Which I actually agree with - democracy is the only way to keep the peace on any divisive issues. Abortion especially is a fundamental question for society - its for the men and women of the country to decide such an issue, not a government.
The 8th amendment hasn't kept the peace on the abortion issue, it remains as divisive as ever. However, abortion is a separate issue - gay marriage is an issue which revolves around the rights of a minority community, and ideally it shouldn't be put to the popular vote. Its like voting on whether or not black people get equal pay, its just wrong.
I understand why in our case we have no choice though.
The 8th amendment hasn't kept the peace on the abortion issue, it remains as divisive as ever. However, abortion is a separate issue - gay marriage is an issue which revolves around the rights of a minority community, and ideally it shouldn't be put to the popular vote. Its like voting on whether or not black people get equal pay, its just wrong.
I understand why in our case we have no choice though.
In 2013 Croatia had a referendum to define marriage as between a man and a woman in the constitution, the vote passed by just under 66% of the vote, although the turnout was low. That's why referendums on other people's rights make me uncomfortable.
The most vociferous bigots no doubt turned up to cast their vote.
In what other way could this Croatian question have been settled to your satisfaction ?
A vote by parliament would probably have given a similar result.
One has to get used to the fact that other countries have radically differing views on such things.
Tyranny of the majority ? oh dearie me, never heard that one before
In what other way could this Croatian question have been settled to your satisfaction ?
A vote by parliament would probably have given a similar result.
One has to get used to the fact that other countries have radically differing views on such things.
Tyranny of the majority ? oh dearie me, never heard that one before
The 8th amendment hasn't kept the peace on the abortion issue, it remains as divisive as ever. However, abortion is a separate issue - gay marriage is an issue which revolves around the rights of a minority community, and ideally it shouldn't be put to the popular vote. Its like voting on whether or not black people get equal pay, its just wrong.
I understand why in our case we have no choice though.
Well people have differing views but its peaceful opposition to abortion.. Yep I agree with you that in a perfect world this shouldn't have to go to the Irish electorate but the facts are that if we want to see gay marriage a reality in Ireland then this vote HAS to happen.
It just seems an odd thing to have a referendum on because it doesn't impact most of the voters.
Most voters will be heterosexual and (despite what some might think) two men or two women being allowed to marry won't impact their lives.
Except that it will. Following the implementation of the Same Sex Marriage Act in England and Wales, and even before it, people have lost jobs and positions simply for making known publicly their opposition to the concept of same sex marriage.
It is good that the Irish people will have a say. In England, David Cameron lied just before the 2010 election in saying he would not introduce the legislation. It appeared on no party manifesto. The public consultation was skewed so as to ignore over half a million people who signed a petition presented to Downing Street opposing the idea. Now we have perfectly good schools penalised by Ofsted for not promoting gay marriage even though guidelines from government say schools do not have to promote it. In Scotland, the public consultation was against the proposed legislation, but the wonderfully democratic SNP still went ahead.
Same sex marriage is not a matter of equality. The rules are different. We have two types of marriage which are subject to two different legal regimes. They are not the same.
Except that it will. Following the implementation of the Same Sex Marriage Act in England and Wales, and even before it, people have lost jobs and positions simply for making known publicly their opposition to the concept of same sex marriage.
Have they? Who? Regardless, that's not the same thing.
If 2 people get married that has absolutely no impact on anyone else. Not a teeny tiny bit, whether it's two men, two women or one of each.
Such a thing shouldn't even be subject to a referendum. The bigots shouldn't get a say in the matter because this is not a matter of rational opinion, you either support equal rights or you don't, and people who don't should just crawl back into their caves.
Except that it will. Following the implementation of the Same Sex Marriage Act in England and Wales, and even before it, people have lost jobs and positions simply for making known publicly their opposition to the concept of same sex marriage.
A very small number, I would think. And generally because recognising same-sex marriage is an essential part of their work.
It is good that the Irish people will have a say.
It appears to be necessary for them to have a say, but it's not necessarily a good thing.
In England, David Cameron lied just before the 2010 election in saying he would not introduce the legislation.
Did he actually say that? I don't recall it.
It appeared on no party manifesto. The public consultation was skewed so as to ignore over half a million people who signed a petition presented to Downing Street opposing the idea..
Everyone was entitled to contribute to the consultation, but in the end a decision had to be made - you can't please everyone.
In Scotland, the public consultation was against the proposed legislation, but the wonderfully democratic SNP still went ahead.
If true, that surprises me. However you sometimes have to protect the minority against the "tyranny of the majority".
Same sex marriage is not a matter of equality. The rules are different. We have two types of marriage which are subject to two different legal regimes. They are not the same.
Have they? Who? Regardless, that's not the same thing.
If 2 people get married that has absolutely no impact on anyone else. Not a teeny tiny bit, whether it's two men, two women or one of each.
Such a thing shouldn't even be subject to a referendum. The bigots shouldn't get a say in the matter because this is not a matter of rational opinion, you either support equal rights or you don't, and people who don't should just crawl back into their caves.
I'm willing to glean new knowledge, please burst forth with an explanation of " tyranny of the majority ".
For the purposes of this topic, it's when you allow a majority to decide which rights a minority shall or shall not have. Democracy becomes tyranny when "majority rules" is the only guiding principle.
Except that it will. Following the implementation of the Same Sex Marriage Act in England and Wales, and even before it, people have lost jobs and positions simply for making known publicly their opposition to the concept of same sex marriage.
It is good that the Irish people will have a say. In England, David Cameron lied just before the 2010 election in saying he would not introduce the legislation. It appeared on no party manifesto. The public consultation was skewed so as to ignore over half a million people who signed a petition presented to Downing Street opposing the idea. Now we have perfectly good schools penalised by Ofsted for not promoting gay marriage even though guidelines from government say schools do not have to promote it. In Scotland, the public consultation was against the proposed legislation, but the wonderfully democratic SNP still went ahead.
Same sex marriage is not a matter of equality. The rules are different. We have two types of marriage which are subject to two different legal regimes. They are not the same.
Your first point doesn't make sense because you acknowledge that people "losing positions" occurred before same sex marriage was legal. So how can the legalisation of same sex marriage have had any impact?
I contributed to the consultation you speak of and made it very clear I was in favour of same sex marriage as did many other people. You act as though those who made a petition against it were the only ones who should have been listened to, because you imply their petition was ignored.
Which schools have been penalised for not promoting same sex marriage? I haven't heard of any. Also, how do you promote such a thing? Is your definition of promotion something like "mentions the existence of"?
Have they? Who? Regardless, that's not the same thing.
If 2 people get married that has absolutely no impact on anyone else. Not a teeny tiny bit, whether it's two men, two women or one of each.
Such a thing shouldn't even be subject to a referendum. The bigots shouldn't get a say in the matter because this is not a matter of rational opinion, you either support equal rights or you don't, and people who don't should just crawl back into their caves.
Nonsense. You fall into the trap of calling a bigot anyone who does not agree with you on this issue. What about gays who disapprove of the legislation? For instance one of the posters earlier on this thread. Are they bigots too? Of course not. That fact alone should tell you that the mere fact that someone objects to gay marriage does not make them a bigot.
Whether you like it or not, there are many rational arguments against gay marriage. Just because you do not agree and shout bigot at your opponents does not affect the debate one way or the other.
I see that you are quite happy for others to suffer a loss of position simply for holding to the belief that marriage should be between man and woman. Where, pray, is your tolerance, or does it work only one way?
A very small number, I would think. And generally because recognising same-sex marriage is an essential part of their work.
It appears to be necessary for them to have a say, but it's not necessarily a good thing.
Did he actually say that? I don't recall it.
Everyone was entitled to contribute to the consultation, but in the end a decision had to be made - you can't please everyone.
If true, that surprises me. However you sometimes have to protect the minority against the "tyranny of the majority".
For all practical purposes they are the same.
Two examples of someone who lost a position. First, a guy who was demoted and docked 40 per cent salary. He worked for a housing association and his job did not involve endorsing gay marriage. Second, an elderly man working for the Red Cross who was dismissed for voicing his opposition to gay marriage in his own time.
Cameron gave the promise on gay marriage on Sky News three days before the 2010 election.
The government promised to count the signatories to the petition as respondents to the consultation. That promise was broken. If the government had kept its word, the response to the consultation would have been overwhelmingly against.
It is a matter of public record that the reply to the Scottish consultation had a majority against the proposals. What was the point of the consultation if it was to be ignored?
The law on gay marriage is fundamentally different from heterosexual marriage. Look it up and then tell me they are the same.
Your first point doesn't make sense because you acknowledge that people "losing positions" occurred before same sex marriage was legal. So how can the legalisation of same sex marriage have had any impact?
I contributed to the consultation you speak of and made it very clear I was in favour of same sex marriage as did many other people. You act as though those who made a petition against it were the only ones who should have been listened to, because you imply their petition was ignored.
Which schools have been penalised for not promoting same sex marriage? I haven't heard of any. Also, how do you promote such a thing? Is your definition of promotion something like "mentions the existence of"?
The point is this. Without the proposed legislation, there would have been no climate of opinion marginalising believers in traditional marriage. Since the bill became an Act, the situation has worsened.
I am not saying that the signatories to the petition should have been heard to the exclusion of others. My point is that, counting the petition, the respondents to the consultation were overwhelmingly against the proposals, yet the government ploughed on.
The fact that you have not heard of the schools penalised is neither here nor there. Look it up. It is a matter of public record. A formal complaint is being made against Ofsted. It is not my imagination.
Two examples of someone who lost a position. First, a guy who was demoted and docked 40 per cent salary. He worked for a housing association and his job did not involve endorsing gay marriage. Second, an elderly man working for the Red Cross who was dismissed for voicing his opposition to gay marriage in his own time.
Cameron gave the promise on gay marriage on Sky News three days before the 2010 election.
The government promised to count the signatories to the petition as respondents to the consultation. That promise was broken. If the government had kept its word, the response to the consultation would have been overwhelmingly against.
It is a matter of public record that the reply to the Scottish consultation had a majority against the proposals. What was the point of the consultation if it was to be ignored?
The law on gay marriage is fundamentally different from heterosexual marriage. Look it up and then tell me they are the same.
Have you got any links to those examples in your first paragraph? If people work in public service we have to expect them to treat everyone within the law, fairly and without prejudice. If that isn't relevant to the two cases above I'm interested in knowing what the grounds for dismissal/disciplinary action were.
Nonsense. You fall into the trap of calling a bigot anyone who does not agree with you on this issue. What about gays who disapprove of the legislation? For instance one of the posters earlier on this thread. Are they bigots too? Of course not. That fact alone should tell you that the mere fact that someone objects to gay marriage does not make them a bigot.
Whether you like it or not, there are many rational arguments against gay marriage. Just because you do not agree and shout bigot at your opponents does not affect the debate one way or the other.
I see that you are quite happy for others to suffer a loss of position simply for holding to the belief that marriage should be between man and woman. Where, pray, is your tolerance, or does it work only one way?
I call people who seek to deny people the same rights that other people enjoy for no good reasons bigots, yes. That's pretty much a textbook definition of it. And yes, by the way, you can be both bigoted and gay. If people don't like the label, they should just stop. It's pretty easy.
So, tell me, what are the rational arguments against gay marriage, and where are all these people who have lost jobs because they've dared to voice them? Links please, otherwise it is somewhat difficult to believe.
The point is this. Without the proposed legislation, there would have been no climate of opinion marginalising believers in traditional marriage. Since the bill became an Act, the situation has worsened.
I am not saying that the signatories to the petition should have been heard to the exclusion of others. My point is that, counting the petition, the respondents to the consultation were overwhelmingly against the proposals, yet the government ploughed on.
The fact that you have not heard of the schools penalised is neither here nor there. Look it up. It is a matter of public record. A formal complaint is being made against Ofsted. It is not my imagination.
More people are in favour of same sex marriage than against. So, while people are free to submit a petition against it, they have to accept that their views are not shared by the majority.
The battle's over now. It's not going to be repealed, so it's best to just move on.
Two examples of someone who lost a position. First, a guy who was demoted and docked 40 per cent salary. He worked for a housing association and his job did not involve endorsing gay marriage. Second, an elderly man working for the Red Cross who was dismissed for voicing his opposition to gay marriage in his own time.
The guy who was demoted went to an industrial tribunal and had his position restored. Funny that you neglect to mention that. So he didn't actually lose his position at all, Trafford Council overstepped its authority and were slapped down.
The guy with the Red Cross was a volunteer and one of the conditions of his volunteering included not getting involved in political campaigning. He decided that shouldn't apply to him and campaigned against same sex marriage. As such, once his period of volunteering came to an end the Red Cross felt that his breach of his agreement with them meant that they didn't want him to volunteer anymore. He wasn't got rid of because of his position on same sex marriage but because he breached the terms of his volunteering agreement.
Interesting how different things look when FACTS are put out there.
Cameron gave the promise on gay marriage on Sky News three days before the 2010 election.
Several days before the election the Tories launched an equalities manifesto which was part of their full manifesto in which they promised to consider the case for allowing gay people to marry.
The government promised to count the signatories to the petition as respondents to the consultation. That promise was broken. If the government had kept its word, the response to the consultation would have been overwhelmingly against.
That petition was dodgy as hell, there was no way of checking whether the people who so called ,signed the petition' were actually real, never mind British and entitled to take part in the consultation. Anyone who had an email address and knew a British post code could sign the electronic version and I am personally aware of people signing the physical copies of the petition on behalf of others who weren't even present at the time.
I've also heard before people claim that the government promised to take the petition into account but no one seems able to point me in the direction of any evidence of this. Petitions are not generally counted as part of a consultation so why would this one be?
It is a matter of public record that the reply to the Scottish consultation had a majority against the proposals. What was the point of the consultation if it was to be ignored?
The majority of replies were negative but a consultation isn't a majority exercise. The substance of the replies is also considered. Also, a large number of the responses were simply postcards signed by religious Scots. This showed absolutely no consideration of the question, they were not substatntive replies and were hopefully given all the attention that they deserved, ie very little.
More people are in favour of same sex marriage than against. So, while people are free to submit a petition against it, they have to accept that their views are not shared by the majority.
The battle's over now. It's not going to be repealed, so it's best to just move on.
I just hope the YES vote in Ireland doesn't become complacent in the run up to the vote.. There will be a sizeable minority following the churches strict view on the issue and they will be inclined to vote.
Recent polls in Ireland show about a 70% support rate but pollsters on the ground maintain the vote is "soft", which does make me slightly uneasy. While I don't think it will be a landslide I think (and I hope) it will pass by about 55-60 %. Anything less and I would be stunned.. I must admit I would be embarrassed as a young Irish citizen.
There is no logical reason to oppose gay marriage, unless one happens to be a voyeur who finds it arousing to take such an active interest in the private lives of other people.
There is no logical reason to oppose gay marriage, unless one happens to be a voyeur who finds it arousing to take such an active interest in the private lives of other people.
Well I suppose if people are very religious they would follow the strict Catholic rules on gay marriage/people.
My only fear is this Catholic generation in Ireland are the likely voters as the young might see it as a foregone conclusion.
The law on gay marriage is fundamentally different from heterosexual marriage. Look it up and then tell me they are the same.
There may be some very minute differences - they are certainly not fundamentally different. For the purposes of equality legislation they are treated exactly the same.
72% of people questioned have said that they would vote yes in the Same Sex Marriage Referendum with 20% opposed to the proposal and 8% undecided but when questioned in greater detail it seems that one in three Yes voters still have doubts about their intended vote.
Less then a month to go now, still think it will be closer then polls are suggesting... seen a few NO posters around the local town here and the reaction of people on FB has been heartwarming.
Comments
The 8th amendment hasn't kept the peace on the abortion issue, it remains as divisive as ever. However, abortion is a separate issue - gay marriage is an issue which revolves around the rights of a minority community, and ideally it shouldn't be put to the popular vote. Its like voting on whether or not black people get equal pay, its just wrong.
I understand why in our case we have no choice though.
Exactly.
In what other way could this Croatian question have been settled to your satisfaction ?
A vote by parliament would probably have given a similar result.
One has to get used to the fact that other countries have radically differing views on such things.
Tyranny of the majority ? oh dearie me, never heard that one before
I honestly can't tell if you're joking.
Except that it will. Following the implementation of the Same Sex Marriage Act in England and Wales, and even before it, people have lost jobs and positions simply for making known publicly their opposition to the concept of same sex marriage.
It is good that the Irish people will have a say. In England, David Cameron lied just before the 2010 election in saying he would not introduce the legislation. It appeared on no party manifesto. The public consultation was skewed so as to ignore over half a million people who signed a petition presented to Downing Street opposing the idea. Now we have perfectly good schools penalised by Ofsted for not promoting gay marriage even though guidelines from government say schools do not have to promote it. In Scotland, the public consultation was against the proposed legislation, but the wonderfully democratic SNP still went ahead.
Same sex marriage is not a matter of equality. The rules are different. We have two types of marriage which are subject to two different legal regimes. They are not the same.
Have they? Who? Regardless, that's not the same thing.
If 2 people get married that has absolutely no impact on anyone else. Not a teeny tiny bit, whether it's two men, two women or one of each.
Such a thing shouldn't even be subject to a referendum. The bigots shouldn't get a say in the matter because this is not a matter of rational opinion, you either support equal rights or you don't, and people who don't should just crawl back into their caves.
It appears to be necessary for them to have a say, but it's not necessarily a good thing.
Did he actually say that? I don't recall it.
Everyone was entitled to contribute to the consultation, but in the end a decision had to be made - you can't please everyone.
If true, that surprises me. However you sometimes have to protect the minority against the "tyranny of the majority".
For all practical purposes they are the same.
^this^
I'm willing to glean new knowledge, please burst forth with an explanation of " tyranny of the majority ".
For the purposes of this topic, it's when you allow a majority to decide which rights a minority shall or shall not have. Democracy becomes tyranny when "majority rules" is the only guiding principle.
Your first point doesn't make sense because you acknowledge that people "losing positions" occurred before same sex marriage was legal. So how can the legalisation of same sex marriage have had any impact?
I contributed to the consultation you speak of and made it very clear I was in favour of same sex marriage as did many other people. You act as though those who made a petition against it were the only ones who should have been listened to, because you imply their petition was ignored.
Which schools have been penalised for not promoting same sex marriage? I haven't heard of any. Also, how do you promote such a thing? Is your definition of promotion something like "mentions the existence of"?
Nonsense. You fall into the trap of calling a bigot anyone who does not agree with you on this issue. What about gays who disapprove of the legislation? For instance one of the posters earlier on this thread. Are they bigots too? Of course not. That fact alone should tell you that the mere fact that someone objects to gay marriage does not make them a bigot.
Whether you like it or not, there are many rational arguments against gay marriage. Just because you do not agree and shout bigot at your opponents does not affect the debate one way or the other.
I see that you are quite happy for others to suffer a loss of position simply for holding to the belief that marriage should be between man and woman. Where, pray, is your tolerance, or does it work only one way?
Two examples of someone who lost a position. First, a guy who was demoted and docked 40 per cent salary. He worked for a housing association and his job did not involve endorsing gay marriage. Second, an elderly man working for the Red Cross who was dismissed for voicing his opposition to gay marriage in his own time.
Cameron gave the promise on gay marriage on Sky News three days before the 2010 election.
The government promised to count the signatories to the petition as respondents to the consultation. That promise was broken. If the government had kept its word, the response to the consultation would have been overwhelmingly against.
It is a matter of public record that the reply to the Scottish consultation had a majority against the proposals. What was the point of the consultation if it was to be ignored?
The law on gay marriage is fundamentally different from heterosexual marriage. Look it up and then tell me they are the same.
The point is this. Without the proposed legislation, there would have been no climate of opinion marginalising believers in traditional marriage. Since the bill became an Act, the situation has worsened.
I am not saying that the signatories to the petition should have been heard to the exclusion of others. My point is that, counting the petition, the respondents to the consultation were overwhelmingly against the proposals, yet the government ploughed on.
The fact that you have not heard of the schools penalised is neither here nor there. Look it up. It is a matter of public record. A formal complaint is being made against Ofsted. It is not my imagination.
Have you got any links to those examples in your first paragraph? If people work in public service we have to expect them to treat everyone within the law, fairly and without prejudice. If that isn't relevant to the two cases above I'm interested in knowing what the grounds for dismissal/disciplinary action were.
I call people who seek to deny people the same rights that other people enjoy for no good reasons bigots, yes. That's pretty much a textbook definition of it. And yes, by the way, you can be both bigoted and gay. If people don't like the label, they should just stop. It's pretty easy.
So, tell me, what are the rational arguments against gay marriage, and where are all these people who have lost jobs because they've dared to voice them? Links please, otherwise it is somewhat difficult to believe.
More people are in favour of same sex marriage than against. So, while people are free to submit a petition against it, they have to accept that their views are not shared by the majority.
The battle's over now. It's not going to be repealed, so it's best to just move on.
The guy who was demoted went to an industrial tribunal and had his position restored. Funny that you neglect to mention that. So he didn't actually lose his position at all, Trafford Council overstepped its authority and were slapped down.
The guy with the Red Cross was a volunteer and one of the conditions of his volunteering included not getting involved in political campaigning. He decided that shouldn't apply to him and campaigned against same sex marriage. As such, once his period of volunteering came to an end the Red Cross felt that his breach of his agreement with them meant that they didn't want him to volunteer anymore. He wasn't got rid of because of his position on same sex marriage but because he breached the terms of his volunteering agreement.
Interesting how different things look when FACTS are put out there.
Several days before the election the Tories launched an equalities manifesto which was part of their full manifesto in which they promised to consider the case for allowing gay people to marry.
That petition was dodgy as hell, there was no way of checking whether the people who so called ,signed the petition' were actually real, never mind British and entitled to take part in the consultation. Anyone who had an email address and knew a British post code could sign the electronic version and I am personally aware of people signing the physical copies of the petition on behalf of others who weren't even present at the time.
I've also heard before people claim that the government promised to take the petition into account but no one seems able to point me in the direction of any evidence of this. Petitions are not generally counted as part of a consultation so why would this one be?
The majority of replies were negative but a consultation isn't a majority exercise. The substance of the replies is also considered. Also, a large number of the responses were simply postcards signed by religious Scots. This showed absolutely no consideration of the question, they were not substatntive replies and were hopefully given all the attention that they deserved, ie very little.
Nonsense, the marriage laws are exactly the same.
Recent polls in Ireland show about a 70% support rate but pollsters on the ground maintain the vote is "soft", which does make me slightly uneasy. While I don't think it will be a landslide I think (and I hope) it will pass by about 55-60 %. Anything less and I would be stunned.. I must admit I would be embarrassed as a young Irish citizen.
Of course they did. People like that have nothing else going on in their lives.
My only fear is this Catholic generation in Ireland are the likely voters as the young might see it as a foregone conclusion.
There may be some very minute differences - they are certainly not fundamentally different. For the purposes of equality legislation they are treated exactly the same.
72% of people questioned have said that they would vote yes in the Same Sex Marriage Referendum with 20% opposed to the proposal and 8% undecided but when questioned in greater detail it seems that one in three Yes voters still have doubts about their intended vote.
Less then a month to go now, still think it will be closer then polls are suggesting... seen a few NO posters around the local town here and the reaction of people on FB has been heartwarming.