Opinions on same sex marriage in Ireland

1ZRed

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Welcome to the internet. This bit is called a discussion forum. Somone ask your opinion and you can choose to give it.

It's my opinion that same sex partnerships are different from opposite sex marriage. Thats my opinion you may have your own or you may not have even considered the differences between the two relationships.

I haven't so far shouted anyones views down. Nor have I implied mistrust or inequality.

In short, stop painting me with your brush.

So you don't like it because it's different, no other reason? It's a discussion forum and you will get called out on things if you can't explain your opinion - which isn't actually a discussion on your part.

It's like me saying I don't like something "just because" or because it's different. That's the only argument you seem to have, that it's just different to the "norm" so you're against it.

efb

When is different the same as equal???

ShooterSF

reprazant wrote: »

You were asked a number of times in thread what your issue with allow gays to get married but you never actually stated what those issues are. Just that you are right and others are wrong. It is almost as if you don't actually have a reason.

In fairness he has already explained that he is a bigot. Not much point asking why is there?

PopePalpatine

efb wrote: »

When is different the same as equal???

Let me take you back to Mississippi, 1963:

[redneck accent]"See that there colored man? He gots a different water fountain, I don't wants him drinking from our God-given water fountain for whites. It don't matter that the water be dirtier than the water in this here water fountain for white folk! See? Different but equal!"[/redneck accent]

Sarky

"it's just my opinion" is not an excuse you get to hide behind, Phil. It is not a defence, it gives you no protection from criticism.

You're going to have to do better if you don't want to be dismissed as a crank with irrational bigoted views.

wolfpawnat

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Welcome to the internet. This bit is called a discussion forum. Somone ask your opinion and you can choose to give it.

But you are not discussing, you are merely informing us you don't agree and not giving a reason why. When we agreed we stated why we did. That is the true meaning of a discussion, this is not an opinions forum.

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

It's my opinion that same sex partnerships are different from opposite sex marriage. Thats my opinion you may have your own or you may not have even considered the differences between the two relationships.

Yes they are different, in that there is two people of the same gender as opposed to opposite, but I fail to see where they differ in any other way.

kylith

efb wrote: »

When is different the same as equal???

Apples are different to oranges, but that doesn't mean that one is superior to the other.

B0jangles

Here's a speech made in the state senate by a missouri Pastor on whether gay rights are acceptable based on so-called "biblical truths".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx2lois

It gets good near the end, but you have to listen to the whole thing.

dub_skav

I think this Phil fella has done everybody a favour. People are claiming that you cannot just state an opinion, you must back it up.

Come referendum time all you need is an opinion. Just in case people thought the 79% approval in the convention meant that this would pass easily, think again.

wolfpawnat

dub_skav wrote: »

I think this Phil fella has done everybody a favour. People are claiming that you cannot just state an opinion, you must back it up.

Come referendum time all you need is an opinion. Just in case people thought the 79% approval in the convention meant that this would pass easily, think again.

I doubt many would think it would be that simple come a referendum, there will be a lot of bigots, old style religious and country people who see it as an abomination and will be glad to voice their negative opinions.

But when you come onto a discussion forum, voice a opinion and not explain it, others will question it, not even to attack the opinion, but to see if there is a reason behind it, and to see if there is an aspect to it they themselves have not considered. That is the meaning of a discussion. Phil has done none of that.

Rasmus

I am behind it 100% and while it is inevitable that there will be people who disagree with it, I can't understand the folks that sit on the fence. How can one claim something doesn't affect them? It is a very basic issue of equality for each individual - equality and fairness for all is something that should be important to everyone.

dub_skav

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I doubt many would think it would be that simple come a referendum, there will be a lot of bigots, old style religious and country people who see it as an abomination and will be glad to voice their negative opinions.

But when you come onto a discussion forum, voice a opinion and not explain it, others will question it, not even to attack the opinion, but to see if there is a reason behind it, and to see if there is an aspect to it they themselves have not considered. That is the meaning of a discussion. Phil has done none of that.

Some people will choose to engage in meaningful discussion, others will not. But in a thread entitled "Opinions on same sex marriage in Ireland" I think it is useful to have those opinions expressed - however poorly.

wolfpawnat

dub_skav wrote: »

Some people will choose to engage in meaningful discussion, others will not. But in a thread entitled "Opinions on same sex marriage in Ireland" I think it is useful to have those opinions expressed - however poorly.

As with many discussions on here, I disagree with Phil's opinion, as his stance clearly disagrees with mine, but it is important to know you cannot just type something and not expect people to react, if only to ask why. We all have the right to say what we feel (within reason) but there was a poll if he wanted to merely press no and leave, but by stating no on the thread itself, naturally people would want to discuss why.

Even when I disagree with an opinion, I, and many like me, like to know the reasoning behind it.

Lollipops23

dub_skav wrote: »

I think this Phil fella has done everybody a favour. People are claiming that you cannot just state an opinion, you must back it up.

It's not just for the referendum, I find it's always a good thing to be able to hear and understand the opposition's argument. Unlike Phil, I don't simply stick my fingers in my ears and sing "lalala" when an opinion I don't agree with comes up.

NuMarvel

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Again. This is you using these words. Not me. You.

If you read back through the thread you'll see that.

If that's not the reason, then what is?

dub_skav

Lollipops23 wrote: »

It's not just for the referendum, I find it's always a good thing to be able to hear and understand the opposition's argument. Unlike Phil, I don't simply stick my fingers in my ears and sing "lalala" when an opinion I don't agree with comes up.

I fully understand that, but there are plenty of people who will claim to be behind this on threads such as this, who will vote the other way.
People are not always honest online or in public (just look at FF's numbers in last election, better than anybody admitted).
At least Phil is being honest

Of course it would be nice for everybody to back up their opinions, but this will never happen - neither on forums, nor in the real world.

Anyway sorry for dragging this off topic, but it seems like the last few pages have just been different people asking Phil to back up his points, which clearly isn't happening, better to accept it and move on.

anitaca

Pherekydes wrote: »

The straight woman can marry who she wants; the gay woman cannot.

Now do you see the difference?

That is not true. Neither can marry a woman, if they wanted.

I guess I can see it being sexist and not equal in that if a man can marry a woman, why can't a woman and if a woman can marry a man, why can't a man.

I still don't get the second class citizens remarks. Based on the paragraph above, we are all discriminated against in this issue.

Czarcasm

wolfpawnat wrote: »

But you are not discussing, you are merely informing us you don't agree and not giving a reason why. When we agreed we stated why we did. That is the true meaning of a discussion, this is not an opinions forum.

This is exactly why a discussion on the issue of marriage equality on Boards.ie is a futile exercise. Some poeple just don't like the concept of what they see as "gay marriage", and calling them all the names in the world won't make a jot of difference to their minds; if anything it only serves to make them think "well, two fingers to the LGBT community and a big fat NO from me!".

On boards.ie you are already preaching to the choir as such, it's the wrong audience. Hell, all the political parties have made promises since as far back as '97 and they've yet to make any signifigant movement on the issue one way or the other, simply because it is a contentious hot potato and they all want to play political football with it. It's the classic "tell your audience what you think they want to hear", and it's bloody worked for them, time and again.

I cannot see marriage equality happening in my lifetime in Ireland anyway, it'd be great if it did, but people are slow to understand change, and politicians are even slower to implement change. I could have the constitution re-worded in less than a day to include marriage equality, but try getting that through the Dáil and then the Senad- you wouldn't honestly have a hope, not with the way they're still humming and hawing over other legislation that they promised over 20 years ago that they're still playing political football with today.

Trudiha

As a rapidly ageing Ghay, I have a bit more time for people who are outright bigots, those who will look me in the eye and tell me that I don't deserve the same basic civil liberties or human rights as they are, at least, taking the time to form an opinion, even if it's one I find laughable. I'm far more annoyed by those who are indifferent to the way that I and those like me are not afforded equality, how can you think of yourself as being an evolved human being and have no problem with a minority group not being treated equally?

Nodin

efb wrote: »

When is different the same as equal???

When it suits, t'would appear.

Czarcasm

Trudiha wrote: »

As a rapidly ageing Ghay, I have a bit more time for people who are outright bigots, those who will look me in the eye and tell me that I don't deserve the same basic civil liberties or human rights as they are, at least, taking the time to form an opinion, even if it's one I find laughable. I'm far more annoyed by those who are indifferent to the way that I and those like me are not afforded equality, how can you think of yourself as being an evolved human being and have no problem with a minority group not being treated equally?

Because Trudiha, some people don't give a shít, is the simple and short answer to that one I'm afraid. The ballot paper doesn't ask for a reason as to why a person votes yes or no, nor does it stare at you in a disgusted fashion and call you a bigot when you tick the box that says no.

There's no short and simple solution to the issue, and calling people names doesn't win them round to your side of a discussion.

Lollipops23

Trudiha wrote: »

As a rapidly ageing Ghay, I have a bit more time for people who are outright bigots, those who will look me in the eye and tell me that I don't deserve the same basic civil liberties or human rights as they are, at least, taking the time to form an opinion, even if it's one I find laughable. I'm far more annoyed by those who are indifferent to the way that I and those like me are not afforded equality, how can you think of yourself as being an evolved human being and have no problem with a minority group not being treated equally?

Well said At least the biggots/bible nuts have given it some amount of thought (even if I believe they've come to the wrong conclusion).

Tbh I just fail to understand how people can be so indifferent about a blatant violation of human rights, when a section of society is being told they're lesser humans than the rest of us purely because of who they love. How can people not get indignant about something like that?

Trudiha

Czarcasm wrote: »

Because Trudiha, some people don't give a shít, is the simple and short answer to that one I'm afraid. The ballot paper doesn't ask for a reason as to why a person votes yes or no, nor does it stare at you in a disgusted fashion and call you a bigot when you tick the box that says no.

There's no short and simple solution to the issue, and calling people names doesn't win them round to your side of a discussion.

It's less about calling people names and more about naming certain types of behaviour for what they are. Language is a powerful thing and people are often unaware of the impact it has on others. For example, when we failed to call rape within marriage 'rape', nothing was done about it and when at first feminist started to use that terminology they were laughed at but the concept has trickled through and now everyone accepts that it happens, it's wrong and it's illegal.

AnonoBoy

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

The only consolation I have is being right

I'm sure you think you are.

The fact that you're completely not is hilarious though. :pac:

NuMarvel

Czarcasm wrote: »

There's no short and simple solution to the issue, and calling people names doesn't win them round to your side of a discussion.

In fairness, the first person to call someone in the thread a bigot was someone on the opposing side and they were directing that at themselves.

It's a bit like the woman from Catholic Comment who was on the Late Late Show debate a while back who bemoaned that she couldn't state her opinions without being called homophobic. Only to have it rightly pointed out to her that no one had used that word up to that point.

Pherekydes

anitaca wrote: »

That is not true. Neither can marry a woman, if they wanted.

Marriage is about marrying the person you want to marry, not the person you want them to marry.

VinLieger

NuMarvel wrote: »

In fairness, the first person to call someone in the thread a bigot was someone on the opposing side and they were directing that at themselves.

It's a bit like the woman from Catholic Comment who was on the Late Late Show debate a while back who bemoaned that she couldn't state her opinions without being called homophobic. Only to have it rightly pointed out to her that no one had used that word up to that point.

Its interesting how the against side like to paint themselves as victims when they are the ones advocating discrimination

Petey89

When I started this thread I did what opinions and I wanted them backed with some sort of reason why, if you are going to say your against it then give a good reason why! Not just a "NO" and then give out when people come after you for a reason.
If you asked a question and just got a NO answer you would want to know why!

Daith

Petey89 wrote: »

When I started this thread I did what opinions and I wanted them backed with some sort of reason why, if you are going to say your against it then give a good reason why! Not just a "NO" and then give out when people come after you for a reason.
If you asked a question and just got a NO answer you would want to know why!

Of course. I've been involved in these discussions before and the No side have never given any reason. I would love to have a reason. An intelligent one. What I've expierenced is the following

1) Marriage is a religious institution.
Impossible, plenty of people get married outside of the church.

2) Churches will have to marry gay people.
Churches can marry who they want and are protected in law from if they choose not to marry a gay person.

3) Gay marriage will lead to same sex families.
Irish law already allows a single person (gay or straight) to adopt/foster a child. Same sex families exist in Ireland. Marriage would allow two gay people to raise a child and both recognised in Irish law.

4) A child should have a mother and a father
Children are being raised by any number of family units in Ireland. Single parents, grand parents, un-married parents, divorced parents. Should we disallow these people to raise children?

5) A child should be raised by their biological mother and father
This doesn't just apply to same sex parents but to any adoptive parent. Do you believe that we shouldn't have adoption in Ireland?

6) A marriage is only there to raise a family
No married couple is forced to have a baby to maintain their married status. Why should gays be treated any differently?

Czarcasm

Trudiha wrote: »

It's less about calling people names and more about naming certain types of behaviour for what they are. Language is a powerful thing and people are often unaware of the impact it has on others.

I understand where you're coming from Trudiha, but I think the approach is wrong. For me it's less important to label the behavior, and FAR, FAR more important to understand it, then at least you can work on the cause once you understand why they hold the views they do.

They don't SEE their own thinking as wrong, they see YOUR thinking as wrong, so first of all you have to see things the way they do, and that itself requires just as much tolerance and understanding as people who argue the rights of marriage equality expect to be shown to them.

This isn't the first time a thread like this has come up, and it's pretty much run the same template course it always does- massive approval, jump on people who do not support the idea, and the odd troll thrown in for good measure.

That's why you start with those closest to you rather than shouting from the parapet and hoping somebody hears you, it's like a previous poster said earlier- they'd like it on facebook, but they wouldn't be àrsed to get up and go vote for it. How many supporters of marital equality here have actually read the current legislation and understand the 160 inequalities?

I have, have you?