Right.
Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Gannicus
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Right.
Right what? The statement in speech marks sounds racist to me, why is denying people equal status to marry because of their sexual orientation any different?
Big day for Ireland with this, though the result was never in doubt I think. It's the results of the vote in some of the more rural and working class areas that are most encouraging, since people seem to attach the stigma of backwards and old fashioned to them. It shows that Ireland is a lot more forward thinking than we are given credit for, and I for see this as a sign that we get rid of some of our other archaic laws further down the road.
Nah, they are different arguments tbf. A lot of the people who voted no weren't homophobes, they just had genuine (if misguided) concerns over any knock on effects legalising gay marriage might have had. The yes campaigners who dismissed the opposition as homophobes hindered the yes campaign as much as the no side did, I'd have thought.
I voted no for that yesterday after changing my mind the day before.
Its basically an ambassadorial role for an elder statesman. A politician you respect.
They have very little actual power as you say, its not a position that requires a young, driven go getter with fresh ideas or any of that jazz.
Just an experienced older head who wont make us look too absurd ideally.
Plus after 7 years they get a pension of €125k for the rest of their life.
Your not really going to begrudge the likes of Michael D the money, some guy whos just turned 28 getting a pension like that is .... a bit of a pisstake frankly.
I didn't care much tbh. The only reason it was put in was to give something for people to vote no for so the relevant vote was easier to pass.
Every referendum we get these days has an obvious throwaway extra vote thrown on the end that everyone will vote no for (or just not give a shit about).
Think the last one was Judges pay.
Why? I'm perfectly open to changing my mind on this, I just haven't seen any reasons why it's different. I'm not saying people who voted no are all against gays having any rights, relationships etc.
I voted yes on the presidential age ballot just to make doubly sure that I voted yes on the marriage equality one. Ballots have a way of making me question my ability to read.
My sister did the same for the same reasons.
It probably could have been a bit clearer.
Make the paper for the gay marriage rainbow coloured or something
I was the same. I read the ballots about 5 times before putting the X in.
What is marriage? In Ireland it is predominately viewed as a religious ceremony defined by religious scripture and catholic tradition. It is essentially the religious legitimisation or celebration of a civil union. The reason some people are against gay marriage is because they define marriage in terms analogous with religious tradition, specifically as a union between a man and a woman. They are, presumably, in favour of equality for everyone under the law, and so would have no problem with homosexual couples attaining civil unions. However, gay marriage is a concept which might encroach on their definition of what marriage actually is. The race analogy you use is inadequate because it tries to simplify something which is actually more complex than "Well, imagine if X was Y".
As I've said before, I don't believe anyone voting no has much of a leg to stand on, but I also don't think they're all homophobic.
For example, the thinking of a lot of the people who voted no would be: "One of the knock on effects of legalising gay marriage is that it would make it easier for gay couples to adopt kids in the future. This is a bad thing as (although many gay couples will be better parents than many straight couples) it is still generally preferable that children have access to both a mother and a father as there are inherent gender differences in those roles".
Now, that point of view might be misguided and illogical but it isn't particularly homophobic. Anyone with that point of view would only be further driven towards voting no if the opposition unfairly dismiss them as being homophobic.
Were really not these days. Ireland as a deeply religious country is a bit of a myth at this point.
The local church once upon a time would be full every sunday. Nowdays it has about a dozen people at most, all 50+
We worship money and booze now (or we did worship money when we had some back in the celtic tiger days)
Think this is a pretty fair explanation.
Thinking a gay couple would be worse parents is homophobic though.
Maybe in Dublin, but go outside and you'll see plenty of conservative church-going people, primarily of the older generation.
In the example described I think there's more of a case for sexism than homophobia. It's the gender that concerns people, not the parent's sexuality.
I'm with you, if people are against gay people having equal rights in a constitution then it seems fairly clear cut to me. When the law was changed over here people said "I'm against it for religious reasons, not homophobic ones", well yeah, homophobic religious reasons.
The campaigns would each spend tens of thousands at least which all just seems a bit pointless when it was known there was a massive parliamentary majority for it in the Commons, and the end result is the same.
Not at all. All those areas with close results are by far all friendly areas with lovely people. If one was of base the level of homophobia in certain areas of the country based on the percentages of the votes well then it practically makes those areas, no go areas that's just full of hatred. And only a clown or someone with an agenda would say that is the case.
@sully hit the nail on the head when he mentioned the word misguided. There was a serious amount of that going on in both camps but particularly in the vote No camp and I who was going to vote No will be the first to say that.
Do you think what I put in the speech marks is racist or not? Whether or not they use scripture to justify it or not is irrelevant to me, there are passages in the bible that condone slavery but people aren't arguing in favour of that because we know it's not right in liberal democracy. Like I said, I'm well aware that most if not all those voting 'no' are still in favour of gay people having relationships etc.
Gay adoption is a separate issue (although obviously the two are closely linked), but I would say that's still likely homophobic and if not then sexist as DOTA said.
Sure, all 50+ ...
Half the population in this country lives in Dublin. Its important to some, and there is definitely deeply religious generations still.
But theres as many who wouldn't be seen dead (pardon the pun) in a church.
Were more religious that some european states im sure, but less than plenty of others too at this point i would have thought.
It just would've been a nice celebration of how tolerant we are. The applauds/blame goes to us all, rather than our politicians... Can totally see where your coming from - I'm not generally a fan of referendums - I just think their big gay party sounds more fun, and potentially fruitful going forward, it being the result of a popular vote, that ours was.
It's irrelevant if it's racist because it's an entirely different argument with an entirely different context.
Exactly.
I've said it before, but people's perceptions of homophobia, racism, sexism etc are focalised into the idea of individual people who are card-carrying haters, a homophobe, a racist, a sexist. Luis Suarez can saying something racist, but he doesn't play football in a Klan hood, so he's not a racist. Systematic prejudice or deeply-ingrained prejudice is too complex and therefore ignored. So you have people saying that gay people would be inherently worse parents that straight people adamant that that idea isn't homophobic. They don't think gay people will burn in hell so they're absolved from any and all homophobia forever and ever.
Not really. They're not saying that they'd be worse parents because they're gay or even that a lot of gay couples wouldn't be better parents than a lot of straight parents.
They're saying that there is an inherent difference between men/women and between the role and influence of mother/fathers. Their point is more that the children of a gay couple don't get access to those two distinct influences than it is that the sexual orientation of those parents will have an effect in and of itself.
Heard that argument too
They put it as - its good for children to have strong male and female role models (in a perfect world with other, more important, factors being equal).
It might be a bit homophobic / sexist, but i cant say i disagree with it entirely.
They put it as - its good for children to have strong male and female role models (in a perfect world with other, more important, factors being equal).
It might be a bit homophobic / sexist, but i cant say i disagree with it entirely.
I don't think it's homophobic. It's questioning gender roles more than sexual orientation and even that line of discussion isn't sexist in and of itself.
Obviously a lot of people are homophobic (even without actually realising it themselves) but for a lot of people this was a more nuanced issue. It isn't hard to see why people would have concerns along those lines, especially with the no campaign making their argument on those grounds.
There's uncountable single parents out there. Why target Gay people specifically with that argument?
What a load of bollocks.
It is homophobic. And sexist. It's the kind of shit people who've romanticised the dark ages say.
The whole argument is (in my humble opinion) not just a slap in the face to every single parent out there but also a load of bollocks.
I'd bet big money that an awful lot of the people who voted No did so because they think being gay is "icky" and don't give a single shit about adoption. It's much easier to go with the "won't somebody think of the children" arguement though.
You're sidestepping the issue I think. It's discrimination on the ground of race vs. discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.
That B&B couple a few years back rightly lost their appeal after turning away a gay couple. They would have been correctly called racist if they had done so because the couple was black.
It's the idea that a family has to be a certain way - mother, father, kids. The idea of there being two mothers or two fathers quite clearly is a threat to that. There's quite clearly a homophobic root (and as Wonder Pigeon says, not card-carrying homophobia but just the gently discriminating kind) in thinking that a gay couple don't have a right to a family life of their own, by virtue of having been born with a differing sexual preference. Single mothers and fathers doing an excellent job of raising children quite clearly show there's not an inherent need for there to be both genders playing an equal role in raising a child.
It certainly isn't homophobic (at least logically). It may well be sexist but having the discussion itself isn't. The idea that mean and women (equal but different) might have equal but different roles in parenting might be misguided but I doubt it is uncommon. If you just dismiss people with that point of view as homophobic then they just become entrenched in their views.
Look at TBP. He was convinced to vote yes by people actually engaging with his point of view, not by people dismissing him as a homophobe.
Again i agree with this, but in a perfect world with all else being equal do you not think its good for a kid to have a good female and male role model?
Im not sure how i feel about it to be clear.
I think it's a pretty homophobic point of view. I'd say it's a perfect example of homophobia in fact.
I'm not sure if you're being purposefully obtuse, but you're failing to comprehend the inadequacy of your own analogy.
They just need good role models. Doesn't always have to be a parent, and it doesn't have to be confined along gender lines.
Saying that two men or two women are bad parents is homophobic. And anyone who uses equal but different at a genuine idea is, just, an utterly shit human being.
It's a fine analogy. People did make all the arguments against blacks rights that are being made against gay rights. And claimed not to be racist while doing it.