POLL: GAY MARRIAGE....:-) AH A HAPPY POLL:-)

poeticseraphim

OK

I think this is a slam dunk.....Marriage is a happy thing.

In a ref would you vote in favor of same sex marriage???

I would.

Esel

Are you trying to poll me?

scudzilla

I would vote No

fasttalkerchat

Its a yes from me.

Pimlico

and a Yes from me!

poeticseraphim

Esel wrote: »

Are you trying to poll me?

:eek:

I can't ..I am a girl:p

Or maybe i still could

this is your 'happy poll face' :eek::D:eek:




Seriously though. Ireland it is about time

poeticseraphim

scudzilla wrote: »

I would vote No

Okay


Well would you mind giving a reason why?

CianRyan

scudzilla wrote: »

I would vote No

Because...

scudzilla

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Okay


Well would you mind giving a reason why?

Why should i? It's my opinion and thats it, i'm not going to start asking you why you voted yes, that's your choice.

You started this poll, you've not questioned anybody who voted yes but you question me because i voted no??

Chuck Stone

Would it be better to get rid of marriage, or at least state recognition of it, altogether?

CianRyan

scudzilla wrote: »

Why should i? It's my opinion and thats it, i'm not going to start asking you why you voted yes, that's your choice.

You started this poll, you've not questioned anybody who voted yes but you question me because i voted no??

You seem very hostile, do homosexuals threaten you?
Are you homophobic?
Do you not believe they should disgrace the sacrament of marriage?


I believe we are all equal and we all deserve equal rights.
If two men or two women want to get married, they can fire ahead as far as I'm concerned.
If you have strong feelings against it I presume you have a strong argument to back those feelings up? Or are you just cruel and angry?

On the highlighted point, you're in the vast minority so it would make sense to ask why you hold this stance. I feel it is safe to assume that the yes voters are voting on similar merits.

SunDog

Yes. A lifelong commitment between two people in love. Why the fʋᴄƙ not?

Jimoslimos

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Would it be better to get rid of marriage, or at least state recognition of it, altogether?

Yeah, going to sound like a miserable unmarried bachelor here but I agree. Why should the state bestow additional privileges upon a married couple over unmarried couples/singletons (regardless of gender) because they performed a ceremony pledging their love to each other.

Do away with it all.

poeticseraphim

scudzilla wrote: »

Why should i? It's my opinion and thats it, i'm not going to start asking you why you voted yes, that's your choice.

You started this poll, you've not questioned anybody who voted yes but you question me because i voted no??

I voted yes because i want to see gay people granted civil rights others have.

I voted yes because i have gay friends whose lives I want to see enriched with family and union.

I voted yes because i think love is beautiful.


I voted yes because i want to help them protect heir families etc.

I voted yes because i know there are couples who have been together for years.


I voted yes because they should be recognized as equal and welcomed into our society.

I voted yes because it seems so right so obvious.


So anyone else who wants to say why the voted ??

Why did you vote no??

Esel

SunDog wrote: »

Yes. A lifelong commitment between two people in love. Why the fʋᴄƙ not?

But the commitment is not lifelong nowadays. And why should only two people be involved?

scudzilla

CianRyan wrote: »

You seem very hostile, do homosexuals threaten you?
Are you homophobic?
Do you not believe they should disgrace the sacrament of marriage?


I believe we are all equal and we all deserve equal rights.
If two men or two women want to get married, they can fire ahead as far as I'm concerned.
If you have strong feelings against it I presume you have a strong argument to back those feelings up? Or are you just cruel and angry?

Hostile? I voted No, just because i didn't vote the way you wanted me too why single me out? I've not posted anything homophobic, i've not given any inclination that i'm a homophobe, yet you accuse me of being one? All because i didn't vote the way you wanted me too!!

CianRyan

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Yeah, going to sound like a miserable unmarried bachelor here but I agree. Why should the state bestow additional privileges upon a married couple over unmarried couples/singletons (regardless of gender) because they performed a ceremony pledging their love to each other.

Do away with it all.

It doesn't have to be a big ceremony, you can go to the registry office sign some papers and be out in a half an hour if you want to.
If you decide to take these rights with your unmarried partner (if we abolished marriage) you'd probably have to do roughly the same thing.

I like weddings, they're nice.

Chuck Stone

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Why should the state bestow additional privileges upon a married couple over unmarried couples/singletons

Yup. It's a bit odd imo how the state gets involved in the whole marriage thing. Probably a relic of the influence of the Church/Religions.

I mean, people are either with each other or they're not. Marriage does not sprinkle 'magic dust' on the couple that makes them more virtuous.

poeticseraphim

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Yeah, going to sound like a miserable unmarried bachelor here but I agree. Why should the state bestow additional privileges upon a married couple over unmarried couples/singletons (regardless of gender) because they performed a ceremony pledging their love to each other.

Do away with it all.

Would there not be difficulties with ownership of ....stuff...if a woman has worked in the home for years etc

Also if you are foreign and want to marry and Irish person or 'be ' with them?? How would you get a marriage visa etc...???

I think it does benefit society...

Is there any developed society where they don't do it??

I know in Sweden couples can just live together in 'sambo' and they get a certain legal status..not sure about visa rights etc


Also there are next of kin rights...adoption rights....

We could all do civil partnerships ..???

Anyway the thread is not about that ..

It is about gay marriage:-)

CianRyan

scudzilla wrote: »

Why should i? It's my opinion and thats it, i'm not going to start asking you why you voted yes, that's your choice.

You started this poll, you've not questioned anybody who voted yes but you question me because i voted no??

scudzilla wrote: »

Hostile? I voted No, just because i didn't vote the way you wanted me too why single me out? I've not posted anything homophobic, i've not given any inclination that i'm a homophobe, yet you accuse me of being one? All because i didn't vote the way you wanted me too!!

I've highlighted the part which I felt came across hostile. You may not have meant it this way but when people come out with that line when asked something it's more than often in an aggressive tone. As this is the internet and I have to take the text and relate it to real life experience, this is what I came to.

I haven't accused you of anything, I have asked you a few questions but instead of answering them you've decided to get defensive instead?
Why is this?

Esel

Would priests be allowed to marry other priests?

Chuck Stone

CianRyan wrote: »

I like weddings, they're nice.

So do I. Great fun. That said I don't see why the state should be in any way involved.

poeticseraphim

By the way ..I started this happy thread to get my vibe on

Please be kind to each other.

poeticseraphim

Esel wrote: »

Would priests be allowed to marry other priests?

Sure why not.

CianRyan

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So do I. Great fun. That said I don't see why the state should be in any way involved.

poeticseraphim said it better than I could have.
When you want to cover the likes of joined assets and children you're going to have to sign something and go through some sort of rigmarole to do it, we call it marriage and we like to dress them up as a big party.

I'm not religious so that part holds nothing for me, it's just a big party expressing a couples love.
The state don't force you to go through them for this but there are benefits to be had if you do.

poeticseraphim

CianRyan wrote: »

It doesn't have to be a big ceremony, you can go to the registry office sign some papers and be out in a half an hour if you want to.
If you decide to take these rights with your unmarried partner (if we abolished marriage) you'd probably have to do roughly the same thing.

I like weddings, they're nice.

I LOVE weddings :-)

I love the clothes ....the dancing..the vows..the family ..friends

Oh I said clothes first....:o

No they are lovely whatever way people do them.


A friend of mine went to a 'Humanist wedding' once.

Jimoslimos

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Would there not be difficulties with ownership of ....stuff...if a woman has worked in the home for years etc

Also if you are foreign and want to marry and Irish person or 'be ' with them?? How would you get a marriage visa etc...???

I think it does benefit society...

Is there any developed society where they don't do it??

I know in Sweden couples can just live together in 'sambo' and they get a certain legal status..not sure about visa rights etc


Also there are next of kin rights...adoption rights....

We could all do civil partnerships ..???

Anyway the thread is not about that ..

It is about gay marriage:-)

A lot of those, splitting of assets, etc usually have to be sorted in court anyway so not much change there. Next of kin, adoption again in a similar way - two people can be listed as the legal guardians on the birth certificate. There shouldn't need to be marriage for these concepts to work.

As for foreign spouses, yes there isn't much way around that. I think however the state demanding proof that a couple 'love' each other is a little archaic, plus, and I know this will seem extremely cynical, I don't see 'love' as a valid immigration reason. That said I'm all in favour of lifting certain restrictions on immigration, so long as the person can prove they are capable of supporting themselves in a new country. Otherwise we have the situation where the foreign spouse is simply a 'dependent' - which itself I'd argue can be dangerous, especially if that person has no means of escaping an abusive relationship through issues such as language difficulties or fear of having to leave the country.

I do agree we could all do civil partnerships!

Chuck Stone

CianRyan wrote: »

The state don't force you to go through them for this but there are benefits to be had if you do.

Isn't that the problem though? The state bestows benefits upon married people and thus discriminates against people who aren't married - gay people, single people, unmarried partners in life, brothers and sisters who live together etc.

CianRyan

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Isn't that the problem though? The state bestows benefits upon married people and thus discriminates against people who aren't married - gay people, brothers and sisters who live together etc.

I know but what I'm saying is if we scrap marriage we'll just have to do the same thing with a different name. You can bet there'll be people wanting discrimination with that too.

I think everyone should have the same rights, what ever name we give it.

Xavi6

Where's the poll option for those not fussed / who would spoil their vote?

Practice what you preach OP in terms of including everyone

CianRyan

Xavi6 wrote: »

Where's the poll option for those not fussed / who would spoil their vote?

Practice what you preach OP in terms of including everyone

I know this was probably in jest but adding a spoil vote choice has always annoyed me, even if it is boards tradition.

Call me a hypocrite, I guess I am one in this instance.

scudzilla

Xavi6 wrote: »

Where's the poll option for those not fussed / who would spoil their vote?

Practice what you preach OP in terms of including everyone

No, this was obviously started just so anybody who disagreed with the majority can get jumped on

CianRyan

scudzilla wrote: »

No, this was obviously started just so anybody who disagreed with the majority can get jumped on

I'm still wondering why you won't answer me?
I'm not attacking you, I genuinely want to know.

Xavi6

CianRyan wrote: »

I know this was probably in jest but adding a spoil vote choice has always annoyed me, even if it is boards tradition.

Call me a hypocrite, I guess I am one in this instance.

Not really in jest. There's plenty of people who I'm sure couldn't give a flying one either way so they should have the option to say so too.

CianRyan

Xavi6 wrote: »

Not really in jest. There's plenty of people who I'm sure couldn't give a flying one either way so they should have the option to say so too.

Their opinion has no benefit to the topic and it there for not needed.
That's why when we have a referendum there's no "I don't really care" option, you just don't vote.

Maximus Alexander

To be fair, if you're going to post in the thread "I voted no" then you should be prepared to explain why. It's a discussion forum after all.

If you don't want to discuss it, then just vote and don't post in the thread?

scudzilla

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

To be fair, if you're going to post in the thread "I voted no" then you should be prepared to explain why. It's a discussion forum after all.

If you don't want to discuss it, then just vote and don't post in the thread?

I could explain but I'm not going to, mainly because I was the only one asked to explain why I voted in such a way, all the yes voters were not asked.

murraykil

scudzilla wrote: »

Hostile? I voted No, just because i didn't vote the way you wanted me too why single me out? I've not posted anything homophobic, i've not given any inclination that i'm a homophobe, yet you accuse me of being one? All because i didn't vote the way you wanted me too!!

I would like to hear your reasoning on why you would choose to vote no.

I would vote yes because I don't think it's just to deny a homosexual couple the right of marriage when it is permitted for a heterosexual couple.

CianRyan

scudzilla wrote: »

I could explain but I'm not going to, mainly because I was the only one asked to explain why I voted in such a way, all the yes voters were not asked.

Would you like me to ask the 28 yes voters individually?
Do you not see why someone would want to ask the voter who was for some time the only one to vote no, what there reasons were?
You shouldn't feel so singled out or attacked, we're not against you even if we don't agree with you on this subject.

This being a discussion board, I thought you might like to discuss this. I find it odd that you don't.

Xavi6

CianRyan wrote: »

Their opinion has no benefit to the topic and it there for not needed.
That's why when we have a referendum there's no "I don't really care" option, you just don't vote.

It is of benefit, it's just as valid as yes or no. You could question them and ask why they are so apathetic to an issue that probably directly affects someone they know. There's room for discussion if included.

And spoiling a vote in a referndum is voting, you've taken part.

murraykil

Xavi6 wrote: »

Not really in jest. There's plenty of people who I'm sure couldn't give a flying one either way so they should have the option to say so too.

If people don't give a flying one they should stay silent rather than gloat about their indifference about an issue which has serious implications for many people is society.

CianRyan

Xavi6 wrote: »

It is of benefit, it's just as valid as yes or no. You could question them and ask why they are so apathetic to an issue that probably directly affects someone they know. There's room for discussion if included.

And spoiling a vote in a referndum is voting, you've taken part.

I don't agree that it's of benefit, it's a valid stand point but in my opinion it serves no purpose in a vote.
You don't need to vote to tell us why you don't care either so if you feel like sharing, please do.

Spoiling votes in a referendum are discarded, you have effectively not voted.

Xavi6

CianRyan wrote: »

I don't agree that it's of benefit, it's a valid stand point but in my opinion it serves no purpose in a vote.
You don't need to vote to tell us why you don't care either so if you feel like sharing, please do.

Spoiling votes in a referendum are discarded, you have effectively not voted.

I never said I don't care, just pointing out that calling for inclusion to marriage but not including everybody's opinions in the poll is a tad hypocritical

I'll leave you to it.

CianRyan

Xavi6 wrote: »

I never said I don't care, just pointing out that calling for inclusion to marriage but not including everybody's opinions in the poll is a tad hypocritical

I'll leave you to it.

It's really not the same though, the people that don't care just don't care. It's not going to effect their life in any large way if they can't mark a spot and click a button to tell people they don't care on the internet. If they really feel like they need to share, they can always just post and tell us they don't care.

I'm off to bed anyway, it's getting on at this stage.

scudzilla

Ok, so please rephrase the poll questions to

YES

NO (But explain why you voted no)

randylonghorn

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Yup. It's a bit odd imo how the state gets involved in the whole marriage thing.

It's a lot to do with the legal and inheritance rights of any children of the union.

Any other add-ons to that have developed in an ad hoc manner and are pretty much incidental to it.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Probably a relic of the influence of the Church/Religions.

Hmm, the state getting involved in the 'whole marriage thing' hasn't always suited the churches over the centuries.

murraykil

scudzilla wrote: »

Ok, so please rephrase the poll questions to

YES

NO (But explain why you voted no)

Sorry for hassling you! I am just interested to know why you would vote no! You are correct though, you are unfairly being singled out (kinda like homosexuals couples!)

fkt

scudzilla wrote: »

Ok, so please rephrase the poll questions to

YES

NO (But explain why you voted no)

If there were 100 people on a street, 99 dressed and 1 naked, you would ask the naked person why he is so, rather than asking the 99 why theyre dressed.

Why cant you answer? It wont cost you anything and people are interested.

Esel

To users who voted: Why did you vote as you did?

Personally, I voted Yes for the greater good.

Scudzilla, over to you...

p.s. My first post in this thread was made when there was no poll - or if there was, I didn't see it....

Galwayguy35

It's no difference to me if they want to get married, I've no idea why it's even an issue to some people.

SunDog

You had a yes or no vote. Somebody said no. Dose not want to answer further. End of