you decided you were heterosexual? What age were you when you made this choice? Or did it just come naturally………anybody with a brain can fill in the rest of this Socratic comment!
We’re talking about human rights you poppy. ….penguin!
@Praise Hope
Just FYI, marriage existed WAAAAAAYYYYY before Catholicism. And will exist WAAAAAAYYYYYY after it goes the way of the dinosaurs.
In this instance, gay people are not campaigning to get married in a Catholic church. That is something that is still preserved for believers and the church is under no obligation right now to offer marriage for gay people.
But the state is bigger than the Catholic church. And even if the Catholic church did not exist, the state would and marriage would still happen. Marriage is not just for the preserve of religious people. And it’s not just for the preserve of people who intend to have children.
Gay people getting married will not change a single thing for straight people. Not. A. Single. Thing. Except for navel gazing perhaps and a SHOCKING amount of privilege.
@Praise, you state ” there are gay people on both sides of this debate” what do you reckon the percentages are on both sides?
Outstanding reply!!!!
Yawn. How’s Goodluck getting on with finding those schoolgirls? Anything yet?
@Martin
Don’t be a d**k. If you find the issue snore-worthy, please ignore it. It’s MASSIVELY important to many people and it’s massively important to Ireland as a whole.
And it’s possible to care about multiple issues at once, as you have clearly demonstrated by both your avatar about the Paris attacks and your comment about the events in Nigeria.
@Praise Hope
” A same sex ‘marriage’ cannot be consummated”
That’s not true! There are LOADS of videos online of 2 same gendered people consummating their love for each other! Some of them you have to pay a monthly subscription for but research is research!!
Enlightenment from John everyman
Children have nothing to do with marriage issues….
This must get the prize of the week from the excellent Journal.ie
@Donal: Seems you’re deliberately misunderstanding his comment. What he meant was that family law is being reviewed completely separately by the Oireachtas. It will be amended by legislation in the coming months. The Referendum on the other hand will concern Marriage Equality ONLY and the right of every citizen to enter into a State-recognised contract of marriage.
Whether the referendum fails or succeeds will not impact on the Government legislating for the eighths of children in non-traditional relationship (straight or gay). This is stated Government policy:
http://www.thejournal.ie/same-sex-marriage-debate-dail-1228224-Dec2013/
Praise Hope
By your definition I chose to be trans* and lesbian, can you give me one logical reason why I would do so?
Why I would willingly choose to be insulted, belittled, harassed, ridiculed or worse just because of my gender and sexuality?
Can you explain to me, why the suicide rate of LGBT people and especially LGBT teens is so significantly higher than that of heterosexual people?
@Larissa
I can’t fathom people who believe that sexuality is a choice. Like you say, why would anyone CHOOSE to be LGBTQ? Why would anyone deliberately put themselves in firing line of prejudice and hate? Why would anyone go down that road if they had a choice?
It boggles the mind that there’s such a disconnect in the thought patterns of people who believe this.
Pomtius,
I think what you are describing might be the quintessential definition of being bisexual.
Sorry for the double post, missed the correct comment I was referring to.
It’s not a choice its just who you are and everyone should be accepted for who they are .
The definition of the word ‘marriage’ has always meant between man and woman. I guess that is true for corresponding words in other languages too. What I cannot understand is why the gay community are so transfixed on hijacking that particular word, rather than having parralel rights. For me, that mixes sameness up with equality.
The difference in same-sex partnership, IS that they are the same sex. I’m guessing I’m in the minority, but I’d rather see the word ‘marraige’ keep it’s discrptive nature, and it’s commonality with other languages.
Gordon, “mixing sameness up with equality”? What does that even mean? No two opposite-sex married couples are the same, but they are all equal in the eyes of the law. Same-sex couples want the same rights, that’s all.
An even better point would be polygamy, or incest.
The obvious answer here is that an animal cannot understand the terms of a social contract and as such is not able to provide informed consent, but the polygamy argument is absolutely impossible to circumvent (if our interlocutor would be honest, sadly many supporters of same-sex “marriage” are not).
If it is determined that love and commitment should be the sole driving force behind state and federal marriage laws, then it is utterly and completely illogical to deny five people who love one another the right to marry as a group. Anyone who suggests otherwise is suggesting that government should play favorites and show prejudice.
If two men can marry, despite having no biological ability to reproduce (which some argue is the government’s stake in heterosexual marriage) and without having both genders represented as role models in the household (which others argue is the government’s stake in heterosexual marriage), then certainly two men and a woman can marry.
No one can credibly argue that three people cannot be in love – government should not play favorites or show prejudice.
@praise hope no scientific evidence people are born gay. Hahahahahahahahahahaha good one. Now stop hiding behind a fake profile!!!!
I am now utterly convinced that Praise Hope is secretly campaigning for SSM and not against; arguments like this make the anti-SSM camp sound so insanely stupid.
You go, Praise Hope! Keep up the great undercover work!
Michael, you are 31 years old and your profile pic is of you in a school uniform….creepy!
Jane, care to address the points I raised?
Pontius, so you and your wife make up the B in the Lgbt sandwich but aren’t you then in one of those sham marriages your community is always crying about and being *forced* into??
Children don’t come from marriage certificates, they come from something else entirely.
You should have been paying attention in your biology classes back at school.
Pontius , I admire your honesty and from the sounds of it you are your wife have a great relationship .
*and*
Don’t feed the Trolls.
Praise, you’ve had all the answer from me that your insane post deserved. I won’t dignify it by going into it; but seriously, is that the best you can do?
@Praise Hop
“If we introduce marriage equality it will lead to incest or polygamy”
That’s a logical fallacy and as such I have to give you this!
I accidentally green-thumbed one of Praise’s comments which is lacking in an intelligible meaning, and now I can’t undo it.
I feel so dirty.
Praise Hope
You never answered to any of the questions that I asked you.
@Larissa: Not will s/he. If you look closely at the avatar you’ll see that the lady clings to a “Holy Bible”.
I suspect @Praise Hope is the same persona as the individual who has a fixation for this topic both on here and on sister site boards.ie; the same persona who routinely retires anonymous Twitter profile names and re-registers new ones using the naming technique. “Phil Ewinn” being a previous example.
Its not worth your energy arguing with this devoted (devout?) troll. But what s/he hasn’t realised yet is that its not worth his/her time arguing with us.
Oh the shame, winding! ;)
I’m not a he/she nor have I ever had any other Twitter profile. Larissa, I am not very familiar with transgender issues but I wish you the best.
I also don’t use boards nor am I a troll. I have a traditional upbringing and I want to protect that for future generations.
And that’s another logical fallacy Praise, this time the appeal to tradition.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-tradition.html
Marriage used to be about selling women – is that what you advocate?
“There is no scientific evidence that people are born gay” Yes there is, studies have shown that there is in fact a gay gene.
A point: In the United States the divorce rate in the states that allow gay marriage is 20 percent lower than in states that prohibit it. In the state with the lowest divorce rate, Massachusetts, was also the first state to legalize same-sex marriage, in 2004 and Massachusetts divorce rate has actually declined since then.Of the states with the highest divorce rates, all ban gays and lesbians from marrying.
Yes that may be true shanti along with child brides and all the rest. All very awful things but I think they have one thing in common: they were marriages involving 1 man and 1 woman. Genders are two and complement each other.
That’s perhaps the weakest argument I have ever heard Praise, seriously it is..
Just because something has always been one way does not mean that way is automatically better. That’s what the appeal to tradition fallacy is all about.
Who are you to decide that a homosexual relationship is not worthy? How do you know the depth and nature of a homosexual relationship? And most importantly – do you honestly feel you should be in a position to judge?
Praise Hope
There are more than just two genders. What about us trans* people for instance, why is there a requirement for a transwoman to divorce her wife, just because she transitioned?
Larissa as I said I am not familiar with transgender issues. However, yes I would agree with the experts in this area and any person with gender identity issues should have the option of surgery and/or treatment. I never considered the divorce aspect and if both parties are Ok with it then I don’t see the issue as they are already married and should be continued to remain so should they wish. I would worry about any children involved if they are not old enough to understand what is going on.
I am not anyone to decide and I am not deciding on the relationship. They should be free to have a relationship and a civil union/partnership with all the security and benefits of a heterosexual marriage.
Praise Hope
But then why are you so dead set against two people of the same gender marrying? It would be no different than this, it would be a marriage between two women or two men who love and care for each other.
And just putting this out here, but you would be surprised what children can actually understand
Praise.
You say yourself – they should be entitled to the same things as married couples, which is the exact reason why there is a campaign for marriage equality.
Civil partnership is nowhere near the same as marriage, there’s 160 differences, some of which may be considered minor but can be rather huge when they affect you personally (like, your partner is American and even if you enter a civil partnership – it doesn’t help their case for citizenship.. Whereas if you married it would – how is that fair? Some civil partners have been refused access to their loved ones while they were sick in hospital, that’s not right I’m sure you would agree).
So if everyone should have the same rights in their relationship – why oppose marriage equality? The word itself isn’t the issue here – the associated rights are. And if everyone had the same rights, why have two words to describe the same thing?
At present trans people’s marriages are deemed illegal because their birth certs weren’t changed, forcing divorces where they are neither requested or required.. The whole situation is a mess, perhaps people should be allowed to decide for themselves who they wish to marry, and the rest of us should just accept that (provided they did so with mutual consent).
I always thought live was something to be cherished and encouraged, opposing marriage equality suggests that it is not – and division is instead.
Love to be cherished.. Not live!!
Live should be cherished too :) xx
“Praise Hope” wrote, “A same sex ‘marriage’ cannot be consummated.”
Readers who would like to see the scientific evidence for why anti-gay posters are so obsessed with what they IMAGINE same gender couples do in private should Google “Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.”
Shanti, to be honest it just does not sit right with me. It’s the raising of children I mostly have a concern with. You are right that if I think the same benefits should be open to gay couples but I do worry that what’s next for society? If we keep saying each group deserves respect and rights where will we end up? You have given me a lot to think about and it is not easy to reconcile your beliefs with a deeply traditional upbringing and belief system. For people like Larissa, I am more certain, I agree with experts that they were born in the wrong gender. With homosexual, which I once abhorred, I now believe they should have respect and every legal safety available to them. I am also sorry for some of the things I have said, I have since educated myself a little. However, I still struggle with the marriage issue. Yes, I may be homophobic to you but my personal upbringing and relationship with the church, which is a large urban diocese, means ssm is detrimental to society.
Look Praise, I get it. Traditional household is usually a synonym for “house where you accept what you’re told as fact and questioning is off the agenda”.
But when you start questioning you realise that not everything we were told growing up was fact.
At one point homosexuals were criminals, this persisted up until the 90s. So prior to then we heard all sorts of sordid tabloidesque details and shock stories. The thing is – like everything else in a tabloid, it’s just a hyped up stereotype, it doesn’t apply to the majority – who are just ordinary folk like you and me. They’re much loved family members, perhaps the kids favourite aunt or uncle, or even mummies and daddies. Brothers and sisters – friends, cousins – they’re people.
And they are as likely to be good at parenting or suck at parenting as anybody else. Plenty of heterosexual parents suck too, being a man and a woman doesn’t automatically confer magical parenting abilities over gay couples..
The thing is, if they’re applying for adoption they will be thoroughly screened first. If the child is one of theirs naturally then they deserve to have legal recognition of their relationship, to protect them should something go wrong with the biological parent. What is wrong with that?
Ultimately – we should be realising that we are all human, and as capable of good or bad as anyone else, this prejudice against gay people as parents is based upon nothing besides assumption – and that is simply irrational.
@Praise:
I’d like to put my hand up and congratulate you for the steps you appear to be taking to understand and tolerate homosexuality. It’s about time ;)
Every generation has an opportunity to remould society in its own age; if theJournal had existed in 18th Century Ireland we would be here debating whether the ban on a Catholic marrying a Protestant should be repealed. Imagine, yes, that was a thing under the Penal laws!
And that’s the point. The sky didn’t fall when it changed and won’t fall either when this change happens. As we grow as a society we grow in our understanding of what is unfair and what is discriminatory. Generations change, so do traditions. Come cross the rubicon on this issue with us, @Praise. Most of Irish Society has already!
Praise
Thank you for being so honest and that you have started to think about all the issues we have brought up.
I can respect and understand if you still struggle to combine same sex marriage with your personal upbringing, but I sincerely hope that you will come to the conclusion that SSM is not detrimental but quite contrary, a step forward for society.
LOL
How are kids losing that right? Same sex couples don’t take kids away from otherwise capable straight parents; that’s not how marriage works.
And consummation just means having sex. Sorry you missed that day in middle school, but guys can do that too. Have fun being on the wrong side of history.
Good to see the support, roll on voting day.
Looks like the younger the age group the more open and accepting they are and probably better educated too, the older ones grew up listening to the hate spouted by people claiming to be speaking for God.
Yea, no one over 24 has an education. Only thing is 18-24 are the least likely to actually vote too.
I’m 30 and proudly voting no ….! 3rd level degree also
As a 65 year old I take grave exception to the comment that older people are less receptive to the proposal. Young people do not have a monopoly on this issue. Older people might be wiser and less judgemental.
Care to tell us why you’ll be cm voting No
As a straight person I’d be proud to vote yes because it would mark a significant positive milestone for the country, it’ll help cast off some of the dirt remaining from our days as a god fearing, small minded nation.
I’m just curious why you’d be proud to vote no, you’re certainly entitled to vote this way and I won’t try and change your mind, just genuinely curious as to what part of it would make you feel proud
Just commenting on the age groups and results, said more accepting not the only group accepting. I know people in their 70′s that I’d classify as open and accepting and clearly there are people in their 30′s that are not and they may change as they mature and experience more in life.
If two people want to get married and share the rest of their lives together let them do it.it won’t make one bit difference to me if two girls or men get married.but was is annoying me is all this talk about wether it should be voted through or not
Jason – I might be derping, but are you being serious that you think nobody over 24 has an education? I’m 24, I do just wonder what younger people reckon about what is going on
Well Johnny Boy, your education has obviously failed you or you don’t have the intelligence to realize that by voting Yes you will demonstrate that all those years at 3rd level won’t have been wasted -
Mike Howard, it’s your opinion. I hope to be the last one standing for sanity and humanity, as society runs down the drain morally and ethically. The dogs in the street would know better than so called civilised human beings…!
Hey Johnny, do you see something morally and ethically wrong with gay people wanting to get married? If so, can you tell me why?
Johnny, what is morally and ethically wrong about to comsenting adults habing a private relationship and privately making it legal?
Jonnie boy, education and enlightenment are different.
Respect for your 3rd level degree.
I’m relatively new to the Journal. I posted the comment above and after an hour, it has been deleted.
I posted the comment again in identical words and it did not post.
Then I separated into two paragraphs and it successfully posted.
Puzzling?
@Johnny Boy
“I hope to be the last one standing for sanity and humanity, as society runs down the drain morally and ethically. The dogs in the street would know better than so called civilised human beings…!”
Many of those “so called civilised human beings” you mention are straight, married and have children. Most of the terrible things that humans do to each other in this world are done by people who are straight. So spare me the holier than thou attitude. It’s a white elephant.
And the false equivalence.. Gotta love the fact that there is no argument against marriage equality that is not a logical fallacy.
@Johnny boy
Ha! You’re seriously dragging that argument onto this forum? You’re either trolling to get a bite from people or you seriously believe that people want to marry their dog, cat or donkey.
I’ll spell out the difference for you if it’s the latter.
Gay people who want to marry should be able to do so because they can consent, freely and willfully. A person cannot marry (or have sex with )an animal because the animal cannot consent.
Also, plenty of gay people are campaigning for same sex marriage. I have yet to hear about one person campaigning to marry their cat/dog/donkey/buffalo/goldfish/uncle/favourite jumper.
Have you?
Associating homosexuality with bestiality? Stay classy, Johnny.
Hi Johnny, I asked a question. Would you mind answering? Or are you purposely avoiding it?
A) you clearly do not understand the meaning of defamation.
B) who defined it as being about a woman and a man and for the continuation of the species?
And
C) Isn’t affording less rights to one subset morally wrong?
@Johny
“Marriage is the union celebration till death due part of a man and woman, as nature intended, for the proposed continuation of the species, ssm don’t fit the bill…”
You’re describing MATRIMONY which is an entirely different animal to marriage.
And where do you stand on men and women who get married but deliberately decide not to have children? Are they going against what nature intends?
“…Civil partnership is available for homo community.”
And you deciding to lock yourself away in a small box for the rest of time so that you never engage with another human being is available for you. But I wouldn’t campaign for it, despite how much I disagree with your views.
Do you see the difference?
Yaaay! The ‘What’s Next’ argument. I missed it so much!
Why what’s next! Will a man be allowed to marry…. A SANDWICH!
1. Nature doesn’t “intend” anything, it’s not conscious.
This would be the appeal to nature fallacy.
2. “Til death do us part” doesn’t actually apply anymore – divorce is legal. Voted in by referendum. It’s also a line from the matrimony service – which is a religious institution, not a civil one – we are discussing civil marriage, religion is a red herring, which means it’s a logical fallacy.
3. The species would continue whether marriage existed or not. Questionable cause fallacy.
4. Civil Partnership does not grant equality – same sex relationships are still discriminated against on a range of issues.
5. Like Ailbhe pointed out – you don’t seem to understand what defamation is, that’s not a fallacy, it’s just a error of grammar.
Care to see if you can come up with a robust and non fallacious argument against equality?
The birds and bees and LGBTs
The referendom commission will explain in detail exactly what citizens are voting on.
The politicians will explain and make available the sex education text books on L G B T .
The parents who rush to the polling booths may stampede to schools to ensure their children absorb these new text books on LGBT sex education.
We are presented with a referendum on same sex contract to marry.
And explanations from the referendum commission so that all voters understand what exactly L G B T means and what exactly the effect on marriage as a heterosexual contract will be.
The Supreme court in the USA have not decided to permit same sex marriage.
The problem revolves around lack of justification and that arguments for law on same sex marriage cannot be plucked out of thin air.
Interesting times ahead and the red c poll was commissioned by…?
And paid for by…?
Then the Christian Churches must preach the Church teachings.
Politicians will run with any opinion which looks like a winner in desperare panic vote chasing. Text books and child education and adult education on LGBT is for others to resolve.
Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman and their children.
Why do LGBTs want this contract and why not seek out their own contract with all relevant parts of the marriage contract included?
Lets call the contract Mars for LGBT
And Marriage to remain for heterosexuals.
All equal rights to be included.
Referendum nil
Satire
Dandahan4
I say NO to human-sandwich marriages, Martin! Unless of course they’re made with wholemeal bread. More wholesome, you know.
Procreation NOT marriage is nature’s way of ensuring survival of the species and there is no argument that this is only possible between man and woman however this is not what this referendum is about. This referendum is about legally recognising the wishes of two adults who love each other and the tone of your comment suggests that you are of the opinion that the fact that a gay or lesbian couple cannot naturally conceive children in some way defames the institution of marraige!?!if that is the basis for your argument then is the difference in childless heterosexual marriages?!The yes vote will not suddenly convert heterosexuals into homosexuals and likewise a no vote is not going to prevent two people who have the right to love each other from being together so your preservation of the race argument is based on your own ideologies of morality as opposed to facts. What is factual however is that you will come out on voting day, most likely one of the few times you have utilised that right,not for voicing your opinion, which is unfounded, but rather for the sole purpose of being a thorn-in the-side of equality
@Johnny
“Can two men make a baby?”
Again, I ask, what is your stance on a man and woman who decide not to have children? Or who CAN’T have children? Is their marriage less of a marriage.
It’s a genuine question. I really do want to know your stance on it.
“Where is society I ask, in the gutter I answer”
If you ask AND answer you’re own question, you’re talking to yourself.
Maybe THAT’S why your argument against Marriage Equality can be easily picked apart!!
You would swear these gay people wanted to be treated like people eh? Where do they get off expecting to not be treated differently solely because they are gay eh?
Isn’t that what you are getting at?
Florence any man and woman who needs help medically of course deserves all help possible….
I rate that question dodge a 10 or a “Michael Howard”!!
Again Johnny you avoid responding to me. Are you avoiding points that you cannot refute?
Johnny, I’m sure that child’s mother answered in a rational, age-appropriate manner. Exactly as I have always done with my daughter since she was old enough to ask such questions, at about the age of 3.
@Johnny
That simply doesn’t answer my question. What is your stance on marriage between people (male and female) who CHOOSE not to have children together or who cannot (even with medical help)?
Gay people should be allowed tpo do what ever they want but marriage can onlynlbe between a male and female. Now if gay want to hijack that term, thats ok, lets call the the union between a woman and a man who want to have children and raise a family naturally, something else. Problem is, gay people wouldn’t be happy with that either.
Jack
“Marriage can only be between a man and a woman.”
Why?
Jack, by your logic, married couples with no kids by either choice or circumstance will have to stop saying they’re married and choosr another term.
Journal debates end up in mass deletion of comments that don’t suit the pro ssm agenda
Journal debates end up with racist/inflammatory comments or comments that personally attack people being deleted. Try reading the comment guidelines.
Johnny, you STILL haven’t addressed the points I put to you, including a question. I can only conclude that you are avoiding it purposely, which means my points are right and you cannot refute them.
Jane no inflammatory racist or personal attacks where made at anyone, some ssm promoters might not like the comments they see and go shouting referee and foul straight away, thus free speech is dead, as is public morals and ethics …… Ailbhe, ya what
Basic English Johnny, read again, slowly.
I have not had any comments deleted and I am very much on the anti side.
Wishful thinking, Johnny. I’d never report a comment just because I disagreed with it, I’d rather leave the whole debate public. Even if someone did report a comment just for that reason the Journal wouldn’t take it down unless it breached policy.
I know you prefer a good conspiracy theory, but the journal seems to be having a few glitches at the moment. It could be nothing more than an accident.
That’s definitely true, but it’s also true that younger people are more likely to know gay people and therefore will be supportive than people who in many cases have lived their lives being told that gay people are mentally ill.
Gonna invite the Iona Institute to my Big Fat Gay Wedding. Everyone loves a good joke during the toast.
I’m all for equality but gay marraige is a step too far.
Maraige is blessed by God between a man and a women
Gary Gary the marriage buzz is older than your religion, assuming your god is a christian one.
Well then you’re not for equality are you.
What god is that exactly? If you were born in Pakistan what god would you believe in ?
You’re not “all for equality”, then.
The Lord of Light is the one true god
Between a man and a women? Isn’t that called polygamy?
Says who Gary??? Don’t believe everything you read.
That’s not true, our God Thor never blessed marriage !
Honey, if your basis for me not getting married is an unseen carpenter’s Dad… You don’t get to talk. Go away now.
I am a dudeist priest. The dude abides this referendum. Peace
7 blessings on you Lord Mitchell.
John dole, there are Christians in Pakistan too. Why assume that if you are born there that you are Muslim? You may also be Hindu. Very subtle bigotry.
Gary you are 100 per cent correct
@Johnny: Gary is correct to let his own fanatical religious belief stand in the way of somebody else’s civil rights? Happily the outcome of this poll shows that I hardly need to point out why that is so incompatible with living in a Republic – most people can see why, including the Church of Ireland who are calling for its approval.
Which renders you both increasingly isolated minority viewpoint holders.
Hats off to Gary,I count at least 13 little fishies he caught with a relatively small net
Ok Gary, you can keep ‘maraige’ for yourself. The rest of us will have marriage available to everyone.
The union that is blessed by God is called matrimony.
Civil marriage is a legal contract and has absolutely nothing to do with God.
If you are joined in holy matrimony and blessed by God, it doesn’t mean squat unless you sign the civil marriage register. Likewise – you can have a civil marriage ceremony with no God mentioned – but you do sign the marriage register which makes it legal.
You are free to oppose gay people joining in matrimony, that is entirely related to your religion and you are welcome to keep it as is – but if God is your reason for wanting to vote no in the matter of CIVIL marriage, then you are permitting your religion to overstep it’s boundaries.
Your religion is yours, it is a choice and not everyone shares it. The institution of marriage is non denominational. It is a contract between the two parties and the state – not God.
This is a crucial fact that many need to realise before we get to the referendum.
Thx bbz xo
Not if you’re atheist its not. Or am I not allowed marry??
There was no imaginary deity involved in my marriage, it was registry office all the way. It’ll be just the same for same-sex couples. No-one is asking to be married in your church.
Beware of the Red Woman, The Lord of Light is always present.. even in registry offices
@ Shanti
Actually if you are referring to the Catholic sacrament it is called ‘The Sacrament of Marriage’.
Is it?
So why do they call it a matrimonial service? Why are you bound in “holy matrimony”?
One way or the other – the fact still stands – if you get married in a church it doesn’t mean anything legally unless you sign the CIVIL register. Non religious people can sign this register, as can any couole of any other faith or even mixed faiths.
Religious marriage and civil marriage are very different things and the distinction needs to be made very clear, lest the red herring of religion be used as another fallacious argument against people being treated like the human beings they are.
Gary – there’s no god. There never was. So your point is moot.
Martin
I don’t begrudge Gary his belief in god, quite on the contrary, I would defend his right to belief whatever he does with my last breath.
What I have issues with is him forcing his belief on others and using it as an excuse to spread hate.
Great result, and here’s hoping those numbers stay that high come May.
What’s the betting some anti-equality whinger will complain to the BAI that poll didn’t give equal results for “balance”
Me thinks that the opinion giving to a cold call researcher might be very different to the opinion people wish to express within the sanctitiy of the ballot box. Remember its high treason to speak against liberal doctrine, people are very careful about expressing non pc views in public nowadays. Poll says 76%, I think it could be closer to 50-50 on the day.
You know nothing, Jon Snow.
Time will tell Lady Chainsaw
I would say that supporting marriage equality has nothing to do with being “pc” and everything to do with being a decent human being.
Daisy you win the internet today with that comeback. Bravo!
True that it’s probably more close to 50/50 but I think there’s more incentive to vote yes than no. If we had a survey to show that no voters will vote on the basis of moral conviction (like in the divorce referendum when the church were encouraging their ‘at the time’ much larger flock of sheep to vote against) rather than the old ‘Adam/Eve not Adam/Steve’ half humoured stance which wouldn’t be enough to compel someone to get their behinds into the polling booth
Public opinion may be 50-50 but voter turnout is what counts
To take away a persons opinion is to dehumanise that person. Dreadful comment.
It might only be 24% but I think its a safe bet that most of those will vote, the way I see it, turnout will be the deciding factor and there needs to be about a 55% overall turn out for a comfortable win for marriage equality, the last referendum only managed a 39% turnout so I’m not feeling optimistic. Like with divorce I could see this being a very close result.
We just have to really make sure that all people in favour actually go and vote, since I’m fairly sure that all the nay-sayers will.
The heartening thing to me is the many people who were in the past opposed to same sex civil marriage quality and who are now positively disposed to permitting it.
The holy writ of the Ramon Catholic Church does not need to have the force of law. Let religion be religion and let civil law be civil law.
Interesting observations-people in Munster are much less likely to vote in favour, as are supporters of Fine Gael
Some FG supporters are highly reactionary and conservative in outlook. I’m not at all surprised by opposition from that source.
What about Fianna Fail at 68%?
It is interesting.
Horrifying also.
I’m a bit disappointed by being from Munster today .. looking at that …
I would have said it’s the FG rural area stronghold … But Mayo/Galway etc are at 80%. So that argument holds no sway.
I blame Kerry!
Abbi, but the majority of Munster people and the majority of FG supporters are in support of the Referendum.
Although there is a highly conservative strand in FG , it is not the outlook of the entire party.
There’s a real danger here that people will be fatigued from hearing about overwhelming support for a Yes vote and by the time that the referendum rolls around people won’t bother voting as they think it’s a foregone conclusion. Couple that with the inevitable ‘The gays are coming for your babies’ campaign funded from the U.S. via the Iona Institute, Youth Defence, John Waters, Breda O’ Brien et al and we’ll have a far closer vote than people think.
The Atlantic philanthropy is funding the yes campaign. That’s your big US money.
“The Atlantic philanthropy is funding the yes campaign. That’s your big US money.”
Yeah! How dare people support social progress! Foreign money should only be used to support regressive viewpoints!
Now John don’t be hard on John Waters I happen to be a great admirer of him , having said that I a practicing Catholic will be voting for it , there is no good reason what Gay and Lesbians shouldn’t marry they have every right to be as miserable as other married people , a word of caution however if The Irish Times starts lecturing the people the result could be in doubt , people will not be told what to do and I don’t think Panti is the best person to front the campaign
I pity John Waters because of the bitterness of his expressed views, his reference to incest between brothers and puzzling references to abductions of minors by homosexual people.
Mr Waters has never recanted the way in which he expressed these views.
Mr. Waters and the Iona Institute have the full benefit of freedom of expression and a privileged position in the Irish media, which confers a significant advantage of access and high profile not available to others.
Oh Praise.
http://www.iccl.ie
Take a look at the website – they campaign on many different areas pertaining to civil liberty.
If they lend their support to the marriage equality campaign – it doesn’t mean that this is the only thing they support, nor does it mean they fund them directly – it doesn’t actually mean they fund them at all.
Funny – when the discussion is abortion the ICCL are allegedly funding the pro choice side, when it’s marriage equality they’re supposedly funding that..
Which is it?
It’s not quite the same as some big US donors contributing directly to the lobby groups that deny they are lobby groups above.
Apology accepted and appreciated – hope whatever was getting to you at that time has since been resolved.
No sense getting personal around here anyway, sure we are all just user names on a screen. The topics are what matter :)
Ah I’m feeling the love! Fair play Pontius, a clear show of respect to others. People could learn from you.
I wonder who’s funding the Iona Cult? It’s a bit dismissive of the irish people to think that funding will decide this either way. We are above all, a fair people, I think. We try to do what’s right and know that a yes vote is the morally right thing to do.
When you see the way all the threats and dire portents came to naught in other countries where the likes of Praise Dope tried to sow hate, you have to wonder why they’re trying the same drivel here.
This isn’t an issue. Let’s just ignore the bigoted bores and concentrate on getting a good turnout.
Now that made me snort.. I’m so glad I wasn’t drinking at the time!
Not the hand!
But aren’t we already speaking to your hand, Pontius? Since I assume you type your comments and aren’t actually dictating them ;-)
Pontius fair play , respect !
Wow that truce didn’t last long !
I always find Pontius comments quite fascinating. Agree most of the time but they always make me think. Shantis comments I love the sincere rationality of them all. Its a pity all commenters cannot learn to appreciate and emulate.
Let’s all hug now!
one can never ever have enough hugs :)
Careful now, we’ll have no *gay* hugs here!
*pokes tongue out @Jane*
Why Larissa, are you coming on to me?!
*runs away laughing*
Damnit, I missed the flirting session!
Soz Ailbhe, Larissa and I would like to be alone now please ;)
Gary is just looking for a reaction, some attention. No control in his life.
Is sex with the same woman for the past 30 years a same sex marriage?
No, that’s a normal monogamous heterosexual marriage.
I hope it stays that high or gets higher on the day of the referendum
Up from 69
I’ll be hoping for 69 come the day.
I can’t wait to vote yes!!! I’m straight & you know what?? I couldn’t care less who wants to get married. I just believe that two people no matter what your circumstances should be able to get married. Who am I to judge??
What’s the chances of a second referendum if the flutes in power don’t get the answer there looking for!
Very unlikely, since this referendum is not absolutely necessary in the first place, for all of the reasons previously outlined.
There’s a court ruling, which is binding. They interpreted the law to mean marriage is one man and one woman.
There’s also a separation of powers between legislature and judiciary – so the legislature (government) are not permitted to overturn court judgements (protection from tyranny so it’s actually rather important). So the referendum is sadly necessary.
If the government ignored that and legislated – it would a) set a dangerous precedent for ignoring the separation of powers and b) be challenged in court as unconstitutional.
As awful as it is to have to vote on someone else’s life – the way our Constitution works, it’s necessary.
@Shanti.A referendum,especially one with a large majority, also puts the matter of those complaining that it was enforced against the will of the people to bed.
@Shanti: I rarely disagree with you, but your wires are crossed here:
The legislature (Oireachtas) is *not* prevented from overturning court judgements via the adoption of new legislation. Irish courts merely interpret existing legislation; they have no power to tie the will of the legislature into the future. This is why the Courts frequently bite their tongues when presented with the dilemma of telling the legislative that change is necessary in some area of law.
The actual reason that the referendum is necessary stems from Attorney General’s advice advice that any Bill to legislate for same sex marriage would result in an expensive and lengthy constitutional challenge by opponents. A referendum is the only constitutional means to immunise against this.
You likely have a point thank you for pointing out my error – I was basing it on the discussion I had with some law students who had been discussing it in lectures at the time, initially I was of the opinion it was disgusting to have to vote on it – as was my position in the discussion, but having had it explained to me I was able to appreciate that there was good reason.
Perhaps I have got my wires crossed – but that was my understanding of it following them trying to explain it in English rather than legalese!
@Shanti: Yes, they were explaining American (or French?) constitutional jurisprudence to you, not Irish. Which is a bit worrying, if they were studying law in Ireland…
That or I got it muddled..
Legalese is a language of its own, and that goes for all cultures :)
What glorious news! Marriage is attractive for people because it solidifies their relationship through the lens of the law, so we have a kind of instinct to marry the person we love. To deny two consenting, loving adults the right to marriage, you are vandalising the values and morals of our country. Love is to be spread from the heart, not from where religions or archaic politics tell us to. David Norris rightly compared domestic partnerships to ‘dog licenses’. Anything less than actual marriage for couples who happen to be of the same gender is worthless and frankly insulting to me and contradictory to the values enshrined within the preamble and the Fundamental Rights section of our constitution. And i am a straight man.
Attacking me won’t change the fact that this referendum will NOT pass
Gary, Gary, you are irrelevant to the outcome although your reactionary views and how you express them might persuade a few people on the fence to vote in favour. There is no need to attack you but your position can legitimately be challenged.
I agree Gary, it will be very close but traditional marriage will win on the day. I’ve a nice little bet on that should make a tidy sum when the referendum fails.
Can I have a go off your crystal ball?
What are the Euromillions numbers on Friday?
Interesting that a representative opponent of same sex marriage is motivated by the opportunity of making money by wagering on his expectation of the outcome.
It’s hard to argue back against such a highly moral position!
How much did you bet, Praise? I’m grinning enormously as I picture you losing a fortune.
Jane, unfortunately they would only let me wager half of what I wanted. Understandable, as it is a small independent book makers. Coincidently the type of book makers the commissioners of this poll want to squeeze out of the market.
The conductors of this poll are trying to squeeze your bookies out of the market?
Where do you get this stuff?
Ah g’wan Praise, tell us how much. I need to know exactly how much extra I’ll be gloating when the SSM side wins.
Gary Gary is picturing himself to be Gandalf at the bridge of Khazad Dum, he sees himself as the only one standing between marriage equality or the collapse of society.
Wake up Gary, it will happen because it is the right thing to do, and because, if you like it or not, we LGBTQ people have the same inalienable human rights as you.
Larissa, I’m laughing out loud at that analogy :)
While I lived in Canada I lived with a gay couple, a women who used to rent my room previously had a child which the father didn’t want anything to do with. The child spent a lot of the time at the house, especially when the mother was working, and the couple would take him on days out. I never seen a kid as happy and as content. For people that believe that gay marriage will disrupt the family structure what’s best? A child brought up in a dysfunctional home, or by two loving people, straight or gay does it matter? Complaining about same sex marriages is like trying to prevent your neighbour from drinking coffee because you prefer tea, what someone does in their life to make them happy shouldn’t affect yours!
Pontius, how would SSM undermine unmarried fathers’ rights?
If anything, it supports the idea that children should be raised in a household with loving parents, rather than emphasising gender. You would think that unmarried fathers would support other fathers in gaining more parental rights. It would give the unmarried fathers movement the credibility that those like John Waters have lost.
The family and relationships bill that the government are seeking to implement before the referendum (well, that was the plan) was trying to address unmarried fathers – who do indeed deserve to have contact with their child(ren) and parental rights (unfortunately there’s a percentage of men who don’t want these rights and they ruin it for a lot of other, better men).
The family structure has changed dramatically in the past few decades, between single parents and adoptions and surrogacy as well as gay couples – the legislation surrounding the family is far more complex, and shouldn’t be considered with questions about marriage which is still technically a separate issue.
Kids do indeed have a right to know where they come from and who their folks are. Anyone who would seek to purposely deprive them of that knowledge is perhaps not doing a great job of parenting (even if their parent turns out to be a criminal – at some point the child deserves the truth).
These things will continue to happen regardless of the referendum result however. So why allow it to interfere with your decision on marriage equality?
It would be nice to see the LGTB community to use they lobbying power to advocate for a Blaspheny Law referendum for the same date. We need all the help we can get.
The problem with that idea would be that it would be seen as an all out assualt on religion.Believe me the religious can really mobilise.After all their weekly meetings provide the perfect place to do so.Put it on the same day as a referendum on IW would be better so as to get a larger turn out and provide greater represention of the Irish peoples true feelings on the matter.
I hope to get married to my partner back in Ireland where i call home. Please make it happen.
Delighted with that find but how many of them will vote? Unfortunately those that reliably vote are in the older demographics, that and the likelihood that support will fall once in the booth means this is no shoe in.
Just because its called a civil marriage does not change the, arguement one bit. A gay marriage is not the same as a straight one.
How is it not, David?
@Savid
And just because you say gay marriage is not the same as a straight one does not make it a fact.
You are not the default. Your position does not supersede all others. Your opinion is one of many that can all co-exist without harming the other. You can still get married to someone of the opposite sex. No one will try to stop you.
Pomtius,
I think what you are describing might be the quintessential definition of being bisexual
sorry the above comment slipped into the wrong place and is not relevant to this discussion here.
Is this the same poll that shows increased support for FG and Labour?
Yes Paul, goes to show how these polls can’t be trusted.
Just my personal opinion but i wouldn’t read much into this poll finding so farout. While its encouraging for those in favour of Marriage equality, I would like to remind you of one referendum from our not so distant past: The Children’s referendum. At the start of the campaign those against the proposal were numbering in the low teens and were a loose confederacy with no real financial backing. After all who was going to foot against a referendum for Children. However by the time of the referendum combined with a low turn out and a message that played into certain sections paranoia about statist intrusion into the lives of families they managed to poll 42% against the motion. In that light the Anti-marriage equality campaigners are starting from a better base with a more than fighting chance to pull it off
The key will be reminding people that gay couples are already raising kids without being married.
The sky has not fallen in.
All rejecting this referendum will do will ensure that those children continue to exist in a precarious legal position where only one parent has a legal responsibility for them.
Pontius, I’m open to correction.
I thought that same sex couples were already permit to raise children and to adopt children?
Is same sex marriage not a separate issue?
i had no idea what you meant by SSM through that comment. Im guessing you mean Same Sex Marriage, but in my head i was thinking “Seriously Sado-Masochist”. TBH i prefer mine. Also i’d dial down the apocalyptic tone…that one final battle thing makes it sound more like the Quickening from Highlander than a constitutional process
@Eamon
As long a we get Freddie Mercury and the music of Queen for the final battle …
And that is the level of dishonesty in the no campaign.
The family and relationships bill is separate. The legislation is separate. For people to use childrearing as an argument against shows that they have to drag in a completely separate issue in order to gain support for their opposition.
Sadly, as logic is not taught in schools – this fallacy does indeed pose a threat. Even if it is a pack of lies.
Aka The Paddy Position
Ailbhe, I’m sure Paddy only uses the missionary position. (Is that mean?)
Pontius, I agree; I found it very heartening to see approval rates at 55% for the over 65s. Real progress.
I’m with you on that Pontius
Dude why are you accusing me of putting my head in the sand? I wrote the OP re the children referendum and the lessons to be learned! do you even read what you are responding to?
Let them at it! Makes no diff to me
The definition of a marriage has changed. For better, for worse, it has changed. It has changed in the minds of the people throughout Europe and North America. The old argument that the definition of a marriage is between a man and a woman is now gone.
I will vote no as I believe this undermines the natural family unit and has a negative effect on society as a whole
Thierry , that’s a very old old fashioned view you have there .
*Old fashioned* does not = Bad. Look at this for example, is this what you want?
It’s an appeal to tradition and an appeal to nature.
Fallacy is not a valid argument against anything. All it is is proof that you are not thinking rationally, or that you are attempting to manipulate agreement from people using a lie.
Logic dictates that “natural” is not always best (I mean, “natural” parents can abuse their kids, and do) nor is the way we always did things before the best (women used to be considered chattel in a marriage – are you suggesting we go back there?).
Now. If you have a valid, logical, robust argument against marriage equality, I am all ears (or eyes as the case may be).
Great article, Praise. Whole paragraphs about bad gay parents, one line about good gay parents.
Statistically speaking most child abuse is committed by heterosexual men. By your rationale, it is therefore straight men who should be barred from being parents. But are they? No. Because most straight people will make good parents, and most gay people will do likewise.
Ah, that’s interesting – Paddy Scully posted that biased article here the other day..
And I explained this to him then..
It’s an article that decided to focus on 4 testimonies about a poor upbringing with gay parents.. The article it was taken from made the point of explaining that these 4 were in the minority of those interviewed. If you don’t believe me, click on the link Praise Hope provided and click on the source link from the Washington Times, it will bring you here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/8/gay-couples-children-oppose-same-sex-marriage-tell/?page=1
“Most of the children of gays and lesbians who have filed court briefs in same-sex marriage cases say their parents’ inability to marry has deprived them of legal protections and hampered them from living their otherwise typical lives.
But four adult children of gay parents — acting as a “quartet of truth” — have submitted briefs to the 5th U.S. CircuitCourt of Appeals opposing same-sex marriages, with several saying that growing up under the rainbow was neither normal nor pleasant.”
Check your sources, lest you wind up looking like a biased fool who merely wishes to confirm their own bias.
@Praise Hope
Being in a family with a male and female parent does not protect you from harm.
MOST children are harmed by heterosexual parents.
What explanation have you got for that?
I can’t find the right thread, but I had to come back to say to Praise Hope, that it is an enormously difficult thing to do to say that you are even CONSIDERING changing your position. That takes guts. Kudos to you.
Marriage exists for the capitalist class in order to ensure a fresh supply of free labour. If people want to get married grand, gender is irrelevant. If people Dont want to get married though that’s grand too. This referendum is pointless anyway, there’s no need for it. It could be sorted out thru legislation. It’ll only cause greater polarisation on the issue and increase the chance of violence
Separation of powers.
The constitution is the highest law of the land and is decided by the people. (hence referendums).
Legislature are there to legislate for the constitution, judiciary are there to interpret it. And ne’er the twain shall meet.
Judiciary cannot write laws, legislature may not interpret the constitution as they see fit (hence why legislation can be challenged in the Supreme Court for its constitutionality).
The reason for this is to protect against tyranny – so it’s something that is vitally important to protect.
Because the judiciary already interpreted the law as man + woman, legislature may not legislate for marriage equality without first getting the people to re write the constitution (then the judiciary must interpret it as the constitution defines it).
An example – X Case. Government didn’t like the result but didn’t have the right to overturn it so they went to the people in 1992, the people upheld the X Case ruling. Had they not – the suicide clause would have been removed and women would not have the right to travel or information. But it still required a referendum for the people to say they agreed with this interpretation of the 8th amendment.
Can someone explain why a previous post I wrote in response to Atticus the accuser was removed?
One of mine was too with nothing offensive. Others have reported it too. I doubt it’s personal, more of a bug
Maybe try emailing the author? There’s a button to do so beside their picture.. Best way to get an answer as they don’t generally sit and watch..
My reply to Praise Hope was removed too, or didn’t make it, though there’s a link on facebook saying I posted it here, strange
That’s all well and good but;
A) what the hell do celibate men know about marriage?
B) we are not talking about Catholic teachings, we are talking about CIVIL marriage. Which is a contract with the state, not god.
Ireland is a republic, not a theocracy.
@David, its civil marriage we will be voting on.
David, why would anyone care what a few catholic priests think of gay marriage? This is not a catholic issue, it’s a civil issue.
@ Jane
Actually it’s a social issue. What would be the long-term affects on society and the family if this passes?
If it was possible to remove all the ‘discriminations’ against gays re next of kin, inheritance etc. would people still insist on ‘marriage’ ?
Michael.whata
What are the long term effects of discrimination?
See – we know the long term effects of discrimination are negative. So why would we wish to preserve such damaging things?
What would be the long-term effects WHEN it passes, Michael? Well, we’ll live in a fairer, more equitable society; children will grow up feeling respected for their sexuality regardless of their orientation; hate crimes based on sexuality will ultimately decrease. All sounds good.
@Shanti “Ireland is a Republic, not a Theocracy.” well said, but I thought Ireland was now a Taxocracy or a Bankocracy after the Troika overthrew the Government!
@ Shanti & Jane
Neither of you have answered my question so I’ll take it you are hung up on the word ‘marriage’.
Marriage as we know it has existed for centuries, it has always been between a man and a woman and its primary purpose has been the procreation of children. The family, husband, wife and children has been the bedrock of society and has always been considered the best place to rear children because the roles of mother and father have been seen as complementary and the best option for a child. No gay relationship can match that so there is no discrimination.
No gay relationship can match that so there is no discrimination. And that’s your view, a view not supported by any peer review study.
Michael – aside from the fact that your entire argument hinges on the appeal to tradition fallacy, marriage hasn’t always been about procreation. Up until a certain point the woman in the marriage mattered about as much as an item of livestock – and was traded as such.
There was no love, no desire to create a family – just an obligation to accept your masters seed. A far cry from what we call marriage today.
Is that what you want us to return to? Because when you start talking about historical marriage; that’s what you are talking about..
Michael, I did answer your question. See my answer, just up there? That was an answer.
Discrimination exists when you can turn to couple A and say, ‘You two may marry and share the legal benefits of this marriage including rights of inheritance etc’ and you then turn to couple B and say, ‘You two may not marry. Sorry about that.’
That’s the definition of discrimination.
There are some secular athiests
There are a lot of secular atheists. Your point?
good on them, I hope they get what they want xxx
Reading threw the comments I notice that some people don’t get the idea of discrimination and probably most of those people will never understand it, but what is shocking is people seams to forget about how this debate is no different to any other in the past, when it came to mix race, colour or cultural marriage. And you don’t have to look far, as Irish history is full of those examples even in some places today when marrying Northern or English guy/girl it’s a shame on the family. On the positive side the 76% it’s an amazing result. To the people against it, wait until one day you will be discriminated to a basic right just because you are who you are or you come from where you come from.
The secular athiest will just say this is about equality, like its a blueprint for all who seek equality. Thats another deliberate lie.
This is a distortion of the truth, and the evidence is stark and unmistakable.
What is?
So… treating people equally isn’t about equality? Do I have that right?
David, that is a lie you need to spread to suggest it is all a conspiracy. Ochams rasor (spelling may be wrong).
I think it’s Occam’s razor, Ailbhe.
Ah, thanks Jane!
Occam’s razor Ailbhe :) (are the smileys still working?)
No smileys but thanks
Yeah, what is with the smileys? They keep vanishing, and sometimes you really need to add a wink! Also, I changed my avatar but my old one keeps appearing…
But Jane, ya can’t get rid of the cool hair pic!
But it’s a charlie Hebdo cartoon about Savita and the RCC’s influence on abortion rights. It’s so totally RELEVANT ;) (there’s a winky face there in case it vanishes)
Nothing against gay marriage but gays raising children is not right. This is the main reason people will vote no.
The contract of marriage in Ireland is separate from legislation regarding parenting. Whether married or not, they will raise kids (very well according to research). So if people vote no, it will habe zero effect of homosexual parenting
Tony
Your obnoxious, baseless homophobia aside, Gay people are already raising children. Whether you approve or not, legalising SSM will make no difference except to provide added security for those children.
Oh so anyone who thinks a child needs a mother and father is homophobic now ? Ha ha ! Great way to get people to vote no. If people don’t agree with us accuse them of being homophobic! Well done.
Do you say that to lone parents too?
Family and relationships bill is separate, and will be passed regardless of the referendums outcome.
Gay people already have kids, kids that YOU seem to want to discriminate against solely because their parents are the same sex, hence why that bill will still be passed whether you vote no in the referendum or not.
Tony, anyone who says that “gay people raising children is just wrong” is homophobic. You’re the one who said it.
It’s not homophobic at all !!! It’s just saying 2 men or 2 women can’t take the place of a mother and father. How on earth do you make out that is homophobic ?
Tony
Because it’s not an ideal world. Many children are raised by single parents, or grandparents, or foster parents; many children have only one significant adult in their lives.
However, you are not condemning single parents, etc, you are condemning ONLY gay parents.
I call it as I see it. You, sir, are homophobic.
I haven’t said anything about single parents because this is an article about gay marriage, nothing to do with single parents ! You can’t just say people are homophobic because you don’t agree with them, that’s just pure nonsense that won’t do your cause any good either. You say I’m homophobic, I say you’re just another liberal idiot.
Alright then Tony, care to answer the questions put to you?
You said gay people raising children wasn’t right, when pressed you said they need a mother and father – if they do indeed need both, the logical conclusion of that point is that single parents are somehow depriving their children in the same way you seem to think gay people would be.
You insist that they need mother and father, evidence shows this is not the case.
Also – as the marriage referendum and family and relationships bill are two separate pieces of legislation, people using that as a reason to vote no to the referendum are hopelessly misinformed, and need to have the distinction pointed out to them repeatedly.
Let me ask you something. If a child were given the choice of 2 mothers, 2 fathers, a single parent or a mother and father what do you think they would choose ? Assume all are loving and responsible people.
OK – it’s obvious you are ignoring questions put to you and attempting to change the subject to bolster your argyment, so I will answer your question – but you need to answer mine.
In what situation is a child who has not reached the age of majority given the ultimate say?
If a child were to be adopted, the way the process works is that the adoption authority assesses couples (or singles) to see who is the best fit for the child. As the child is a minor they are not permitted to make such decisions for themselves (this is also the reason why consensual sex with a 15 year old is considered statutory rape – as that 15 year old is not old enough to make legal decisions – such as whether they can have sex or whether they can choose their parents).
Now. If gay parents are “depriving” their child of either a mother or father, then how come you seem reluctant to pass the same judgement upon lone parents?
And why bring parenting into a discussion about marriage equality – when it has already been proven that the legislation to grant parenting rights and adoption rights to gay couples is separate to the referendum and will be passed regardless?
I do see the child of a lone parent as deprived of a parent. Who wouldn’t ? Only a fool would think a lone parent is better than 2 parents but in a lot of cases this is the result of a relationship breakdown or death of a parent. In other words no one has set out to purposely deny the child either a mother or father which is what is happening with gay parents.
But this is nothing to do with lone parents anyway, you are trying to change the subject to suit yourself. You didn’t answer my question either. What type of parents or parent would a child choose ? You won’t answer because the answer is obvious but it’s not what you want to hear. Gay parenting is nothing but selfishness but it is the children that pay the price.
The child wants to be secure, loved and stable. Perhaps you need to pay attention to what the kids themselves say? Which is that the lack of legal recognition for their families does them damage.
Tony, what kind of parents would a child choose? Probably the ones with the X-box.
That’s why children aren’t legally permitted to make such vital decisions themselves. Social workers, judges, etc will decide, based on a child’s needs, what home is best for that child.
No-one is going into the homes of heterosexual parents, removing a parent and thereby denying a child one of their parents you know.
There are many children all over the country who need homes. Would you deny them the chance of a living home?
Tony I notice you entirely ignored my point. Instad of ignoring Janes, you took one part of it and twisted it. You then proceeded to sidestep all the relevant points put to you and digressed. It’s like a lesson in how not to debate.
He’s just not as capable of an intelligent, reasoned debate as you and Shanti, Ailbhe.
Letting homosexuals have access to kids, that’s really intelligent alright ! Lol.
Tony – that last statement has me a little confused, why would you preclude homosexuals from having access to children? Why is it so unintelligent to permit such access?
Just make sure they don’t try to tax that too.
Ok. I’ve had enough of this shite. Rather than having to put up with any more of it i am coming out as a hetrosexual. OK, I admit it and I have no shame at finding the oppisite sex attractive and 1 want to copulate with them. There, I will probably be shunned by society now but I maintain my right to be different.
Here here. Be ready for the pc onslaught.
Good man Jack. No shame in being heterosexual.
American writing about American laws..
Civil partnership is nowhere near the same as marriage here. This is not simply about the word “marriage”, this is about equal rights – which the guy who wrote that supports.
Shanti
The problem with people like David is, they are set on their point of view and will regard any attempt on a debate as a personal attack on the and their belief system, since they know better,
@Larissa
While you of course are not at all set on your point of view? As for debate, have you ever seen anyone on the journal change their point of view?
Michael
I’ve seen people on the journal change their point of view; I’ve changed my own on at least one topic. There are also countless readers who do not comment, but who read the comments with interest on topics like this.
Also, since this referendum impacts personally on Larissa’s life and not at all on yours (unless there’s something you’re not telling us) I personally think her opinion is very relevant to this debate.
A question for those in favour of SSM- if marriage can be arbitrarily redefined, what reason would you give for defining marriage between just 2 people? Is this not discriminatory against those who want to marry 2, 3 or more people?
Nice.
Marriage will not be redefined. The current definition is that it is a contract between two adults capable of conscenting. That will not change. If therenis demand for it to be redifined to more than 2 people, that is completely separate from this argument.
David found the reply button. Maith an bhuachaill!
Phil
If there are people who want polygamous marriage, let them campaign for it and bring it to a referendum. We’ll all consider it and vote accordingly.
So far the silence on that front has been deafening.
Yup.
We can cross that bridge when we come to it.
At present marriage is a civil contract between a party of 2 consenting adults. It would take another referendum to expand upon those numbers, so why are you here arguing the slippery slope fallacy? Surely you realise that you sound like you’re being hysterical with these sorts of irrational arguments?
Thanks for responses, interesting responses. It’s not actually a slippery slope argument. It’s just arguing that if something is about to be redefined it stands to reason it’s essence is carefully reasoned to establish its new definition. Your reasoning seems to be whatever the majority wants it to be that is what it’ll be (ie when there is enough demand for another redefinition then it should be redefined as required). This is bizarre logic as firstly it undermines the argument that it is a “right” to redefine marriage, and also flies in the face of the current argument that’s it’s about “equality” – ie if this the case we should redefine to extend “marriage equality” for the polygamists among us, notwithstanding how much they might be in the minority.
Any thoughts?
That’s a very flimsy straw man you’re setting up there Phil, and one that’s been suggested countless times, along with similar ‘arguments’ on whether it’ll stop at SSM or whether we’ll see legalised incest, men marrying their sheep, women marrying their dogs, etc. They are all baseless and ridiculous arguments.
Just to address the issue of polygamy which you raised, I will say that when we have polygamous groups lobbying for equality and petitioning for marriage rights, we will debate it honestly and put it to the public vote. So far that’s not happening, nor are any of the other scenarios I’ve listed.
20 years ago people thought that families would be destroyed by the introduction of divorce, but the world hasn’t ended. We voted then and the majority decision carried, as it always should. If we do not continue to challenge and redesign our society we will stagnate. Do you want that?
Your marriage will not be altered by the introduction of SSM, if you are married. If you’re not married, your right to do so will be unchanged. Why would you deny same-sex couples who are already sharing homes and raising children together the same right to declare their commitment and the same legal security? You have no grounds to do that.
This is the thought of those in favour of gay marriage. A dog has four legs a cat has four legs therefore a dog is a cat.
See how the logic works.
Em, nope. You’re clutching at straws in the absense of any real points
David
Dogs aren’t cats, but humans are humans. See? Simple.
You need to actually learn what logic is..
You’ve just engaged in the false equivalence fallacy.. For goodness sake man, you’re making yourself look very poorly educated now.
Be careful what you ask for.
Women have historically have, been treated very differenty to men.
Never heard a woman want to be called a man so that they will be treated as equals.
Do we need need a referendum to fix this kind of inequality. No because the idea is stupit.
The discussion should be about what is right and wrong, what is stupid and what is not.
I can think of something that is stupid, and it’s not equality.
Women do not require to be called men, that is true. But we do expect to be treated the same as far as practicable.. So when it comes to hiring people who have the same qualifications one is expected to view the abilities and qualifications of both candidates rather than their gender.
In marriage all anyone asks is that you respect the fact that these two people are in love and wish to legally formalise that. Why should they be treated differently because they happen to be the same gender?
I don’t think you quite understand equality..
alot of young people being supportive. lets just hope they registered to vote
Too many of you are giving praise hope the attention he/she/ so desperately desires.
You’re probably right. I suppose it’s driven by fear that other ignorant people will believe the lies she spills
The deciples of hitcheds, dawkings and dennit are here. The great thing about these men is that they are very persuasive , but they are alway flawed in their own logic.
Point out one flaw in one piece of logic by one of those people, please.
Coming from the man who doesn’t understand what a fallacy is, I will take that comment with a pinch of salt.
Also – that’s the circumstantial ad hominem attack, yet another example of how all your contributions here are fallacious.
Should I guess that this reply which doesn’t seem to be showing up was intended to go here?
“Shanti you do the same arguement as hitchens he moves from the arguement of a god to the bible, never discussing the actual topic of the debate.”
Because the actual topic here is granting people equal rights to have their relationship legally recognised and treated with respect, regardless of their sexual orientation.
Under Irish law, this is the way things are supposed to be – discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation goes against the equality act AND the constitution, which states that we are all equal.
You want to stop that equal treatment from happening for some reason. You have brought several things that are “red herrings” be that adoption, religion or anything else – none of which is actually relevant to the discussion of civil marriage. Now you wish to make an attack on me for pointing this out to you?
YOU were the one with the over quota red herring, having it pointed out to you appears to have struck a nerve but it still doesn’t change facts.
The age brackets will decide the vote…
Worthless unless people get out and vote yes
If a man wants to live with a man or a women wants to live with a women that’s their business not mine!
However these relationships cannot be called “marriage”.
They should be called “Civil Partnerships”!
Look up the Oxford dictionary on the meaning of the word “marriage”!
The oxford dictionary is not a legal textbook, marriage is a legal term. Your point is moot
I would expect the Oxford dictionary to be amending their definition soon – given that Oxford is in England and they have marriage equality now.
JaneThey all believe that everything that exists in creation came from nothing.
As opposed to believing it was all created in 7 days (photosynthesising plants created BEFORE there was light?) by a god who thinks taking his name in vain or working on the sabbath are worse crimes than rape or slavery – both of which he condones?
Never mind that – YHWH and Adonai read like two separate people, which – when you go back a little further in history correspond to En.Ki and En.Lil.. Who’s story is a little different (for a start, the garden of Ed.In was a slave pit, and the “serpent” came to set Ad.Amu and his fellow slaves free by pointing out that their master was no god).
But hey – this was only carved in stone before Judaism came along so why stop and think that the whole JudeoChristian religion is a plagiarism?
I mean – what would people justify their misguided self righteousness and barely concealed hatred upon then??
Jane you missed tonys point.
He is saying a child brought up by
a man and woman is a logical understanding of that which nature demonstrates as natural.
If a child refuses to be adopted or
fostered to a gay couple,
will you see that child as been homophobic to.
The only way children make those sorts of decisions is when they have been taught to discriminate.
All a child with no parents wants is a stable, loving place to call home – that *isn’t* a children’s home.
No David, it’s god-types who believe that everything came from nothing, magicked into existence by a sky-wizard, and all in only 6 days too. Next?
David, why would any child in need of a loving home reject a home on offer? Children are open and accepting until adults poison their minds.
@David
“He is saying a child brought up by
a man and woman is a logical understanding of that which nature demonstrates as natural.”
People who are gay did not just pop into existence like mythical dwarfs. Gay people are human beings. They are not a separate species. Nor are they outside nature. They are PART of nature. Nature has created them, ergo they are NATURAL.
Also, the vast majority of people who are gay were born to heterosexual parents…
Going to change the term going up the aisle now… As the aisles are against the walls? lol.
Cant wait for the day i can marry my wonderful partner :)
Praise Hope
Thank you for being honest. I can understand and respect that you struggle to understand homosexual relationships and because of your upbringing feel uncomfortable, that is a far better starting point than just quoting tradition.
I hope, that even you may not yet be in full support of SSM, you will see that there is nothing to be uncomfortable about in the end.
All the non Irish here will vote no to this as will many over 60 too…
And that your rebuttal.
Nobody knows who you are talking to or what you are saying. Use the reply button
You know Ailbhe who Im talking to because you responded.
No I didn’t, I do now. USE THE REPLY BUTTON
Shanti there is no balance to that, its just convenient to say that.
What specifically – your comment being separate makes it difficult to ascertain what exactly you are responding to.
Jane again empty points.
have your say