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.
THE GAY AND Lesbian Equality Network described the Taoiseach’s comments on the marriage referendum as ‘powerful’.
Director of GLEN Brian Sheehan said, “They are the most powerful words we have ever heard from him.
“If I was a 16-year-old gay person – I’d have an extra spring in my step walking into school in the morning after the Taoiseach made those comments and I think that matters.”
Speaking about reports of a recent attack on a young lesbian couple in Limerick. Sheehan said,
It’s very hard to tell if these attacks have always gone on or if people are not just more inclined to say it has happened to them now.
“A positive thing about the treatment people receive becoming more visible is that it allows those in power to recognise what is happening and to change it.
“We try to ensure people report it to the guards and more and more people are. People now have more confidence to say what’s happening to them.”
Powerful words
In his speech to the Fine Gael party annual conference in Castlebar last night Enda Kenny delivered his strongest backing yet to the referendum on same-sex marriage.
Speaking directly to all the lesbian and gay couples of Ireland, the Taoiseach said, “this is about you; it’s about your right to say two small words, made up of three simple letters – I DO.”
The Chair of GLEN Kieran Rose added, “The Taoiseach’s strong call for a yes vote in the marriage referendum is deeply significant.
It is powerful to hear the Taoiseach of our country endorse the relationships of lesbian and gay people and that it is right for them to have full and equal status as citizens of our republic.
However, it was noted last night that the comments did not receive a strong response from the crowd:
Sheehan said he didn’t hear the speech himself but he was happy with Kenny’s words.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Well it is a a massive departure from where we were as a nation 20/30 years ago.
It’s a vote to say church and state are truely separate.
The biggest challenge in this referendum is getting young people out to vote. The Church will go all out looking for a no vote. The older people will take their orders from the Church and not their political party. There is a silent minority against marriage equality but this minority will have a high turnout of voters.
Phil, you are wrong. I am 66 and voting “yes”. Older people have the wisdom to assess how society changes and see the need to adapt! Your comments are demeaning and more likely to provoke older people to vote “no” in resentment. Put a sock in it , boyeen.
It’s not your traditional church bogeyman you need to worry about.
Most people will want their children, or adopted/fostered children, reared in normal, loving man/woman relationships.
Two mammies, or two daddies, won’t cut it, for their kids, or grand kids, when people vote for childens future.
Rubbish Phil. You ought think before you type, instead of ranting on with popular but incorrect theories. There are many reasons why people may vote no that have nothing to do with religion.
Mick.
Single people, hetero or homosexual are currently permitted to adopt.
Your entire comment seems kinda laughable in light of this fact.
Add to that, the adoption stuff will be legal before the marriage referendum, specifically so that people like yourself will not be misled into thinking that this is a vote on anything other than the issue of marriage. Get it? It’s one of the few things this government has been quite transparent about.
Agreed Rory, Phil I’m 60 and I’m voting yes. Generalisations like this don’t help.
Amen Mick.
I will be voting no, I think every thing this government touches it poisons. Keep Kenny out of your bedrooms and private affairs. With so called rights comes bills and abuse. Remember folks jail is a benefit be careful what you sign up for.
Exactly Rory, for some reason most of the younger folk believe that once you become advanced in age you suddenly morph into a pious, religious, finger wagging, cardigan and sensible shoe wearing wierdo, in fact we become more tolerant, wiser and understanding – young ‘uns have a lot to learn.
David, voting Yes will mean Kenny and Fine Gael are thrown out of government, Irish Water will be disbanded and global warming will be reveresed. True story. Can’t argue with the facts.
“”Phil that was a very ageist comment.. have you a certain age in your head for when intelligent people cant think for themselves anymore?
That’s an idiotic comment.
I’m referring to Katie’s negative statement.
SSM Referendum is Wasteful and Irrelevant PC nonsense:
Voting for SSM concealed by media and social media as equality voting ia a sad thing.
Marriage is heterosexual contract law.
Changing contracts between two people may be illegal?
Same sex coupling is not marriage , it is the opposite to marriage.
Therefore the 2% LGBT Irish population should not assume that the 98% heterosexual Irish people are idiots and accept that SSM = equality in any sense.
Herd media and politicians chasing every desperate voter hide the fact that only 15 countries out of 139 countries have legislated for SSM.
Enda must know that Merkel’s Germany does not have SSM?
And very few LGBTs have opted for SSM in those 15 countries.
The fraction of LGBTs who opt for SSM find that changes in law cannot change social attitudes or create the wished for social utopia for SSM couples.
A change in legal status in Ireland especially has little real impact.
Simple examples are driving with mobiles stuck to every ear, no seat belts, water charges etc.
Who cares what adults do in the privacy of their individual lives.
Who wants to know?
Satire
Dandahan4.com
I don’t really understand your reasoning there Katie. Are you voting no because the government are saying we should vote yes?
Rory – don’t take it personally- he’s referring to polls that show older people are more conservative on this issue. As much as u might be aware of changing social issues many of your peer group are not.
Ah now John Mulligan not at all negative careful what you wish for. Endas first priority is Enda. You lose more than you gain. The government doesn’t think how can we help you. They think how can we help ourselves and what’s in it for us!! Unless people can start avoiding and stop paying their greedy scans like TV licence, marriage licence. Dog licence, taxi licence, busking licence. What have they all got in common? Money making scams wake up
Katie, with respect, it’s not Enda you vote against if you vote no in the referendum, it’s every homosexual who wants to or may want to get married in this country.
It’s saying to them, you don’t matter as much as heterosexual people. In fact, you don’t even matter enough to me to be able to see the difference between voting on the Constitution – which belongs to the people, not the government. And voting for the government.
In case you aren’t aware, the Constitution is the highest law of the land as because we are the ones who shape it, voting upon it is something you should take far more seriously than using it to protest against a man you will be able to vote into oblivion at the next election or maybe even sooner.
I am 62 and voting no
You’re also delusional Leslie…..
Ah Shanti, they can get married anytime without a licence. I love everyone and would not have anyone gay, straight, Old or young deprived of anything. I don’t think anyone should buy any of these dodgy licences from this dodgy corrupt state. People get so emotional and fail to see the wood for the trees. Enda is just a symptom of the problem of people being willing to hand over control of their lives and their relationships to others. We have given control of our public finances to this group of 4 politicians who are doing as much damage as possible and selling us out.
I totally agree with you,this could have adverse effects on children in the future,that is why I will be voting no.
guess what?
most people, in my view, will want children, especially their own, reared in the normal traditional Mammy/Daddy/Man/ Woman family situation.
The “Heather has 2 Mommies (or 2 Daddies)” or maybe 3, philosophy of child rearing, just won’t cut it here, when kids are involved, whether thru surrogacy/adoption or anything else.
And you can have as much legislation rushed thru’ the Dail, abusive debate, and same sex marraige referenda as you like, until your eyeballs fall out —
– most people will still want the normal biological Mammy/Daddy environment for their kids and grandkids, and for society, to be reared in, into the future.
Why? Because they think the traditional Mammy/Daddy role-model marraige is better, more stable, natural and normal for kids (and society).
I think they will vote accordingly.
Both parties, Labour mainly, but also Fine Gael, will i think, most likely suffer electorally for foisting this Labour inspired, Constitutional Convention (unelected) rubbish, on a financially hard pressed, long-suffering electorate, and their families.
With respect Mick, that’s not what the referendum is about.
And yes, the majority will continue to have kids the same way they have always done. Gay people are a minority and permitting gay marriage will not make the numbers of gay people increase or anything..
I’m honestly really struggling to see what your point is. The referendum is about removing the restrictions on the gender of the two people tying the knot. That’s all.
The government have made it pretty clear that their intent is to make this a single issue and they’ve been as clear, concise and explicit as is possible.
To head off the misleading family argument they have the family and relationships bill.
To head off the misleading polygamy argument they’ve added the two people distinction.
If people would actually take the time to read the words perhaps there wouldn’t be so much uproar.
Do you object to a gay couples union being entitled to the same level of protection from attack offered by the Constitution to heterosexual unions? If so, why?
” the older people will take their orders from the church” how old are you? Not old enough to realise your talking sheisse my child.
Spot on Mick.
I must stop using Amen.
The “yes” voters keep accusing me of being “Bigoted Religious Extremist”.
As a concerned adult.
I’ll be voting NO.
Every child should have right to a mother and a father.
David.
Quoting the proposed amendment wording and the laws surrounding MARRIAGE, please demonstrate how voting on this referendum denies children a mother and father.
SSM will be the last nail in the family’s coffin Shanti.
It’s all about “equality” is it not?
For a baby, 2 Men does not “equal” Mummy and Daddy.
http://www.bioedge.org/index.php/bioethics/bioethics_article/10135
Voting no in the referendum wouldn’t make any difference to the adoption or surrogacy situation. This is a separate issue.
So again David.
Referring specifically to the wording of the proposed amendment and the laws it states to remain in accordance with (eg the marriage laws), can you explain to me how what you are saying is relevant?
It’s all feeding of each other Shanti.
It’s all targeted at destroying the family and the rights of children so stop pretending that it does.
Hundreds of thousands of years of succesful heterosexual reproduction/parenting
Then a SS referendum and legislation not only in the same decade, but in the same government,
within a few months of each other.
This is a populist PR farce.
Kenny was down in Castlebar at his victory party a few years back
lecturing his townspeople that he was “going to wrestle Merkel” and “tell the bondholders to feck off”
Now he’s back down there with his tail between his legs, bearing only a SSM referendum, and “how good it would make Ireland look” to the rest of the world.
The locals don’t have a clue what he’s riddling about, and don’t give a damn, the pathetic fool.
These people are loosing their business, homes, jobs and kids.
What do they care about a worthless piece of paper for a few selfish upper middle class people who mainly live in the cities?
For the third time David.
Referring specifically to what we have been asked to vote upon, please explain the relevance of your argument.
You are right to be angry David.
I am also.
But this referendum is about the right to be free and equal, not all homosexuals hail from privileged families.
David, a yes vote will mean the starving kids in Africa will no longer go hungry. Can’t argue with the facts!!!
Mick do you think in the highly unlikely event the no vote gets passed that all Gay couples are going to break up? This vote is about giving everyone the same rights. Nothing to do with children at all.
Really so how many atheists do you know that intend to vote no?
In the coming weeks we’ll find out just how much Kenny is in favour of gay rights.
If he refuses to join any media debates ( as he did in all his other referendums) we’ll know his words are purely expedient.
Up to a year and a half ago, Kenny refused point blank to say whether he supported say marriage or not. Now suddenly he is giving heart felt speeches in favour of it!
Convictionless Kenny will say anything to get through this referendum. Losing a national vote coming up to an election doesn’t look good
Damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.
“Up to a year and a half ago, Kenny refused point blank to say whether he supported say marriage or not. Now suddenly he is giving heart felt speeches in favour of it!”
Thats because he literally sees this as the only possible way to gain votes. FG are going to be very badly hit come the next GE. If Enda can pull off looking like the most progressive and tolerant leader out of everyone, that’ll “save” him and his party from total deconstruction.
Lets face it, I mean, I am a full supporter of gay marriage, and I’ll be voting yes in the referendum, but there is a bit of a “tolerance” bandwagon in today’s society. The more progressive and tolerant you appear to be, the “cooler”, more hip you are as a person etc. Enda and FG see this, so will be pushing for gay marriage as much as possible. They’ll try to secure the younger, generally more liberal vote through their support in the referendum because they know the more traditionally conservative older voters, who are the ones paying all the taxes via water, house tax etc will be fed up and veer away from FG.
Enda Kenny, and his keynote address was not about the 2 little words, I Do, he knows it will be a yes vote in the referendum, it was more importantly about keeping Labour on side until after the next budget, the speech was orchestrated to drive down support for SF and FF, he knows Labour are destined for the backbenches, and there only hope of improving on that would be to topple this Government. But this would need to happen, before the next protest on 21 March, so that the protesters could not claim that the protest, did in fact persuade Labour to call it a day, Kenny and his advisors are very aware of this, but Labour can’t see it. He has Labour in his pocket and that is where he want’s to keep them until the time is right to flush them down the tube. They are no danger to him, but there supporters second preference votes are important to the FG Party to see them over the line as the biggest Party after the Election, Kenny also knows that the majority of SF second preference votes will go to the Independence, and vice a versa, with FF very much in no man’s land, in relation to transfers, which in fact in most or all cases determine the outcome of elections. In the Enda/Leo speeches they made particular reference to Labour as been part of the next coalition with FG, when every dog in the street knows there doomed, and there only hope of recouping some of the lost support even from there grassroot members, is to and without warning collapse the Government.
If he did not engage in any other referendum debate how on earth can you conclude he’s agains this referendum? That is incredulous !
Interesting analysis Peter.
Interestingly, large swathes of Kennys own FG Castlebar audience did NOT applaud his clarion call to vote for same-sex marraige.
Many, like the general population, seemed less than enthused.
Endas assertion that they should endorse same sex marraige ” because it would send a powerful message abroad” seemed icily received.
Perhaps they think we should, as a nation, think independently, instead of slavishly aping others, and worrying about what the neighbours might think..
A friend of nine was in the Travellers Friend in Castlebar a few years back at Kenny “Victory” Party.
Such a spiel of BS he said.
Kenny was going to win the all Ireland single handedly and wrestle with Merkel.
Now he’s back trying to scab a few votes by pulling the LGBT discrimination card.
A failed man.
A failed government.
Just remember that 60% of the nation had a spring in their steps when this liar got elected.
Where did that get us.
He’s a good man at talking the talk and making promises.
Over to the trolls now..
Very true
“It is morally wrong, unjust and unfair to tax a person’s home” –
Enda Kenny, 1994
No you started already so carry on.
He knows that it’ll be a yes vote so he’s getting on the winning side early
Mike – Enda is certainly not good at talking the talk, I am sure you saw him on Prime Time, he is shocking at every level of communication.
@ Paul.
Like all vultures & scavengers they smelt the blood when ff were on the ropes after clown had finished them off and he (his pr people) found the words then.
That weasel couldn’t recite the Lords prayer without a script.
Mike – I sometimes hope the British elect Milliband so we no longer have the most embarrassing political leader.
Mike, you ARE the trol .
It’s troll Rory,TROLL.
Please get it right !!.
Thank you.
Equality in marriage but little else for young aspiring couples …straight or gay…..so if I was young I’d spring myself out of the tragic trap that is Ireland.
Kenny said he wants all the immigrants back home!
If I was abroad I’d stay where I was!
Jacinta. I am and I will. Sadly.
Kennys speech writer’s deserve a pat on the back. So does Kenny, with a shovel! We are all equals! gay, straight, black or white should make no difference! I’ll be voting yes with enda, mehole, Joan, Gerry etc. The only issue I agree with enda on shouldn’t be an issue!
As a gay man I’m proud of enda.
Anyone in his place would of done the same thing.
Well Gary Gary
Judging by your well hidden account ,you haven’t come out yet ,and your pro Government response to other Government related topics on the Journal, it’s easy to see your a FG troll, using this important issue as a Political football, following in your leaders footsteps.
Enda is getting us out of this recession…
This vote is supported by all parties, it is childish to make party political references and completely takes away from the ultimate point of the referendum
Judging my all the red thumbs plenty of homophobes on the journal
A gay Jewish traveller :) gary I tell you one thing your unique
Fine Gaels, and Endas espousal of same sex marraige, largely under Labour pressure, will, I think, damage both parties electorally.
Gary, judging by your repeated calls for a no vote and constant abuse on jere of gay people…..YOU are the homophobe. Changed your mind again?
Liam Long and into a depression…
Gary Gary
Your a FG TROLL, you might have a false Twitter account, but it’s plain to see you are pro Government, by reading your comments, on your account.
Mick all political parties support this referendum, as do over 70% of the electorate
Many in hospitals are not pround of Enda, many paying the water charge and property tax are not proud of Enda, many who rent are not proud of Enda, many unemployed are not proud of Enda, many single parents are not proud of Enda etc etc…
But at least you are proud of him…
There are more “straightaphobes” in here Gary.
Who think that everyone who does not vote “yes” is a bigot.
No David, no straightaphobes. Nobody has tried to deny a straight person equal rights based on their gender alone. The same cannot be said about the rights of homosexuals though. Wanting rights, and challenging those that deny gay people rights does not make one a ‘straightaphobe’ it means they disagree with the homophobes. It’s a simple idea, yet one your closed mind cannot comprehend. You poor thing…….sad
He doesn’t understand that being intolerant of bigoted views is not bigotry either..
The sad thing about this for gay people, is that this referendum might be passed but this Govt. will not implement the legislation. Instead, they will make it a ‘cornerstone of their programme for Government’ and use it to buy votes.
Hence the wording.
Excellent observation. It’ll allow any future government to buy votes by promising concessions to a sizeable minority. Sure isn’t that what they do at election time?
Enda Kenny is not a good speaker and not a particularly good Taoiseach, but he is very, very shrewd and he knows how to manipulate people’s hopes and expectations. He cried in the Dáil about the abuse dished out in the Magdalene laundries and still those poor women wait for medical cards three years on. He’s unscrupulous to say the least.
There’s a strong argument to be made that we shouldn’t be looking up to Kenny and the government with a paternalistic mindset, happy that he’s now advocating same sex marriage. Equality should just be in place already, without a government telling anyone who they can or cannot marry!
It’s a hot topic away from his failings hence he’s all over it ..its easy pickings for him…say this and people will fawn over you. There’s a difference between saying something and actually meaning it. I wouldn’t trust a word that comes from his mouth.
Gay Marriage is a widely popular measure that every other party supports, the truth is that Kenny, who for years refused to name his own views on gay marriage, had to support the measure or else hammer one more nail into the coffin of his party’s reelection prospects.
At best his party’s support may bring a small number of extra yes votes but at worst it could bring out a spate of no votes from those that wouldn’t have voted at all as a protest vote.
If he really cared about gay marriage he’d try and keep the yes campaign from being saddled with Fine Gael’s toxic brand.
Yes David!!
It’s a big NO from me to bury FG&LAB.
Hard to please the likes of you Jordan. If the govt didn’t hold this referendum you’d be the first to complain that they didn’t care about gay people. Clown.
David, not only will it bury FG and Labour but it will also mean that the asteroid currently hurtling towards Athlone, ya know he one the size of Manhattan (they’re always the size of Manhattan) will be unable to be stopped! Vote yes to save Ireland and HUMANITY!
This referendum will be defeated because of fg support. they have to listen to the ballot box and the people will say no as a message to get them out.the referendum will be held again,under a new government and will have a better chance.the people will not want to miss this opportunity to tell them they want this crowd gone.a no will bring this government down.
This referendum isn’t about politics.
Ditto.
Gov destroying the social fabric, bringing in political policing and attempting to silence dissent by force. Reneging on promises, etc, etc.. No real debates about anything… now it hopes to pass a fluffy feel-good referendum?
No thanks. Could not stomach the Lab/FG response afterwards
It is for this reason, and the fact that a) people will not allow any dissenting opinion to be explored in relation to the marRef, b) YES side appear to not feel obligated to argued why it should be for (other unfair) … that I will be voting NO this time.
(FYI: defected from church before loophole was closed)
I think people are capable of seeing this as a non political issue. No amount of disillusionment with the government will make my friends and family vote against me having the right to marry. The same is true for most people with gay friends/ family. I think people will realise in the end that it’s a bit miserable to prevent loving couples from getting married just so you can have a go at the government (a protest vote which won’t register as such anyway- it will simply be interpreted as saying no to the question asked).
No J, no referendum should be about politics, it’s about the peoples view and rights.
Unfortunatly the political system will use anything to try to gain an advantage and as a result will interfere and manipulate with even the most basic principles of society.
The referendum asks a question, the people say yes or no…. simple
Now it’s all this party supports this, disagrees with that etc.
Where as all the goverment should do is simply ask the question, then stand back and RESPECT the reply of the people. (ie don’t tell them that they are wrong and have to do it again)
most people will want to see their, or other, children reared in normal, heterosexual, procreative, man/woman, male/female unions, with clear gender role models for their kids, and society, into the future.
Mick voting yes or no in the referendum won’t impact on the adoption of children by same sex couples, which will be dealt with separately by legislation. If it has an impact on children, it will simply be to allow children adopted by same sex couples to live in a marriage based family.
Hold on..
Political parties are transient. They’re elected for a defined term and then they either get elected again or not. That’s politics.
This is a referendum. This is the highest law of the land, and as this is a constitutional republic, we, the people, vote on any changes to it.
Are you seriously saying you would oppose this change to the Constitution – which will rule out civil marriage equality for an indefinite period of time (given that any attempt to legalise for this requires a referendum) simply because you don’t like the person in government at the time?
Vote on the issue at hand. The Constitution is way too important to base your decisions on dislike for a political party. The Constitution will be here long after they are, and you are getting your say in what we deem as just and right about our laws. Maybe try basing your judgement upon that?
It’s true. Many of the hate filled bile merchants on this forum would vote to have their legs sawn off with a rusty blade they despise Kenny so much.
Irrational hatred is hard to cure once it has started to rot your brain.
Shinners hate Fine Gael with an ugly vicious anger that we haven’t seen in this country for decades.
And they are proud of it.
I’d agree with equal rights, but not with same sex marriage.
I feel it would changed the construct of society to redefine the definition of marriage.
The arguments are very fluffy on the YES side. On marriageequality.ie: The first and second points are argued on the basis that people already want it! That may well be true, but surely that is purpose of the referrendum, and not a basis on which to hang your argument.
I do not vote in order to be on the winning side! It is up to those who have a strong belief in it’s importance to be putting forward the YES position such as: What is the effect of it not being in place? How many people it effects… etc.
Also, I’d prefer to see Single Mothers with kids being defined as a family **before** same-sex couples. Much more important, and precedence matters in my view. Otherwise we as a society are saying that same-sex couples are a family, while single mothers with children or not (until that is corrected)
I agree in relation to the importance of the constitution (but then that didn’t stop others when it came to the ESM). However, it’s not final. Referrendums can be re-run.
In the current climate, a climate where our democracy is being ripped appart by this governement, Gay Marriage is way, way down my list.
It is in the context of the rampent unfairness accross society that I find it difficult to support “Labour’s” referendum, whereby they will claim that they have brought equality to the land.
Put very well there.
Gordon, to be honest that all sounds more like reasons not to vote than to vote against giving people equal rights. If you say you support equality then why does this equality bother you enough to seek to deny it?
Marriage has already been redefined. It’s a civil contract that evolves alongside society. Do you not agree that there are those who seek to have their relationships put on par, in legal terms, with that of a married couple? Do you consider their intent toward one another to be “less” than the heterosexual equivalent? If not then why have the distinction?
It’s not a vote about families because separate legislation is covering that. All we are being asked is whether we consider the commitment that gay couples make to one another to have equal value to the commitment a heterosexual couple makes to one another. Children are not a prerequisite. Just the commitment and the legal protections inherent within.
Can you give me a rational reason to deny this equality? I am yet to see one. I don’t accept voting no based upon entirely separate issues to be especially rational, I would call it a red herring.
Shanti,
Firstly, I always vote (at worst I spoil my vote), but had considered, for the first time ever – not voting – but I will not do that. Even if I ambivalent about the outcome, I still feel I am being asked to make a decision one way or the other as to what is best for society, in my opinion.
As I indicated it is the term “marriage” that I have a problem with. I agree with marriageequality.ie, that the word is an important one, and having thought about it, I have a problem with it being used for same sex couples.
The distinction I make is not regarding people’s level of commitment, but about what society wishes to promote. I guess it’s the difference between acceptance/tolerance and approval. I’d agree with Mick above, I think most people would prefer to see kids grow up to be heterosexual, and marry the opposite sex. While I may have wondered if my nephews would grow up to be gay, it never occurred to me to wish that they would be.
The reason I mentioned the family is because marriageequality.ie does so in it’s YES pamphlet. On page 4 it says “In Ireland, the family (with or without children) based in civil marriage is protected by the Constitution.”
I never said children were a pre-requisite for marriage. The point I was making is that there are many divorced couples. A single parent with guardianship of kids are not considered a family unit under the Constitution. If this is passed then married gay couples would be families, while single parents with kids would not be.
The rationale for my voting NO is
A) Marriage is an institution of society, and (imo) it is not in the best interests of society to equally exult same-sex and different-sex unions [versus the giving of specific equal legal rights]
B) Voting yes would mean (by default) that society has a higher regard for same sex marriage, and grants them more protection, than it does for unmarried/single mothers/fathers
C) This government has been so dire, that it abhors me to give them the satisfaction of being able to claim that they brought “equality” to Ireland – during a time in which they cut much needed funding to poorer areas, and widened the inequality gap, etc etc……. As I am slightly toward no, this is the point that secures it and ensures I will not spoil my vote.
D) The arguments in favour revolve around peer pressure, not points of debate
Some excellent points there Gordon, well thought out and rational.
A) why not specifically? Marriage has been redefined several times already, the wife is no longer a possession, it can now be dissolved by the courts..
They’re not asking for anything other than those legal rights, like the right to visit your partner on their death bed in a hospital!! This is about the civil contract of marriage, nothing more and nothing less.
B) no, it would mean that we don’t have marriage and marriage lite. No amount of changes to the laws surrounding MARRIAGE will ever effect single parents. That’s a red herring.
C) that’s rather petty, appeal to spite?
D) and the arguments to vote no are all based in logical fallacy and therefore irrational – what is your point?
Stephen, I really hope you’re right. But reading some of the comments here makes me wonder.
I can not believe the mentality of some of the voting public!
I have an awful feeling this will result in a no vote :(
It seems all those proposing to vote no are voting on matters unrelated to the actual proposed wording.
It’s a shame that people won’t just look at the matter for what it is. Eliminating marriage lite and just permitting two adults who are not directly related to marry of their own volition.
Unless your forced out of the country to find work via austerity
On the back of running the country by borrowing billions to keep the show in the road.
I found Enda’s speech on this subject to be very condescending…….when he spoke about 2 little words made of 3 little letters ‘I do’…..In fairness….He doesn’t give one toss about anyone only FG party members and associated cronies!
It will be a huge NO vote Enda has put the kiss of death on it.
Only among people so myopic as to not realise that this is us voting on the law of the land rather than whether we like the people obliged to legislate for it.
When it suits you Shanti.
Are you in politics?
When what suits me? And no, I am not in politics, why do you ask?
Vote no and get rid of these parasites, the opportunity cannot be missed,the people are protesting all over the country and they are laughing at it,the ballot box is the only weapon the people have that they cannot ignore. vote no.
Fool. This is about equal rights and not the government.
Voting no won’t get rid of the government. How narrowsighted and ill-informed can you be?
Oh for goodness sake..
You appear to have the type of vote confused.
It’s not a general election, it’s a referendum. You are being asked to play your part in shaping the law of Ireland. Being that our Constitution is the highest law of the land and all other laws must follow from there.
This has precisely nothing to do with anything other than the specific question asked.
Are you happy to allow gay people tie the knot?
If yes, vote yes. If no, vote no – either way, Be sure to vote on the question at hand rather than any external and unrelated nonsense.
I’m voting NO to save the family and children’s rights.
Besides that, I’d still vote NO as a protest vote against FG/LAB.
So both of your reasons to vote no have nothing to do with the actual referendum?
Fantastic logic there.. If you drink coffee will that stop the rain?
David I thought you were voting no to save children from the warmongering yanks. Or to save the Irish family. Or to defeat TB. Which is it?
Personally I’m voting yes to eradicate Ebola!
I agree with Enda.why not.
Kenny is a hypocrite, he supports gay equality however, he wants them to work for it. If this is is voted down, then the government should bring in tax legislation that remedies the tax exclusion.
David , that is plain rubbish talk.
David.. You still haven’t got back to me about the Catholic version of the Bible vs the KJV, do you now accept that the same section of the Bible used to argue homosexuality is wrong also says if a man rapes a Virgin then he must buy her, marry her, and stay with her for the rest of their lives? Essentially, selling the spoiled goods into the slavery of her attacker?
You made a promise, and it’s been almost a week now.. You can’t be that slow a reader.
Oh Shanti I would love to do that, I will have that conversation with you at some stage, what I wont allows you to do is undermine my arguement, when its got sfa to do with the topic, I wont be caught out on that switch a roo trick that your fond of using. No way.
Ill make my arguement based on facts nothing else. Nice try though.
Well I had responded to you here:
http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-same-sex-marriage-referendum-1939867-Feb2015/?new_comment=1#comments
To try and keep it relevant as you ask. But you seem to be ignoring me, I thought perhaps you don’t have email notifications switched on, so when I saw you commenting there I thought I would remind you.. Clearly you aren’t seeing my reminders on that article..
No I dont get any notifications. I dont know why.
I do have the notifications box checked but it does not work. I was not ignoring you.
The red thumb usuals.
Yet you still have no answer, on either page..
Shanti your insistence on going there, exposes your agenda.
I will debated the subject that is been discussed only.
Again I wont allow you traction by your preferred mode of distraction.
David I’m not even asking you to reply here, if you wish to reply on the other page, which I linked for you, feel free. I’m not trying to drag you off course here, I’m trying to tie up the loose end you left in our last conversation.
Of course, you could just do the honest thing and admit that the old testament is filled with things we would consider questionable now, and as such, using this part of the Bible to base animosity toward gay people rings hollow when the rest is so frequently ignored.
Jesus himself never once mentioned homosexuality. If anything, it’s more likely Jesus would have supported them, as he did the other oppressed people. But if you are using the old testament as the basis for discrimination, then perhaps you need to understand what you’re basing your morals on.
Yes I did promise to get back to you, however on reflection I realised you were trying to again change topic and hopefully cancel any valid point I had made.
If you do insist on going back there, youll end up just talking to yourself.
Cancel a valid point you made? You mean challenge it. You’re unwilling to allow your point to be challenged. That fits the definition of bigotry. Allow a free debate and engage with others and you might return to the realm of civility.
Ailbhe I never brought up the subject, you and Shanti are not in any position to force me into a debate that you have both aready shown your dislike for and instigated you both know so much about it why mention your already highlited. That discussion is for another debate. Sorry.
In other words, the Catholic version says the same thing. That’s totally fine, that’s all you needed to say.
@ Shanti
Where the link to the thread where you accused me and other people who don’t vote “yes” of being akin to the Klu Klux Klan?
That was an interesting comment.
Yes, here it is:
” Shanti
Sat 12:02 PM
And the KKK are more comparable with the no side. They opposed interracial marriage using all the same fallacies you’re using now..”
See, in context it’s clear I said that the no side were using the same fallacies as the KKK did when opposing interracial marriage.
As I already explained to you over there..
But by all means do misrepresent me, anyone with eyes to read can see what you are doing.
She’s not wrong. Bet that doesn’t sit well. The truth hurts sometimes doesn’t it???
Shanti no tact, your powers of persuasion work in a way that points towards not adressing the issue but planting slyly put seeds just so you can undermine the person who does not agree with you,even if what they are saying is of value. Its not an admirable style of debating you use . It swirves away to find some kind of distraction that you can try and make stick, just so you can try and remove any traction the other person might have.
Im not here to persuade you or anyone else that frequents these topics from the yes side, Im interested in informing those who wish to hear both sides.
Sorry dude, I use the rules of reasoned debate, eg, logic.
When I point out that something is a fallacy it’s because it is. I didn’t make those rules, they go back all the way to Aristotle. The fact that you seem unacquainted with them is not something to be ashamed of, we are not taught logic in school.
When I link you to a page that shows exactly which fallacy it is you are using I do so in the hopes that maybe you will learn from someone other than me what the error in your reasoning is.
Back when the subject was interracial marriage the same slippery slopes, straw men and fear mongering were order of the day from the side that we all rightly label as racists now. The KKK side. They wanted to make it so that a white person could not marry a black person, simply because one of them was black.
You want to make it so that homosexuals cannot marry simply because they’re homosexuals. Even when you make claims about the children, it’s because you assume that the child will somehow be disadvantaged by this fact, based on no evidence whatsoever.
I’ve asked you several times now, based upon the actual referendum wording and the legislation surrounding MARRIAGE that it says it remains in accordance with, what your objection is, and you can’t answer. All you do is bring up children or government dissatisfaction.. Neither of which is what you’re being asked to vote on. They’re red herring arguments (try looking up what that is).
Im aquanted with those rules, what I observe from you in relation to these topics is that, you make big reality jumps and they are as fallacious as you can possibly get. I will make you an offer, that when I exchange any views with you that I will base them in reality and you do the same. How about it.
That would be great in you could David.
Because it’s notable I’m the only one who’s picked holes in your logic, you refuse to see it.
I mean looky here, you’re asked a simple straightforward question and you do everything you can to avoid answering. Including launching an ad hominem attack.
So if you could join the rest of us out here in reality and debate the actual amendment rather than a load of red herring that would be super.
The referendum ignores the reality, the relationships are not the same, no I know the referendum is based on a change of reality that people are effectively been asked to forget about what ,science, psychology, physiology,HISTORY.
You have a big challenge and so does the referendum, you have to convince people that facts like the ones above are wrong.
It is in your interest to facilitate people with credible reasons to forget about the contribution man and woman relationships have made to society. You have to convince people that this is false.
The referendum is an offer a perk that the government offers. It can always change at a whim. There not the same, you know it.
Its up to you to demonstrate that Im wrong, I dont have to proove same sex relationships are the same as male and female relationships. You do. The referendum does. Appealing to the emotional side of people is very powerful, but It lack substance.
All citizens are considered equal. This is in the Constitution already, yes?
We also have legislation to give this effect, it’s called the Equality Act. Discrimination on the grounds of a person’s sexual orientation is illegal.
Would you get civil partnered? If not, why not? Is it because the union is considered less?
This is where we enter Animal Farm territory. “All animals are equal, Some animals are more equal than others”.
Appealing to tradition is a fallacy. So please, remember we are trying to have a rational conversation.
Yes, the relationships are different, but so is every relationship. Some people marry of the same age, others have a larger gap. Some wish to go on to become parents, some already are, some don’t want kids at all.
The thing that they all have in common is that they want to get married, because the Constitution protects this Union from attack. Because marriage creates a family bond between two adults that did not exist before.
Civil partnerships don’t have the same level of protection or legal standing. This is obviously discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation, which as I have already established is illegal under both our Constitution and our legislation.
So, by voting to exclude gay couples from the Constitutionally protected Union of marriage is to say that their relationships are inferior and unworthy of the same protection.
Why are their relationships not worthy David?
The constitution considers use all equal, with out exceptions?
That consideration your talking about should objective and be based on all evidence and the weight of that evidence.
Isnt that the point of the referendum?
Personally and this is just me, I wouldnt depend so much on using logic fallacy arguement/points and bringing these to people’s attention, because it only makes you look cool. I think aristotle would be a little unhappy at the way you use this type of philosophy so often, to address someone else’s logic, unless you’re absolutely not going to do it yourself.
I dont believe that marriage should be extended to same sex couples because, both same sex couples and male female couples are unique on their own. The historical relationship of male female couples and the contribution that relationship has had on life society is deserving of the recognition of marriage. Shanti I base my thinking on that, and I think that its worth my consideration to include the evidence of that.
Right, and what evidence have you that these relationships are any better or worse? What specifically makes them less deserving?
If it’s that they can’t reproduce then to follow your logic fertility tests should be a prerequisite, that or no one should be permitted marriage until they have children, they can be civil partners up to that point.
Otherwise it is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and nothing more.
And with respect, if you make an error of reasoning, I’m well within my rights to point it out. The fact that I will use the proper terms to describe the error you have made is me being objective. Rather than me using more fallacy to counter what you have said..
As for the comment about looking “cool” that’s merely how you see it. And seeing as how you’re trying to use history as your argument it doesn’t suit you to accept that the appeal to tradition is indeed a fallacy.
Marriage used to be about property David. You know that. After all that’s how it is in the Bible.
It has changed, and for the better in my eyes. People are not property, and they should enter a commitment like marriage willingly.
What evidence that theses relationships are any better or worse.
The evidence is the historical record of the relationship of a man and a woman.
The man and a woman by its very nature is better, nature evolution has decided this and humans are reliant on the man and woman relationship.Opposite sex couples for the most end up in a relationship that leads to marriage and children. A gay couples relationships dont. Gay people by their very nature aren’t suppose to have children.The very act of homosexuality is one of impotence.
Ive said this before if gay couples and straight couple are the same why are they not interchangeable? If gay people go into a relationship to have children, why a gay relationship?whats wrong with having a relationship with somone of the opposite sex. What is it about same sex couples not wanting to have opposite sex relationship? Whats wrong with us straight people? and before you say its about sexual preference, that still suggests that there is something wrong with straight people having straight relationships.
Answer this for me too.
If a gay person and this includes yourself, were in a situation of adoption, now all things been equal in regards to financial security,good jobs. Which would you choose gay couple or straght couple?
If someone is standing in the dock and they refuse to talk, the judge regards the silence as an indication of agreement with the charges.
Your silence on a lot of what I have said looks like you agree with my views.
1. You manipulative dolt. Silence does not imply agreement, I don’t agree with any of your nonsense.
2. Appeal to history / tradition.. Gay people weren’t permitted marriage, this is a false comparison and like most of the stuff you say, fallacious.
3. Appealing to nature now are we? So why is homosexuality found throughout nature? Oh, and where in nature is marriage a thing? Marriage is a social, CIVIL contract. It’s about formalizing legal ties to one another, and children are not a prerequisite – do you reckon all childless marriages should be demoted to civil partnership? If not, then you have to admit that you’re just discriminating against gay people, ask yourself why that is.
4. Do you even understand homosexuality? The way you find the notion of being attracted to a man “icky” is essentially how they feel about being attracted to the opposite sex. They can’t help that, but you can help your prejudice given that it’s entirely a choice. Your entire comment there makes no sense, you’re just babbling now.
5. Ditch the red herring of children. The referendum is about marriage and marriage alone. 6. It’s not up to me to choose who gets to adopt, that’s the adoption authority’s job, and they will do so based upon the OBJECTIVE criteria they employ.
Now. Based upon the actual referendum wording and the laws on marriage that it is in accordance with, please explain how ANY of the horseshit you keep spouting is in any way relevant?
7.
You raise some interesting points there. Perhaps when people look a little closer at this topic, its complexities and research our exchanges.
They may get something from it.
Again. Based upon the actual wording we are asked to add to our Constitution, and the laws surrounding MARRIAGE that it is in accordance with, how is any of the stuff about children relevant?
We are being asked if a gay couple can formalise their relationship (the two of them, no one else is involved in this aspect, children are *additions* not a prerequisite). If their relationship with each other, remember, no kids involved at this point, may enjoy the same level of constitutional protection that any heterosexual couple without children enjoy.
IF they decide to adopt, then that is covered by separate legislation and is not actually included in the initial contract of MARRIAGE.
So, where is your rational reason to deny this legal protection to gay couples? And please, stop trying to drag in a completely irrelevant subject, eg, children. Because that is NOT what we are being asked to vote on. The government has actually gone out of their way to make that as clear as possible.
Am I going to have to ask you this same question again David? I asked the other David three times and still no answer has been forthcoming.
What rational, logical, and relevant reason do you have to deny people the right to get married?
Rational, by observation they are not the same.
Logical, science, history,paintings, litrature, songs, sex education, dictionaries stories, books, tv, news, magazines, interaction with parents, neighbours, cousins, friends, mens toilets, womens toilets, child birth, medical books/studies,I could go on and on. Trillions of money spent, over decades, dedicated to the marriage of a man and a woman sex between men and women procreation,and its massive contrabution to life and society. Is that relationship of a straight couple not worthy of the title of marriage? Its reasonable to ask that.
Relivent, all of the above is relivent.
I do not know how I can add to this.
And Im going to call it a day.
I wont be adding anymore to this.
And the hetero couples who don’t plan to have kids? You give them elevated status why? according to your logic that is.
Making a load of appeals to irrelevant subjects is not logical.
The children aspect is separate, we are ONLY being asked should two people be permitted to tie the knot regardless of their sex. They will still need to be of adult age and not related or already married.
Tradition does not imply correctness, just tradition. As for the science and paintings comment you’ve actually just strayed even further from the point at hand.
Of course you will leave this here. Because you cannot defend your stance without revealing that you just consider gay people to be inferior and want to have your prejudice enforced by law.
If kenny says left the answer is right
“Kenny” will have no problem controlling you then.
An interesting development if gay marriage is allowed is whether bi people should be allowed to marry two people, one man and one woman?
It’s polymomous people you mean. And that’s a whole other referendum that nobody is calling for as fat as I am aware.
Polygomous, autocorrect hates me…
No. Because the proposed wording specifically mentions two people.
If you want to marry two people we would either need to not pass the referendum, in which case it remains illegal. Or pass the referendum and set a separate campaign to repeat the two person restriction later.
Repeal. I too am a victim of autocorrect..
Nobody is discussing polyamory in this debate, and where is any equal marriage law allowing three people to wed each other? You’re on another planet.
Is it not discriminating against someone on the grounds of their sexuality to say a bisexual person can’t marry two people?
John – bisexuality means that you are attracted to both men and women. It doesn’t mean that you want one of each at the same time. That is polyamory.
I think I can see what has you confused, but unless a Bisexual person is also polyamorous, they will only have one partner at a time like any other monogamous person.
@ John
Amen
That’s the next phase in this sinister plan when
Organisations
Clubs
States
Religious Orders/Cults
Corporations
will be allowed to marry and have rights over our kids.
Sounds strange?
Legislations/Laws are dangerous things, that can be vulnerable to abuse and loopholes.
Sometimes it’s better to leave well enough alone.
David
The proposed wording States that in accordance with existing laws two adults may be permitted marry without restrictions on their sex.
How does this involve corporations (who would want to marry a corporation? And when two corporations marry it’s called a merger, not a marriage).
You are arguing the slippery slope fallacy
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
The taxpayer is providing generous expenses for all political parties when it comes to referendums. Enda also championed the closure of the Seanad. That like himself was a complete failure. When 13% of those who showed up to vote were confused by the way the questions were phased. Was that a mistake or done to confuse the electorate. Now mammy O’roorke is going to reform it the ushers in Dáil Éireann must be wondering where can the purchase the largest pig troughs for this expenses heavyweight.
Fat Cats lol.
Him an ex-teacher, would he not be bullied at school if he was a 16 year old gay now?
@Michael
As I have tried many times patiently to explain to you, it is NEVER the victim of the bullying fault if they are bullied, but rather the fault of the bullies
Larissa Nikolaus
How dare you say that to me, trying to put words into my mouth “As I have tried many times patiently to explain to you,” it is NEVER the victim of the bullying fault if they are bullied, but rather the fault of the bullies”
Please name one incident as you describe as there is none as this is the first time you comment to me on a subject out side transgenderism… Also I have always taken the side of the victim and smart remarks from you to blacken my name because you have a chip on your shoulder because my arguments that “As I have tried many times patiently to explain to you” that transgenderism is psychological rather than genetic does not mean you have to reply to every post I write on here and try to put words into my mouth hoping to soil my name.
SO GROW UP AND STOP ACTING LIKE A CHILD WHO CAN’T GET YOUR WAY.
Whilst all rational people would agree that this is a positive direction the country is heading in (in terms of the legislation), let’s not over celebrate it, we currently have draconian measures in place that polarise a significant portion of the population based on something as arbitrary as their sexuality. We’re not exactly reinventing the wheel here, simply correcting a bigoted norm in our society at long last.
enda you legend
As are Stalin and Hitler to many…
Perhaps Enda Kenny himself is gay. It wouldn’t surprise me about him at this stage, and particularly given the number of other high-profile politicians (admittedly one is a has-been, in the form of the retired Pat Carey) who have exited the closet in recent months.
There is nothing a substance less politician would not do to keep their head in the trough, our republic is crumbling apart. Our country that Irish men fought and died for is absolutely rotten to the core, the elite are above the law and immune to prosecution yet they will jail ordinary men and women for non payment of a tv licence. Ireland is a sinking ship yet all that seems to matter is SSM? Its absolutely insane and nothing more than a distraction for the bigger realities that threaten our republic our sovereignty.
Amen Jon.
Kenny is more interested in playing the world stage by pandering to a few middle-upper class LGBTs.
As the country burns.
Its possible to deal with more than one issue at a time. I would say that the equal treatment of all Irish citizens is pretty damn important, to say its nothing more than a distraction is an insult to citizens of this country who are not treated as equal under the law. Its an insult to the idea of a democratic republic.
Jon. A ‘yes’ vote in May will fix the issue of marriage inequality and assign it to the past. The politicians won’t be able to use it to hide behind anymore and will have no choice but to face the ‘bigger realities’. A ‘no’ vote will just provide more distraction fodder.
Brian Sheehan is quoted (above) as stating that “it’s very hard to tell if these attacks have always gone on or if people are not just more inclined to say it has happened to them now”. I really feel this is quite an ambivalent remark, really is it “hard to tell”?
There has been an institutional refusal to document homophobia but GLEN and GCN has been told about cases for years. Why is there an attempt to minimise homophobia and homophobic violence as an issue?
Its all about politics and the corruption in this country.7years of pain,we have to think of all our citizens, not a portion,and vote no.stop the suicides,repossessions,kids going to school hungry,this government is causing these things with their policies,vote no and it will bring them down.referendum can be held again,but the people will not get a better chance to get them out,or suffer more deaths ,homelessness, and poverty.
That’s the most irrelevant, off topic reason for voting no you could possibly come up with.
You will get to vote Enda into oblivion in a year, maybe even less. Why vote against equality for all citizens for that?
It’s a referendum, not an election.
Well Said @mdmak33!!
Vote No to Bury FG/Labour.
“Equality” Shanti???
More like “Selfishness”
As I explained to you before, seeking to deny equality is selfishness.
It’s attempting to preserve your own assumed “superioirty” to people based upon their sexual orientation.
Our Constitution says that all citizens are considered to be equal. Our laws prohibit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, and yet here we have an example of clear discrimination between couples based upon the genders of each and nothing more.
Although at least you’re trying out a new argument. Shame it has just as little to do with the actual subject as the last one.
David, a no vote will actually trigger a massive Tsunami from the Azures that will engulf the entire west and south coasts of Ireland, devastating the land, homes, livelihoods and the economy. Vote yes to save Ireland and her people.
The longer they are in the more corrupt laws they can force through, as I said referendum can be held again and passed,done before on EU treaties
So you want your tax to be wasted on another election simply because of spite for the current government. How about you just plan to vote for somebody else in the next general election??? Makes sense doesn’t it???
have your say