Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Gay marriage referendum: what are we actually voting on?
Options
Comments
-
Martin, you miss my point. Being gay is as good as being hetro (there is no difference, we are all still simply people). What abhors me is that one side needs to deface another. That's simply ignorance.
Well both sides are defacing each other and I agree with you there is nothing wrong with either. However the last post was on your saying this "The yes campaign disgusts me. They are utter bigots who don't even understand what it is to be gay. Screw ye fanciful well wishers. Live it and then know it. You sicken me." and I am wondering what you mean by this. By the way there are many in the yes side who are utterly appalled with what some of the side has done and said notice I said some and do not paint us all with the same brush o you would be dangerously closed to what you hate0 -
Well it is having an adverse affect on me, because legally - current marriage and this version of same sex marriage shall be intermingled.
It is? Ehh...how? Is someone going to force you to marry someone of the same sex?I have suggested we have an alternative "Same Sex Marriage" equal and distinct from current marriage which would have very limited negative affect on anybody.
Sit down at the back Rosa, sure aren't you lucky you were let on the bus at all?So vote no to send them back to the drawing board for this.
You mean...so vote no to keep oppressing gay couples.0 -
Well it is having an adverse affect on me, because legally - current marriage and this version of same sex marriage shall be intermingled.
I have suggested we have an alternative "Same Sex Marriage" equal and distinct from current marriage which would have very limited negative affect on anybody.
So vote no to send them back to the drawing board for this.
Fidelma, is that you?0 -
In response to the OP, I'm just voting yes because it is something that wilimprove the lives of a large minority of people while having zero adverse effects on anybody else and it will be enshrined in the constitution.
OK blood vessel blown :-). Was yes the right vote. Without doubt yes was the right vote. Social inclusion is by nature a positive step.
However there are a couple of issues that really bug my head about this vote.
Primarily the issue that I need a politician to tell me how to vote. On top of that I need a yes or no campaign to tell me how to vote. I think its beyond ludicrous that a politician must resign their post if they don't go with a political stance in any referendum. It is a totally personal viewpoint and even politicians are people. A referendum is a people vote not a political vote.
Probably my biggest concern with the yes vote is the legal issues. I won't simplify this issue as it isn't simple. However I will try to make a point. I am divorced. I fought really hard to get joint custody of the kids. So I got joint custody with the kids being with me 5 days a week and their mum two days a week. On top of that the mother got a significant maintenance agreement for herself as being primary custodian?
What comes out of this yes vote is definitely liberation for same sex marriages. However it has to change the whole legal process also for the mother above the father. Now it is not mother over father it is partner over partner. I welcome this development of equality for all0 -
Primarily the issue that I need a politician to tell me how to vote. On top of that I need a yes or no campaign to tell me how to vote. I think its beyond ludicrous that a politician must resign their post if they don't go with a political stance in any referendum. It is a totally personal viewpoint and even politicians are people. A referendum is a people vote not a political vote.
People keep bringing this up but I can't understand it at all. Every referendum in the history of this country (or possibly any country) has had politicians and campaigners trying to convince people to vote a certain way. That's just an inherent part of democracy. When you're changing the law and you need people to vote on it, it's always going to be political.0 -
Advertisement
-
So same-sex is political. Abortion is political. Yes you are changing the constitution which lasts beyond any political party because it is for the people voted by the people in good conscience. Are you saying you need a political bump to vote the right way. Surely you do have your own opinion0
-
Of course, that must be it. Anybody who doesn't fit into your narrow yes opinion is drinking, on drugs or has a limited viewpoint. None of the above. As one who has a keen interest in the outcome of this referendum the yes vote bothers me. Its an emotive issue and your vote should be for the right reasons. Yes I want the yes vote but that's for me. I do not coerce people into a yes vote. It means much to me but not much if it is simply forced from the populace by dirty tactics.
Interesting points ouncer. I saw the Yes vote as a certainty, unless for some reason younger people didn't bother to turn out an vote. Personally I welcome and see the good in the referendum passing, but I can understand how some older people particularly see it as a seismic change to what they've known all their lives.
What really surprised me though was the level of vitriol and hatred from people against the idea of a No vote. This came through on many levels, from No posters being ripped down all over Dublin, to hate filled comments on Facebook, Twitter etc. And I'm not just talking anonymous internet hatred, but people I actually know.
Something which encapsulated it perfectly was an acquaintance (Yes voter) leaving a train station and avoiding a Yes canvasser (said how they were voting was "none of their business"), the canvasser shouted angrily after them: "I suppose you're a No voter then!!"
Something big has changed in Irish society - and its a good thing that gay people are finally accepted as regular people (seems strange to say this - but its true, looking back on recent Ireland they weren't accepted as such).
But, what hasn't changed is human nature. There are still intolerant people, and "mob" mentalities. And I think this came through in the hatred coming from part of the Yes campaign.
I just didnt see this from the No campaign. It was very muted, with a few figure heads leading it. Sure, Breda O'brien, John WAters, and Quinn said some things I found to odd, but not that same level of hate.
Some other peculiarities were others who jumped on the Yes bandwagon. Like the IDA's Martin Shanahan saying a Yes vote would be good for the Irish economy. (1) Firstly, is this true? Possibly more-progressive American multinationals (e.g. Twitter) might be impressed. But its worth bearing in mind that Ireland at this stage is much more progressive place than most of the US. And in terms of doing business in "developing" nations (e.g. Africa, Mid-East, South East Asia), or China or Russia? Lets be honest, it won't do any favours.
(2) Which comes to the more important point. If this is a human rights issue of great importance, should we place such importance of doing a bit more business with the world? And if the economic impact was deemed to be negative, should the IDA have been advising people to vote No until most of the world came around to our point of view? Madness!0 -
-
Interesting points ouncer. I saw the Yes vote as a certainty, unless for some reason younger people didn't bother to turn out an vote. Personally I welcome and see the good in the referendum passing, but I can understand how some older people particularly see it as a seismic change to what they've known all their lives.
What really surprised me though was the level of vitriol and hatred from people against the idea of a No vote. This came through on many levels, from No posters being ripped down all over Dublin, to hate filled comments on Facebook, Twitter etc. And I'm not just talking anonymous internet hatred, but people I actually know.
Something which encapsulated it perfectly was an acquaintance (Yes voter) leaving a train station and avoiding a Yes canvasser (said how they were voting was "none of their business"), the canvasser shouted angrily after them: "I suppose you're a No voter then!!"
Something big has changed in Irish society - and its a good thing that gay people are finally accepted as regular people (seems strange to say this - but its true, looking back on recent Ireland they weren't accepted as such).
But, what hasn't changed is human nature. There are still intolerant people, and "mob" mentalities. And I think this came through in the hatred coming from part of the Yes campaign.
I just didnt see this from the No campaign. It was very muted, with a few figure heads leading it. Sure, Breda O'brien, John WAters, and Quinn said some things I found to odd, but not that same level of hate.
Some other peculiarities were others who jumped on the Yes bandwagon. Like the IDA's Martin Shanahan saying a Yes vote would be good for the Irish economy. (1) Firstly, is this true? Possibly more-progressive American multinationals (e.g. Twitter) might be impressed. But its worth bearing in mind that Ireland at this stage is much more progressive place than most of the US. And in terms of doing business in "developing" nations (e.g. Africa, Mid-East, South East Asia), or China or Russia? Lets be honest, it won't do any favours.
(2) Which comes to the more important point. If this is a human rights issue of great importance, should we place such importance of doing a bit more business with the world? And if the economic impact was deemed to be negative, should the IDA have been advising people to vote No until most of the world came around to our point of view? Madness!
I am simply an ordinary person. I vote with best intentions at heart. But boy does it bug me when someone trys to push their opinion on me. Like anyone who has lived we have seen many tragedies. Young family members killed in car/bike accidents, a young person having an abortion and the impact of that on their mental health, gay friends struggling to be accepted. I've seen a bit. I havnt seen everything. I just want to be left alone and allowed to vote in good conscience.
I'm not a religious person. Yet I can understand why the catholic church were forced into a position where they had to give their guidance to church goers. I understand that the church fundamentally cannot accept this constitution change as it simply is against a core ideological princple of the church. Yet I doubt they would have contested the vote if all the political parties had not rallied behind the yes vote. They were left with no choice.
So my point remains the same. I don't want to see yes or no posters on my street. I don't want a politician or a priest to tell me how to vote. I want to vote as I want to vote for the best reasons based on life experience.
The real problem with the same sex marriage along with abortion along with assisted suicide is they are such emotional issues. Who cares about the age of the president when you compare such a vote to the previous 3 issues I raised. These type of issues are so personal that it is very easy to get someone's back up. I hated the political parties pushing for a yes as by nature folks vote against political opinion as we consider these folks as muffins who are only looking after their own pensions. Consider that the Lisbon treaty failed first time because of political support. I was just dreading that our politicians were going to screw up this vote because of their involvement.
Anyway I hope lessons have been learnt.0 -
So same-sex is political. Abortion is political. Yes you are changing the constitution which lasts beyond any political party because it is for the people voted by the people in good conscience. Are you saying you need a political bump to vote the right way. Surely you do have your own opinion
So is nobody allowed to discuss it then? Are we all just supposed to have unchallenged opinions in vacuums? Are the people who actually make laws not allowed to voice opinions on the subject? Every change to the constitution is supposed to last beyond the parties in power. What you're basically saying is that we should have to keep having referenda that affect the future of our country but where nobody actually talks about the thing we're voting on because it would be too imposing.0 -
Advertisement
-
First to say nobody lives in a vacuum. Some may wish to but few of these succeed. Its obvious you don't get my opinion so let's give a simple example. A family member is gay. You have witnessed how hard it has been from childhood for the individual. You understand all these difficulties as you have lived with that individual. Now somebody from the 'no' campaign arrives at your front door. Do you feelSo is nobody allowed to discuss it then? Are we all just supposed to have unchallenged opinions in vacuums? Are the people who actually make laws not allowed to voice opinions on the subject? Every change to the constitution is supposed to last beyond the parties in power. What you're basically saying is that we should have to keep having referenda that affect the future of our country but where nobody actually talks about the thing we're voting on because it would be too imposing.
a) happy to take their point even though you totally disagree with it
b) willing to listen to their viewpoint even though you live it and they don't
c) highly defensive
d) don't care, happy to chat
Now my understanding is your a happy to chat person. However most of us tend to be emotional folk and have viewpoints. We have gained these viewpoints from life experiences. With each referenda get an unbiased booklet showing both sides of the equation. The information is there. Anyway I digress and I suspect without much benefit to you. Everybody is different and you and me are oceans apart. No amount of examples would change your viewpoint. That's because its your viewpoint. And that's what you use when voting, your opinion0 -
First to say nobody lives in a vacuum. Some may wish to but few of these succeed. Its obvious you don't get my opinion so let's give a simple example. A family member is gay. You have witnessed how hard it has been from childhood for the individual. You understand all these difficulties as you have lived with that individual. Now somebody from the 'no' campaign arrives at your front door. Do you feel
a) happy to take their point even though you totally disagree with it
b) willing to listen to their viewpoint even though you live it and they don't
c) highly defensive
d) don't care, happy to chat
Now my understanding is your a happy to chat person. However most of us tend to be emotional folk and have viewpoints. We have gained these viewpoints from life experiences. With each referenda get an unbiased booklet showing both sides of the equation. The information is there. Anyway I digress and I suspect without much benefit to you. Everybody is different and you and me are oceans apart. No amount of examples would change your viewpoint. That's because its your viewpoint. And that's what you use when voting, your opinion
I wouldn't give them much time of day and I'd probably dislike them just as I dislike all of the insulting "No" posters but that still doesn't change the fact that they're allowed to voice their opinions on their own time. That's pretty much the same with every referendum though. In the most recent EU treaty referendum there were tons of misleading and scary posters by the Socialist Party and their cohorts about the totalitarian dystopia the treaty would create.
In all honesty I would probably prefer if things like posters and paid advertising were banned completely but I don't see why it should be singled out for this referendum in particular and I don't think actual discussion on TV, radio, internet etc should be stifled.0 -
The referendums are over now one was passed the other didn't that is all we know for sure.0
-
Have to laugh at the "Vote for Equality" lark though. My child is indoctrinated with Catholicism in her school every day. Before I hear cries of "why dont you send her to a non Catholic school", all 12 of the schools within travelling distance here are state schools with a Catholic ethos. Dont see any groundswell of support for our "equality though."
Equality for some...but not for others it seems.
Carry on Ireland, nothing to see here0 -
Have to laugh at the "Vote for Equality" lark though. My child is indoctrinated with Catholicism in her school every day. Before I hear cries of "why dont you send her to a non Catholic school", all 12 of the schools within travelling distance here are state schools with a Catholic ethos. Dont see any groundswell of support for our "equality though."
Equality for some...but not for others it seems.
Carry on Ireland, nothing to see here
Thats an entirely different issue altogether. IMO no school should have an religious ethos. If you really wanted, you can have her excused from religious studies. It happened in my school which was a CBS.0 -
Equality is such a misused word. Seems we want equal amount of men and women politicians. We want equal amount of ceo's that are men and women. Utter waffle. We want equal opportunities for everybody no matter their sexual orientation, their religious beliefs, the colour of their skin etc.. What we should want is the best people in the best positions no matter their sex, sexual orientation, their religious beliefs, the colour of their skin etc...0
-
Advertisement