That is your opinion, which I presume is genuinely held. Many voting No will view a Yes as setting in stone the recently rushed through Children and Family Relationships bill.
I've just watched a YouTube video of a talk by David Quinn (Iona Institute).
Just to back up Sol and everyone else offended by the posters: false and misleading threats as to what the outcome of this vote will mean are the lowest form of politicking. The posters are simply wrong and deliberately so. There is no justification for perpetuating misleading threats that are almost dripping in hate for the (male) gay community. To be facetuous, posters stating that a child needs a mother would have been much more appreciated in recent history when the church was taking babies from mothers and sticking them in slave labour camps or selling them. But then I guess the church has changed it's views on what is best for a child...funny how we can change definitions and views as time goes on. Implies tyhat no view is sacred or concrete, no matter what the source.
For those not inclined to view the whole talk from David Quinn, here's the summary and if I misrepresent anything, I'm open to correction:
Once you redefine marriage you are saying that as a society we no longer need a social institution that:
- grows out of the differences between the sexes,
- out of the fact that the sexual union of a man and a woman is unique in kind,
- out of the fact that the natural tie is worth preserving, and
- out of the fact that actually it is best for the child to have a loving mother and father.
Is that about right?
I guess it seems reasonable, but here's my problem with many of the points and it is again that it all boils down to a veiled threat of doom and gloom without actually saying or providing evidence as to what will happen.
We have several countries that recognise gay marriage, perfect case studies to test these and none of this has proven to be true.
Quinn points to differences between men and women just by saying that; they're different. He tells us its proven they're different. I can accept this, but he doesn't explain how or in what way, or how this is unique and special. Give us something to discuss and debate because again, the impact of gender on raising a child has not been found to be significant. This is the main problem with the No campaign so far in that there is just too much implied threat without giving specifics, too much our gut says this is special so it must be. Does society grow out of the differences between sexes? I dunno. Maybe it has in recent history because of how prevalent sexism has been. Maybe that has fostered some of the differences in gender roles in the family, but that isn't the most common famliy unit for my generation. Both parents work, both share household duties, both raise the kids equally. I've dressed up and played fairies and tea parties just as much as I've been a punching bag for whichever super hero was favourite that week. I've discussed boys and girls. I know most of the songs to My Little Pony series just as much as I know how to clear most of the Lego video games. I'm a parent first, I just happen to be referred to as a dad.
Maybe, just maybe, the old gender assigned roles that are so special were based on an old patriarchal system that doesn't exist anymore (perfect chance for the Mens Right Movement to chip in to this thread).
To be facetious, a night in Coppers will show you that the sexual union of a man and a women isn't that unique. But then what does unique mean and in what context. Sexual union of a man and a man is also unique. Sexual union of a woman and a woman is also unique...man and sheep too. It's all unique going by a strict definition. But let's cut to the chase, he's not really saying unique, he's saying better, he's saying right. He's saying homosexuality is wrong, just in a way that doesn't get him into trouble.
We have two points, society grows out of the differences between sexes and that this sexual union is unique. But nothing to back up that statement, nothing out of the decades of anthropological studies to show that there is any downside whatsoever for allowing other couples to have the same rights. If these points are true, what possible impact is there if (approx) 15% of the population get to have equal status? None. Even Quinn can't (or won't) provide any, just implied threats.
Then the last two points. The natural tie is worth preserving. It has been. It will be. It. Doesn't. Change. Marriage between a man and a woman will still exist to be marriage between a man and a women. They can still go forth and multiply. If anyone is concerned that in the present or future that their marriage will not be special to them and their partner because two men or two women can also have their union recognised, then maybe take the time to think if marriage is right for you or whether you're ready for it. What other people do in their marriage, who they marry, why they marry, none of that should be of any consequence to you and why you chose to marry who you did or will. This vote will not do anything to existing marriage. Stop pretending it will. All and any impact on existing marriage is in the head of those puporting this falsehood. It perhaps says more about their own bigotry and existing marriage than anything else.
And then the last; think of the children. Here's the rub, it may well be best for a child to have a mother and father, but even Quinn prefaces this with "loving". So it is a qualified statement that all being equal a loving mother and father is better for the child than a loving same sex couple. Utter nonsense as it happens, but we'll go with it.
Let's start then with abolishing boarding schools, particuarly ones that are single sex and single sex teachers. That has to be a dangerous environment to raise children.
Question though, if (loving) mother and father is best, how will this referendum change that? Genuine question. Because the only possible way that could be affected is if gay couples start coming in and stealing children or getting preferential IVF treatment or something. Is it because there might be equal access to adoption? Good! Even if loving mother and father was best, there aren't enough of them willing to or able to adopt or foster. Even if a loving gay couple isn't as good, surely its better than a child being a ward of the state, or has Quinn not followed the HSE's record on caring for children?
Then the last thing he doesn't address is what about all the non-loving parents, is gender so important and special that they are still better than a gay couple? Really? Well obviously not, because even Quinn qualifies his statement with "loving", unfortunately we don't and never have had 100% compliance with being a good parent. There will be no impact on those in an existing marrigae with kids, they will still be the parent, they can still love and nurture their kids.
I agree we should think of the children, all those institutionalised because of a failure of parenting. All those who in the past were taken from mothers and sold. Think of the children, but not yours, those who don't have access to a loving and supportive family unit. Why deny them the same care and nurture?
Even if what Quinn states is correct (and all evidence is that it isn't...Canada, seems to be doing ok) it isn't a good enough reason to deny equality. There is no downside to voting yes. No impacts on existing reasons people got married or had kids. It will not affect how you parent or continue in your relationship.
The No campaign remains one of implied threatswithout just stating what the justifiable reason for voting no is. Even when they do, they're all points that won't be impacted by this vote.