Month and Week Decided this is getting Real

17-12-2014 11:30am

anonyanony wrote: »

My main question is will this change cause the loss of any freedoms I know have atm. I am asking this of the no side too, I default to no change and the yes side have to convince me I won't more then the no.

Sounds like "guilty until proven innocent" to me. Surely the onus of proof lies solely at the people claiming the vote WILL change your personal rights - not at the feet of the people who say it will not.

If the "no" side present a cogent argument suggesting your personal rights will be changed by this change in the law - then come back to us and let us know what that argument is. Until this time however - there is no onus on anyone here to prove a negative.

Daith · 17-12-2014 11:34am

Deleted User wrote: »

And your wording would like feed into that non-argument. The fact is that _right now_ any person can marry regardless of their sexuality. The issue is WHO they can marry.

Agreed but then would the state need to officially recognize specific sexualities?

The wording and ability to twist the wording is going to be key.

Or would it be a person can marry regardless of gender? Would gender be the better word?

anonyanony · 17-12-2014 11:36am

Deleted User wrote: »

Sounds like "guilty until proven innocent" to me. Surely the onus of proof lies solely at the people claiming the vote WILL change your personal rights - not at the feet of the people who say it will not.

If the "no" side present a cogent argument suggesting your personal rights will be changed by this change in the law - then come back to us and let us know what that argument is. Until this time however - there is no onus on anyone here to prove a negative.

Truthfully voting no changes nothing for me for definite, a yes vote also changes nothing for me but might lead to the removal of some of my freedoms.

I don't care enough to look into it fully and instead ask the questions on both sides, yes side need to reassure me of what the changes will and won't bring as I am not going to read hundreds of pages for something that won't bring me any benefit whatsoever if they cannot convince me of nothing will change I will vote to keep the status quo.

Daith · 17-12-2014 11:38am

anonyanony wrote: »

Truthfully voting no changes nothing for me for definite, a yes vote also changes nothing for me but might lead to the removal of some of my freedoms.

How about nothing will change for you?

anonyanony wrote: »

I am not going to read hundreds of pages for something that won't bring me any benefit whatsoever if they cannot convince me of nothing will change I will vote to keep the status quo.

You want something that will bring you benefit but you want to keep the status quo?

floggg · 17-12-2014 11:38am

anonyanony wrote: »

The bakers right of who to chose to serve in their private business is a big injustice to me.

My reason why I might vote no is I want to find out if a yes will not remove anymore rights from private individuals.

The way I go about deciding to vote on things are, the position that changes nothing is my default, I them go to a forum that's pro the change they have to convince me the change won't change any personal freedom which I and others already have, I also go to the no side and see if they say the changes will impact my rights.

It's up to the side changing the system to win me to their side as keeping it the same definitely won't effect me.

Well that's a very selfish view. You are voting on people's rights here so you need to consider more than just your own position.

You should also ask whether the default position is right in the first place. Just because a group doesn't have certain rights to begin with, that doesn't mean they shouldn't.

Is "keeping things the same" really a good reason to actively go out and vote to deny those people rights and equality?

Or the right of somebody to express their hatred or dislike?

Imagine you have a gay kid and in 20 years time he asks you how you voted in the referendum. Do you really want to tell him that since you had nothing personally to gain you didn't feel any onus to vote in favour treating gay people equally to everybody else.

And that you saw a baker being able to refuse service on bigoted grounds as more important than equality or the rights of a minority.

17-12-2014 11:40am

Daith wrote: »

Agreed but then would the state need to officially recognize specific sexualities?

That I am afraid you would need to ask someone who has more legal knowledge than my zero knowledge I am afraid

With my lack of legal expertise I can only imagine and guess at wordings. Something suggesting that consenting adults can marry regardless of SEX - rather than regardless of sexuality - would probably be more relevant?

17-12-2014 11:45am

anonyanony wrote: »

Truthfully voting no changes nothing for me for definite, a yes vote also changes nothing for me but might lead to the removal of some of my freedoms.

Again I feel that it is solely the people claiming such a change will occur - who have the onus of proof to declare this.

I think I take a less selfish and self centred approach to voting though. I would of course be interested in what affect on ME such a change will cause - but I would then hold up that detriment (or benefit?) to me personally against the relative benefits of the change to others too.

I am happy to lose SOME degrees of freedoms or rights if the resulting net benefit to others genuinely warrants it.

But as I said - it would be up to the "no" campaign to first convince me a change affecting me is actually going to occur before I would engage in that decision making. "No will change nothing for me - and yes might in some way as yet unknown" is a process of paranoid NON thinking to me - and I would not vote accordingly.

anonyanony wrote: »

if they cannot convince me of nothing will change I will vote to keep the status quo.

And as I said - I simply do not operate in a similar self centred and selfish approach. I do not consider solely my own position when I evaluate and vote on changes to society. I would find myself quite an abhorrent and ugly individual if I did.

anonyanony · 17-12-2014 11:46am

Daith wrote: »

How about nothing will change for you?

You want something that will bring you benefit but you want to keep the status quo?

I want guarantee that if I vote yes it won't cause the removal of other freedoms, the yes side have to convince me of that.

floggg · 17-12-2014 11:47am

anonyanony wrote: »

Truthfully voting no changes nothing for me for definite, a yes vote also changes nothing for me but might lead to the removal of some of my freedoms.

I don't care enough to look into it fully and instead ask the questions on both sides, yes side need to reassure me of what the changes will and won't bring as I am not going to read hundreds of pages for something that won't bring me any benefit whatsoever if they cannot convince me of nothing will change I will vote to keep the status quo.

Can I suggest in that case not voting. By your own admission you don't care either way - so abstain.

But voting no means you actively vote to deny equality. Your actively trying to keep the status quo in place for no good reason other than its the status quo.

So if you aren't truly engaged on the issue, and arent really concerned if it doesn't effect you, then please don't do something which will do actual harm to LGBT people.

Because a no vote does great harm. Apart from the continued discrimination, do you know the knot I feel in my stomach when I try to picture how I'll feel waking up to hear my country voted to discriminate agaisnt me, that a majority of people think I'm unequal, that my relationship is unequal and that we aren't worthy as the same respect as straight relationships.

floggg · 17-12-2014 11:52am

anonyanony wrote: »

I want guarantee that if I vote yes it won't cause the removal of other freedoms, the yes side have to convince me of that.

It won't remove any freedoms. Equality legislation already equally applies to gay and straight relationships and family rights.

The position of your baker won't change - he already can't refuse service on the grounds of sexual orientation or martial status (which includes civil partnerships).

Whether you call it a wedding cake or a CP cake will make no difference.

anonyanony · 17-12-2014 11:54am

Deleted User wrote: »

I am happy to lose SOME degrees of freedoms or rights if the resulting net benefit to others genuinely warrants it.

This is where we differ I am totally against the removal of freedoms of millions for the benefit of thousands. The whole greater good you need to lose you freedoms is a system the sjw use that I hate, I know most lgbt are not the crazy authoritarian type but their influence in the system has made we Skeptical of voting for something they push without knowing the full extent of the outcome on greater society.

anonyanony · 17-12-2014 11:57am

floggg wrote: »

Can I suggest in that case not voting. By your own admission you don't care either way - so abstain.

No you cannot complain about the system if you don't vote, I always vote after talking to both sides the yes side needs to win me over.

marienbad · 17-12-2014 11:59am

anonyanony wrote: »

I want guarantee that if I vote yes it won't cause the removal of other freedoms, the yes side have to convince me of that.

You have no intention of voting yes , do the right thing because it is the right thing or else fcuk off and stop trolling, this is not an auction.

17-12-2014 11:59am

anonyanony wrote: »

This is where we differ I am totally against the removal of freedoms of millions for the benefit of thousands.

I think we identified more than one place where we differ in my last post.

However: Too general. That is why I emphasised SOME. It is too contextual. I would need to know WHAT the removal or modification of a freedom would be - and what is paying for it. I do not blanket dismiss - as you declare you do - any and all such modifications for freedoms without seeing the full balance sheet. Nor do I measure that balance sheet merely in the number of people affected - as you claim to - but use the number as a multiplier on the quantitative changes.

You have - however - had it explained to you that this change has no effect on your freedoms or that of bakers. So lets see if the "no" side - who you suggest you are also polling on this - can come up with one.

You might even be surprised to find that I am more sympathetic to your position than you might guess. I would like to see - in some ways anyway - owners of private business MORE free to implement their bigotry and phobias in choosing who to do business with. I - like you seem to - wish to live in a society where someone who chooses to start a private business - should be free to decide who to trade with as they see fit and should not be compelled to do so.

And I retain my right to mirth and pleasure when such bigots have customers vote with their feet - go elsewhere - and end up going destitute and homeless as a result. I fully support their rights to have this happen to them - and my rights to campaign for customers to take their business elsewhere too so I can aid in their progress towards destitution and ruin.

floggg · 17-12-2014 12:00pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That I am afraid you would need to ask someone who has more legal knowledge than my zero knowledge I am afraid

With my lack of legal expertise I can only imagine and guess at wordings. Something suggesting that consenting adults can marry regardless of SEX - rather than regardless of sexuality - would probably be more relevant?

It can be done in any number of ways. They could introduce a definition of marriage (along the lines of "marriage is between two people ") or delete the provision in the Civil Registartoon Act saying that the fact both parties are the same sex is an impediment to marriage, or bring in an explicit statement that the fact that two people are of the same sex is not an impediment.

And the referendum question could be phrased very differently from the actual implementation of the law.

there may be issues in bringing in a form constitutional definition of marriage as it would mean that further referendums might be required to change it in the future for whatever reason. It's the type of thing that's better fleshed out in legislation.

Ten of Swords · 17-12-2014 12:01pm

Daith wrote: »

I do wonder what the actual referendum question is going to be.

Would it be too broad to say "any person regardless of their sexuality can marry?"

It will most likely give a very brief (one or two lines) text showing what the law currently is and a brief text showing changes they propose (usually in the form of ammended definitions), the question will simply be - do you approve this change?

The constitution of Ireland does not actually define marriage as one man and one woman but several acts define it as such, they are ultimately what must be ammended, but changes to other secondary portions of the constitution may be needed to allow this to happen.

ixoy · 17-12-2014 12:01pm

anonyanony wrote: »

This is where we differ I am totally against the removal of freedoms of millions for the benefit of thousands.

You're grossly exaggerating this topic. What freedoms are you really seeing being removed by this that's not already covered by legislation? We're adding elements of freedom not removing them.

Daith · 17-12-2014 12:04pm

Ten of Swords wrote: »

The constitution of Ireland does not actually define marriage as one man and one woman but several acts define it as such, they are ultimately what must be ammended, but changes to other secondary portions of the constitution may be needed to allow this to happen.

This is the actual issue. As the constitution doesn't define marriage it will be the first time marriage is actually defined.

I think gender rather the sexuality makes sense. Asking a Irish person to vote yes to having a word with "sex" in it could be disastrous.

floggg · 17-12-2014 12:05pm

anonyanony wrote: »

This is where we differ I am totally against the removal of freedoms of millions for the benefit of thousands. The whole greater good you need to lose you freedoms is a system the sjw use that I hate, I know most lgbt are not the crazy authoritarian type but their influence in the system has made we Skeptical of voting for something they push without knowing the full extent of the outcome on greater society.

Granting equality to black people meant a loss of freedom and rights for the White majority in the US (freedom to discriminate, reduction in the value and power of their vote, right to preferential treatment etc).

Would you have voted no to civil rights?

Also, why is it ok for me to be denied freedoms for your benefit?

Why are your freedoms more important than mine?

Why shouldn't we all be treated equally?

Daith · 17-12-2014 12:05pm

ixoy wrote: »

You're grossly exaggerating this topic. What freedoms are you really seeing being removed by this that's not already covered by legislation? We're adding elements of freedom not removing them.

It's the whole "gays need to work hard for my vote" that gets me.

I've no problem working hard and talking to my neighbours, friends, family, colleagues but wasting time on-line isn't one of them.

17-12-2014 12:06pm

floggg wrote: »

And the referendum question could be phrased very differently from the actual implementation of the law.

Yea I think I learned this myself from observing the Blasphemy Law debates and observing the chasm between the text - and Ahernes implementation of that text in actual law. It is a world of complexity of which I admit near total ignorance.

Interesting for me would be - are there ways to phrase the referendum question which would actually compel the people - such as on this area of the forum - to actually not vote for it in some insidious way. What kind of creative question structure would lead the gay lobby to actually vote against it - and then appear to have themselves therefore voted against gay marriage equality.

I have a pessimistic expectation it can be done - by someone with the correct legal and linguistic inventiveness.

anonyanony · 17-12-2014 12:07pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I think we identified more than one place where we differ in my last post.

However: Too general. That is why I emphasised SOME. It is too contextual. I would need to know WHAT the removal or modification of a freedom would be - and what is paying for it. I do not blanket dismiss - as you declare you do - any and all such modifications for freedoms without seeing the full balance sheet.

You have - however - had it explained to you that this change has no effect on your freedoms or that of bakers. So lets see if the "no" side - who you suggest you are also polling on this - can come up with one.

You might even be surprised to find that I am more sympathetic to your position than you might guess. I would like to see - in some ways anyway - owners of private business MORE free to implement their bigotry and phobias in choosing who to do business with. I - like you seem to - wish to live in a society where someone who chooses to start a private business - should be free to decide who to trade with as they see fit and should not be compelled to do so.

And I retain my right to mirth and pleasure when such bigots have customers vote with their feet - go elsewhere - and end up going destitute and homeless as a result. I fully support their rights to have this happen to them - and my rights to campaign for customers to take their business elsewhere too so I can aid in their progress towards destitution and ruin.

Yeah we do agree on how private business should be run and the free market not the government will sort it out, I will more then likely vote yes as the no side have no come up with much but they have a few months and as I said the personal freedom of two consenting adults to marry does not effect me directly.

My few niggles where how certain things where already removed so more might be hidden if it came in and I guess the huge push from the likes of SF and the SJW crowd as they are both authoritarian systems which I despise and want to make sure have no influence in the government or setting of policy

17-12-2014 12:09pm

Then by all means - should such argument arise - bring them here for consideration and unpacking - rather than simply take the no sides view of it.

As a few users have pointed out already - this is one campaign where we can expect an inordinate amount of pettyness, uglyness, misrepresentation of facts - and other attempts to smear the yes side. And a lot of people are going to blindly buy some of this - without having any of it rationally unpacked and picked through.

anonyanony · 17-12-2014 12:12pm

Daith wrote: »

It's the whole "gays need to work hard for my vote" that gets me.

I've no problem working hard and talking to my neighbours, friends, family, colleagues but wasting time on-line isn't one of them.

Just so you know I don't talk gay issues with my friends that are gay, so online is how a lot of people debate not to upset friendships, we agree not to bring up certain politics but they are very close to my thinking on the over bearing influence of the government on private individuals in recent times and was shocked at the likes of the cake shop being forced to do something they objected to.

Daith · 17-12-2014 12:13pm

anonyanony wrote: »

Just so you know I don't talk gay issues with my friends that are gay, so online is how a lot of people debate not to upset friendships, we agree not to bring up certain politics but they are very close to my thinking on the over bearing influence of the government on private individuals in recent times and was shocked at the likes of the cake shop being forced to do something they objected to.

Cake shop? In Northern Ireland? This has to do with a referendum on marriage in the Republic of Ireland how? NI doesn't even have same sex marriage.

anonyanony · 17-12-2014 12:15pm

Daith wrote: »

Cake shop? In Northern Ireland?

Yes, but the same can happen here, can someone answer how curves get around it? Why cannot other businesses operate the same.

P_1 · 17-12-2014 12:15pm

anonyanony wrote: »

I want guarantee that if I vote yes it won't cause the removal of other freedoms, the yes side have to convince me of that.

What specific freedoms are you concerned at potentially losing in the event of this referendum passing? It would be much easier to assure you once you spell out your specific concerns.

floggg · 17-12-2014 12:16pm

anonyanony wrote: »

No you cannot complain about the system if you don't vote, I always vote after talking to both sides the yes side needs to win me over.

Your thought process of baffling.

You're would going to exercise your vote to deny equality just for the sake of voting - even if you don't particularly know or care whether it's the right choice or not.

At least with somebody firmly on the no side, they are convinced of their righteousness.

But your going to vote to continue discrimination against gay people just out of apathy and for the sake of it?

Your disregard for LGBT people in ireland, and the profound importance of this issue for us, is incredible and extremely upsetting.

Daith · 17-12-2014 12:17pm

anonyanony wrote: »

Yes, but the same can happen here, can someone answer how curves get around it? Why cannot other businesses operate the same.

Northern Ireland doesn't even have same sex marriage. So again what point are you making?

Can you clarify what laws will change for any business if this referendum were to pass?

anonyanony · 17-12-2014 12:25pm

floggg wrote: »

You're would going to exercise your vote to deny equality just for the sake of voting - even if you don't particularly know or care whether it's the right choice or not.

I just started to ask about this there is three months for the yes side to show that the no side is completely without merit, in three months time I hope to know a lot more then the second day of talking about it, you might have spent years discussing it but it's my second day.

And if the no side is as without merit as people are saying getting people to move from status quo to yes won't be hard but you need to talk to people as this is the first time they are talking about this, anyone not in the lgbt know nothing about it even if you personally spent years talking and debating it.

17-12-2014 12:26pm

P_1 wrote: »

What specific freedoms are you concerned at potentially losing in the event of this referendum passing? It would be much easier to assure you once you spell out your specific concerns.

I would hate to put words in his mouth - though his own words have thus far amassed him an impressive array of forum infractions so perhaps I should - but his concern appears to be - for reasons he simply has not laid out - that allowing gays full and equal access to marriage in the same ways as the straight community - will somehow empower or even modify existing "equality laws" to the detriment of private business owners - in that such business owners - following a yes vote - will become more compelled than they already are at present to trade with individuals - against their own moral consciences - that they are somehow at present able to refuse trade to.

He has been assured from a few directions now that this is not the case - to the point he suggests he intends to most likely vote "yes" - and is now awaiting the "no" side to come up with arguments that will counteract the assurances he has received here on this thread. And I await his return with some of these arguments if and when they arise for him.

His sole other concern of note is related to adoption - which this referendum will not affect in any way - which appears based solely on the idea there exists such a thing as a "male upbringing" or a "female upbringing" - and I have asked him to start or find another thread on this topic - as it is not relevant here - so he can be corrected on that basis.

Think I pretty much covered it

Ave Sodalis · 17-12-2014 12:27pm

anonyanony wrote: »

Yes, but the same can happen here, can someone answer how curves get around it? Why cannot other businesses operate the same.

anony, I don't think there is any explaining things to you because it really seems your logic doesn't actually make any sense.
Firstly, to give you a straight answer, no this referendum will not affect your freedom. It's already illegal.
Secondly, there's no same sex marriage in NI, therefore the same thing can happen here right now. So no, this referendum will not affect your freedom. It's already illegal.

Lemme say it again. No, this referendum will not affect your freedom. It's already illegal*

*Although how you can compare allowing someone to get married to a cake shop having to bake a cake is beyond me.

Daith · 17-12-2014 12:27pm

anonyanony wrote: »

I just started to ask about this there is three months for the yes side to show that the no side is completely without merit, in three months time I hope to know a lot more then the second day of talking about it, you might have spent years discussing it but it's my second day.

And if the no side is as without merit as people are saying getting people to move from status quo to yes won't be hard but you need to talk to people as this is the first time they are talking about this, anyone not in the lgbt know nothing about it even if you personally spent years talking and debating it.

Did you go through the same thing when Civil Partnership was brought in?

17-12-2014 12:29pm

anonyanony wrote: »

And if the no side is as without merit as people are saying getting people to move from status quo to yes won't be hard

A nice ideal world you paint there - but the reality is that "merit" is not all that is required as people pander to - and become moved by - empty arguments from emotion and smear too. It is not so clear cut as simply discussing the "merits" of the no side - as the types of argument I expect this debate to have in the coming months are going to be truely _ugly_ to behold. And a LOT of those campaigns (the vast majority I expect) will be related to entirely irrelevant discussiong of adoption and protection of children.

But hopefully that is my pessimism.

However until such time as we hear a cogent argument OF the "no" side (none have reached this thread yet) we can not yet discuss the merits OR demerits of it or declare them without merit as a side. The arguments have to come before we can do so - and they are not here yet.

anonyanony · 17-12-2014 12:29pm

Daith wrote: »

Northern Ireland doesn't even have same sex marriage. So again what point are you making?

Can you clarify what laws will change for any business if this referendum were to pass?

That is the question I am asking the no side, I am talking to both this is my second day talking on the issue of what this will change if the no side cannot show anything the yes side will win from people that are ok with the status quo, change without knowing the full effect is always harder to achieve over the status quo, that's why the yes side have to put in a bit more effort and win people over that never talked about this.

Ave Sodalis · 17-12-2014 12:31pm

anonyanony wrote: »

And if the no side is as without merit as people are saying getting people to move from status quo to yes won't be hard but you need to talk to people as this is the first time they are talking about this, anyone not in the lgbt know nothing about it even if you personally spent years talking and debating it.

Well that's just false too, I'm not lgbt and I consider myself fairly well informed, simply by using my head and being empathic. If a no vote comes up with a stupid arguement, then I can tell it's a stupid arguement and going by boards alone, there's an awful lot of stupid arguements. However, stupid or not, it's extremely difficult to get people to change. Someone in the no side could make a convincing arguement. It doesn't make it any less correct or stupid.

Daith · 17-12-2014 12:32pm

anonyanony wrote: »

That is the question I am asking the no side, I am talking to both this is my second day talking on the issue of what this will change if the no side cannot show anything the yes side will win from people that are ok with the status quo, change without knowing the full effect is always harder to achieve over the status quo, that's why the yes side have to put in a bit more effort and win people over that never talked about this.

Any of your um "changes" already came up with civil partnerships. Did you feel any change or were affected in anyway by civil partnerships?

eyescreamcone · 17-12-2014 12:33pm

I'll be voting YES to same sex marriage

I'm looking forward to what the NO vote come up with though

anonyanony · 17-12-2014 12:36pm

sup_dude wrote: »

Well that's just false too, I'm not lgbt and I consider myself fairly well informed, simply by using my head and being empathic. If a no vote comes up with a stupid arguement, then I can tell it's a stupid arguement and going by boards alone, there's an awful lot of stupid arguements. However, stupid or not, it's extremely difficult to get people to change. Someone in the no side could make a convincing arguement. It doesn't make it any less correct or stupid.

I don't have much empathy as I have aspergers so find it hard to make choices on how others might feel. But if the point to me is stupid I will dismiss it.

anonyanony · 17-12-2014 12:39pm

Daith wrote: »

Any of your um "changes" already came up with civil partnerships. Did you feel any change or were affected in anyway by civil partnerships?

I did not get to vote in that but yes that did cause businesses to be made do thing they might object to ie CP cakes or the party after a CP

Ave Sodalis · 17-12-2014 12:43pm

anonyanony wrote: »

I don't have much empathy as I have aspergers so find it hard to make choices on how others might feel. But if the point to me is stupid I will dismiss it.

I know what aspergers is, it doesn't stop you from using logic though. You don't need empathy to know that the referendum wouldn't affect your rights, that it's already illegal to refuse to serve someone regardless of this referendum, and that the example you gave wasn't even related to same sex marriage. You don't need empathy to know that the rights of the business owner to serve whoever (a right they don't fully have because it's illegal to discriminate) is not the same as the right to marry.

floggg · 17-12-2014 12:44pm

anonyanony wrote: »

I just started to ask about this there is three months for the yes side to show that the no side is completely without merit, in three months time I hope to know a lot more then the second day of talking about it, you might have spent years discussing it but it's my second day.

And if the no side is as without merit as people are saying getting people to move from status quo to yes won't be hard but you need to talk to people as this is the first time they are talking about this, anyone not in the lgbt know nothing about it even if you personally spent years talking and debating it.

The thing is, your reasons aren't issues specific to this issue.

Your view seems to be that minorities have to prove that they are worthy of equal treatment, and even then they should only be entitled to it if it doesn't change or affect the position of the majority.

Ignoring the marriage equality issue, as a person who truly believes that all people are worthy of equal dignity, protection and respect in the eyes of the law, that attitude saddens me.

Daith · 17-12-2014 12:45pm

anonyanony wrote: »

I did not get to vote in that but yes that did cause businesses to be made do thing they might object to ie CP cakes or the party after a CP

Nope, the law for a business didn't change.

anonyanony · 17-12-2014 12:49pm

Daith wrote: »

Nope, the law for a business didn't change.

No gay people where looking for a CP cake before CP came in, the business did not get to vote if they agreed with CP and now had to make a cake they might morally object to

17-12-2014 12:51pm

I am always going to vote for same sex marriage because its the right thing to do and people should be able to marry who they want. This is all despite my dislike for the LGBT organizations who i feel are distancing and separating gay and straight people. I see alot of other people like myself being disillusioned by their motives which could cause problems for the election.

Daith · 17-12-2014 12:51pm

anonyanony wrote: »

No gay people where looking for a CP cake before CP came in, the business did not get to vote if they agreed with CP and now had to make a cake they might morally object to

The law didn't change. Why are you more emphatic for an unknown business than a person?

Among other things, they unsuccessfully sought a “conscience clause” in the legislation that would have allowed registrars to refuse to conduct a civil partnership if they had moral objections.

“There are people who have a profound religious objection to public state recognition of same-sex partnerships, and this does not make them homophobic as has been claimed in some quarters,” Mr Mullen said.

But supporters of the bill said such a clause would provide a licence to discriminate.

anonyanony · 17-12-2014 12:55pm

Daith wrote: »

The law didn't change.

Yes but the act brought in customers the business did not want to cater for, it was secondary consequence to the act we did not vote in, secondary consequences is what I want to make sure don't happen if I vote yes. As I have said the civil marriage being doesn't matter one bit to me it only effects the couple getting married so why should I stop that, but I want to be sure there is no secondary consequences

Daith · 17-12-2014 12:58pm

anonyanony wrote: »

Yes but the act brought in customers the business did not want to cater for

What business? Why do you support business rights over individuals?

Can you actually stop making stuff up and expect people to predict the future for you?

Ave Sodalis · 17-12-2014 12:59pm

anonyanony wrote: »

Yes but the act brought in customers the business did not want to cater for, it was secondary consequence to the act we did not vote in, secondary consequences is what I want to make sure don't happen if I vote yes. As I have said the civil marriage being doesn't matter one bit to me it only effects the couple getting married so why should I stop that, but I want to be sure there is no secondary consequences

No, it didn't. The only difference is now the owner knew they were gay. They could have gone in for birthday cakes or anything down through the years and the owner would have been none the wiser.

There are no secondary consequences. You're making them up based on one incident which was nothing to do with the referendum. How about we allow the referendum but ban them from eating cake? Happy?

17-12-2014 1:01pm

eyescreamcone wrote: »

I'm looking forward to what the NO vote come up with though

Judging by a recent "article" (that is - blog opinion piece on a pretend online news paper) that we saw - I am not looking forward to it at all. It was a scare mongering article suggesting paedophiles will use gay marriage to meet other paedophile men - arrange sham marriages - and become somehow more likely to obtain children for nefarious sexual ends.

That is the level of material I fully expect from the "no" side in the coming months - and it is not going to be pretty or something to look forward to _at all_

The most I can do at this time is hope that the quality of their presentation does not have the effect of increasing any actual hate crimes against gay people.

Month and Week Decided this is getting Real

Comments