Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

Nodin

swampgas wrote: »

A better slogan would be "If you don't know, don't vote" - after all, the constitution is too important to be influenced by ignorance.

Yeah, ye'd think that.

marienbad

Nodin wrote: »

....that was won by the wife swapping sodomites, I seem to recall.

that was a foaming at the mouth classic alright.

Pherekydes

seamus wrote: »

There are very few ways you can play the anti-equality card without coming across as a big dirty bigot or straight out accusing gay men of being paedophiles.

A great one is to wheel out a gay guy who doesn't want marriage and who actively opposes marriage.

Brian Shanahan

The Black Oil wrote: »

Suppose we'll hear the floodgates argument as well.

So in addition to the:

Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the sky! Rivers and seas boiling!
Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes!
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Venkman: Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria!

We risk flooding out the Netherlands as well if we vote yes.




That's a risk I'm willing to take.

Daith

Pherekydes wrote: »

A great one is to wheel out a gay guy who doesn't want marriage and who actively opposes marriage.

That's opposing marriage which is different to opposing same sex marriage.

TheChizler

Daith wrote: »

That's opposing marriage which is different to opposing same sex marriage.

It doesn't work if you apply logic to it. Shush!!

Daith

TheChizler wrote: »

It doesn't work if you apply logic to it. Shush!!

David Quinn made reference to it

But if we take children out of the equation, and if we decide for some strange reason that the sexual and emotional unions of men and women are not different in any socially significant way from any other kind of union, then we have to ask why should the State give special recognition to marriage at all and least of all to Brian’s very adult-centred vision of it?

http://ionainstitute.com/index.php?id=3774

nozzferrahhtoo

Peregrinus wrote: »

And, in that campaign, as in the next one, ignorance is probably the 'no' side's strongest card. Expect them to play it firmly and repeatedly.

Yeah there is three cards I expect to see played hard and often by the anti side.

The appeal to ignorance is in fact one of them for sure but I somewhat expect will be the lesser of the three.

The other two I expect to see most of are:

1) The appeal to tradition / Status Quo card. That we should not "break" the institution of marriage by modifying it now. It should be conserved as is and always has been. Queue a re-education on the history of marriage and how it has not been as traditional for as long as people actually think.

2) The appeal to children / adoption card. This will likely be the heaviest played one at all, despite the referendum having little or no impact on adoption directly. Queue 1000s of boards.ie posts informing anti-posters that in fact gay people already can adopt and this referendum will change nothing there.

In fact if we could magically ban these "three cards" from boards.ie entirely, it would be interesting to see what arguments the no side would even have left to post. I suspect the above three constitute pretty much all they have.

Except, as always, for that cohort who will cite the disapproval of their imaginary god. A god who's opinion they will cite at us repeatedly, without ever moving to even show the holder of this opinion, in any way, exists.

But that "fourth card" almost goes without saying.

oscarBravo

Looks like the BAI are relaxing their "must be accompanied by a bigot" rule:

http://www.thejournal.ie/same-sex-marriage-bai-1840024-Dec2014/?utm_source=shortlink

shruikan2553

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yeah there is three cards I expect to see played hard and often by the anti side.

The appeal to ignorance is in fact one of them for sure but I somewhat expect will be the lesser of the three.

The other two I expect to see most of are:

1) The appeal to tradition / Status Quo card. That we should not "break" the institution of marriage by modifying it now. It should be conserved as is and always has been. Queue a re-education on the history of marriage and how it has not been as traditional for as long as people actually think.

2) The appeal to children / adoption card. This will likely be the heaviest played one at all, despite the referendum having little or no impact on adoption directly. Queue 1000s of boards.ie posts informing anti-posters that in fact gay people already can adopt and this referendum will change nothing there.

In fact if we could magically ban these "three cards" from boards.ie entirely, it would be interesting to see what arguments the no side would even have left to post. I suspect the above three constitute pretty much all they have.

Except, as always, for that cohort who will cite the disapproval of their imaginary god. A god who's opinion they will cite at us repeatedly, without ever moving to even show the holder of this opinion, in any way, exists.

But that "fourth card" almost goes without saying.

The children card is an odd one. A gay couple will be able to adopt with marriage or without. Surely the stability of a married couple as parents is whats best for them?

nozzferrahhtoo

shruikan2553 wrote: »

The children card is an odd one. A gay couple will be able to adopt with marriage or without. Surely the stability of a married couple as parents is whats best for them?

Preaching to the choir here

But alas most people do not know the current way adoption works, that gay singles can already adopt. And they do not know that this referendum is not really relevant to adoption at all.

So given how emotive a subject the protection of children is, and what a fertile ground for scare mongering it offers, I therefore expect it to be one of the three main prongs of their campaign. Possibly the main focus of their campaign in a shrill "Oh my god wont someone please think of the CHILDREN" kind of way.

We have already seen that "article" scare mongering people into thinking pedophiles will use gay marriage to fake a relationship in order to obtain children for sex purposes together. I think we can expect more of this and some of it even less pretty than that.

I fear we will get a contrived and very focused scare mongering campaign. Of course we will. Because ACTUAL arguments against the morality, ethics of social good of gay marriage are thin to non-existent on the ground. The ugliness of a campaign tends to be inversely proportional to the number of genuine arguments that campaign group actually has. And this campaign, to my knowledge so far at least, has none. Least of all on THIS thread.

drkpower

The Case against 8 is available on Netflix. Really really good documentary about the fight to the US Supreme Court to overturn the California Prop 8 referendum. Most interesting element was that the main lawyer fighting Prop 8 was an idol amongst the conservative right. In his view, encouraging marriage (gay or straight) should be the aim of the conservative movement. Nice to see we can all get along.....

The Black Oil

oscarBravo wrote: »

Looks like the BAI are relaxing their "must be accompanied by a bigot" rule:

http://www.thejournal.ie/same-sex-marriage-bai-1840024-Dec2014/?utm_source=shortlink

The whole 'balance' thing will be played more and more by the No camp as we gear up towards the campaign. It's funny how this talking point has effectively become its own sub-narrative.

Willfarman

I will be voting yes if I do bother me hole to vote. It doesn't affect me. But now I have a question.

If in a man woman relationship , the man is the more likely to stray.. What happens statisticaly when in long term gay male relationships?

PopePalpatine

For starters, I'd be wondering why the man in a heterosexual couple is the more likely one to stray from his girlfriend/wife.

Willfarman

PopePalpatine wrote: »

For starters, I'd be wondering why the man in a heterosexual couple is the more likely one to stray from his girlfriend/wife.

That's an age old question but it is a fact of life.

Pherekydes

Willfarman wrote: »

That's an age old question but it is a fact of life.

Source?

Willfarman

Pherekydes wrote: »

Source?

The sky is blue too lads do you want a source?

Willfarman

Willfarman wrote: »

The sky is blue too lads do you want a source?

Well the source for that is to look outside, it's a readily available source.

I'm afraid we can't do the same with your assertion.

Delirium

Willfarman wrote: »

The sky is blue too lads do you want a source?

Even at night?

nozzferrahhtoo

Willfarman wrote: »

The sky is blue too lads do you want a source?

Inconvenient to have to back up what you claim around here isn't it? But it has become something of a tradition. If you feel oppressed by this expectation, you do have my sympathy, but yea.......... any source for your assertions or will truth by assertion essentially be your approach to discourse in general?

Willfarman

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Inconvenient to have to back up what you claim around here isn't it? But it has become something of a tradition. If you feel oppressed by this expectation, you do have my sympathy, but yea.......... any source for your assertions or will truth by assertion essentially be your approach to discourse in general?

I simply couldn't be bothered. There will be links to prove and disprove my assertion to infinity. And although it has no bearing on the right of gay marriage I am wondering do gay men stay monogamous in long term relationships. Are they more tolerant of open sexual relations.

Penn

Willfarman wrote: »

And although it has no bearing on the right of gay marriage I am wondering do gay men stay monogamous in long term relationships. Are they more tolerant of open sexual relations.

Gay men are the exact same as straight men when it comes to relationships and sexual relations. They just do it with other men rather than women.

Willfarman

Penn wrote: »

Gay men are the exact same as straight men when it comes to relationships and sexual relations. They just do it with other men rather than women.

I know what straight men are like! I have first hand insight on the front! Now it would be my opinion that we are very differant to woman in terms of our sexual needs and wants and General outlook. married straight men are generally as faithful as his options allow him to be Imo. And when I think of the 4 openly gay men that I personaly know, they are incapable of monogamy. 2 of them are in a long term but seemingly open relationship and the two singles I have never heard or seen anything resembling a relationship.

Penn

Willfarman wrote: »

I know what straight men are like! I have first hand insight on the front! Now it would be my opinion that we are very differant to woman in terms of our sexual needs and wants and General outlook. married straight men are generally as faithful as his options allow him to be Imo. And when I think of the 4 openly gay men that I personaly know, they are incapable of monogamy. 2 of them are in a long term but seemingly open relationship and the two singles I have never heard or seen anything resembling a relationship.

Yes, but what I'm saying is that the abilities and desires of gay men to remain in monogamous relationships is the same as straight men. Sexuality isn't a factor, it depends solely on the individual. Some straight men stay in long-term monogamous relationships, some straight men stay in long-term relationships but don't stay monogamous, some straight men don't stay in long-term relationships. Same goes for gay men. It's not the fact they're gay or straight that determines any of that, it's purely down to each individual. I know 4 gay men too, and all of them are in long-term monogamous relationships (they're two couples). And I'm not saying that to try and disprove you or mock your point, it's purely just coincidence.

You shouldn't base your opinions of a large group of people on a miniscule subsect of the very few you've met.

nozzferrahhtoo

Willfarman wrote: »

I simply couldn't be bothered.

That, or you simply are unable to do so because such substantiation does not exist.

But given the choice between the two, why you would choose one and not the other is abundantly clear.

Willfarman wrote: »

I am wondering do gay men stay monogamous in long term relationships. Are they more tolerant of open sexual relations.

I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest they are any more or less likely to do either than any heterosexual relationship.

And intuition would go against your position too. They might be gay, but they still feel all the motivators that we do. Love. Jealously. So on.

So not only am I not seeing any substantiation to back up your assertions, your assertions would seem to ALSO go against intuition based on universal human attributes too.

Willfarman wrote: »

I know what straight men are like! I have first hand insight on the front!

You know no such thing actually and your first hand experience means precisely squat. The reason being that there is a diversity out there that simply means you can not extrapolate your own experience of yourself on this front, to any kind of generalization of the group as a whole.

The set "straight men" is so large, containing so much diversity, that the line "I know what straight men are like" is rendered meaningless. You know what YOU are like, and that is about it.

The relevant and pertinent point however is whether the set "gay men" has trends within it that significantly differ from congruent trends in the set "straight men" and nothing is coming forth to suggest there is. Much less from yourself.

Willfarman wrote: »

Now it would be my opinion that we are very differant to woman in terms of our sexual needs and wants and General outlook.

Not really that different at all actually, certainly not in the sense you asserted in your earlier post and have been contriving to refuse substantiating ever since with claims you are simply not bothered to do so.

Willfarman wrote: »

And when I think of the 4 openly gay men that I personaly know, they are incapable of monogamy. 2 of them are in a long term but seemingly open relationship and the two singles I have never heard or seen anything resembling a relationship.

Which is a commentary not on homosexual people, but the standard of people you spend time with yourself. Which is always the case with "The people of type X that I know.... do the following" type arguments. Anecdote is not evidence.

For example I have two black people in my circle of friends. They are EXTREMELY generous when it comes to donating to public charities. Does this tell you something about Black People? Or does it tell you something about the kind of people I call friend?

All your anecdote tells us, is the kind of people you call friend. It says _nothing_ about homosexuals. Literally. Nothing.

Willfarman

There is no difinitive substantiation that would either prove or disprove my assertion. I can't be bothered arguing either way. My parting comment is that the only gay in the village syndrome is rife in this country. All straight people I know and myself couldnt give an f what they do or don't do but man theyd love a bigot to stand up and fight with them and if they can't find one well anyone that opens their mouth is in the firing line.

nozzferrahhtoo

Willfarman wrote: »

There is no difinitive substantiation that would either prove or disprove my assertion.

A complaint that can be made on many subjects. But it should still be noted you have not only failed to "definitively prove" it, you have not offered a shred of arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to lend it credibility _at all_. Which is a whole different level of an observation.

Willfarman wrote: »

I can't be bothered arguing either way.

Then I can merely question the wisdom of partaking in a forum designed specifically for debate and discussion, as those precepts are pretty demanding of you doing just that.

Willfarman wrote: »

My parting comment is

Somewhat tongue in cheek, I have invented a rule of forum use I call "Nozzferrahhtoo's first law of Internet Forum Posting" which states that the probability of any given user posting on a thread again INCREASES in proportion to the number of times they have suggested they will not.

I welcome this chance to put this law once again to the test

Willfarman wrote: »

theyd love a bigot to stand up and fight with them and if they can't find one well anyone that opens their mouth is in the firing line.

And once again I can only point out that you merely appear to commenting on the standard of people you associate with, as your generalization does not match my own, my experience of the gay community, or anything I have read or witnessed on the subject.

The claims of the world you claim to live in simply do not seem to map in even the smallest way onto the reality I myself observe. I feel that should be of some concern to you, but it is clearly solely up to you whether it will be or not. I can only say it would be for me in a similar position.

aloyisious

I find it interesting that Enda is worried that the referendum on marriage equality may be won by those who oppose it (RTE), while the equalities minister is telling-off the B.A.I. for their "chilling" rulings on the topic and debates on air (The Examiner). Do I hear vote-seeking in the air?

david75

Enda is doing far more harm than good supporting this referendum or even speaking about it, but it's not that tinfoil hatted to think that might be part of the plan. People are going to project their anger about other issues onto this, rightly or wrongly, and He's going to be the lightning rod for it, so he really shouldn't toxify it by speaking about it.