Gay Marriage poll reveals that Ireland still has a depressing amount of morons in it

Foxhound38

http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-how-will-you-vote-on-gay-marriage-997136-Jul2013/

At the time of posting this, 45% or 3551 people have indicated that they intend to vote against giving gay people the right to be as miserable in matrimoney as the rest of us.

I just can't believe this many people, on that site of all sites, could be still living in backwards land...

Pai Mei

Don't underestimate the height of human stupidity...

For Forks Sake

A journal poll is not a poll in much the same fashion as a journal report is not actually reported. the site is a haven for every form of extremist (left and right wing) nutjob with an internet connection. I wouldn't get too worried about it.

December2012

It surprised me too.

Sir Osis of Liver.

Here we go.

AngeGal

An online poll is open to manipulation and not a reliable indicator.

Amirani

Pai Mei wrote: »

Don't underestimate the height of human stupidity...

Or the power of certain interest groups to swarm certain polls. I'd say there's definitely more than 50% of the Irish population in favour.

Sh1tbag OToole

If its so miserable then is it really worth it?

I would happily give my right to marry away to some gay lad who has been campaigning for it for years, because I honestly don't see the point anymore and cant imagine myself ever using that right.

The people who are able to do the long term commitment necessary for marriage must be in the minority in todays selfish "me, me, me, must upgrade my partner to a better model", "live for the moment", "here today, gone tomorrow" world.

Leroy42

Are they simply stupid because they do not agree with your viewpoint?

Lucena

I'd have expected more people to be against gay marriage to be honest. I think it's progress.

Although having said that, since gay marriage came in in France, you can't move for assless chaps! :P

Zhane

It genuinely frightens me that the Irish people will vote no on this.

Amirani

Leroy42 wrote: »

Are they simply stupid because they do not agree with your viewpoint?

No, because they have such an over-inflated opinion of their own viewpoint that they feel the need to make everyone else adhere to it. That's a pretty stupid attitude to have.

Pai Mei

Leroy42 wrote: »

Are they simply stupid because they do not agree with your viewpoint?

Not what I was saying. However I am yet to meet a genuinely smart person give an intelligent reason for opposing gay marriage.

1ZRed

Tbh I never understood what right they think they have to decide my rights and whether or not I'm allowed to marry.

I'm not surprised though, there's still a massive heap of backward morons in the country, they scuttled out of the woodwork with the abortion legislation and I doubt they'll be ****ing off any time soon unfortunately.

lazygal

Leroy42 wrote: »

Are they simply stupid because they do not agree with your viewpoint?

Sometimes yes. There's no non stupid reason to oppose gay marriage.

Foxhound38

Leroy42 wrote: »

Are they simply stupid because they do not agree with your viewpoint?

They're stupid because they wish to prevent 2 people who are minding their own business from doing something that would not affect them or anyone else in the slightest, but would make the 2 involved much happier.

I can't even believe we're still having this debate in 21st Century Ireland...

Femme_Fatale

lazygal wrote: »

There's no non stupid reason to oppose gay marriage.

Some people have no problem with civil partnership but believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman. I completely disagree with that but I'm not sure it's stupid.

omahaid

Feckin democracy :mad:

Leroy42

@Niallsparky, they were asked their opinion and gave it. How you can infer that it is either over-inflated or that they are forcing others to adhere to it I don't know.

A time will come when we will be asked to vote on it, and everyone will have their voice. Just because people disagree with your viewpoint doesn't make them stupid or indeed wrong. If these things were black and white then we would never have a division in the 1st place.

padd b1975

For Forks Sake wrote: »

A journal poll is not a poll in much the same fashion as a journal report is not actually reported. the site is a haven for every form of extremist (left and right wing) nutjob with an internet connection. I wouldn't get too worried about it.

After Hours on the other hand......

Sh1tbag OToole

Foxhound38 wrote: »

They're stupid because they wish to prevent 2 people who are minding their own business from doing something that would not affect them or anyone else in the slightest, but would make the 2 involved much happier.

I can't even believe we're still having this debate in 21st Century Ireland...

Maybe its for their own good.

Maybe straight people should be relinquishing their right to marry. People move around too much, are always looking for something better, people change. As "progress" progresses it will be easier to get divorced. People will get married on a whim like they do in the States. What is the point of it all?

If 2 people truly want to stay together they don't need the State (who are a worthless pack of bastards anyway) to approve, or recognise or otherwise acknowledge that fact. It should be none of their business

theSHU

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Some people have no problem with civil partnership but believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman. I completely disagree with that but I'm not sure it's stupid.

That would be their own definition though. Why don't we all just allow each other to define our own happiness in life.

lazygal

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Some people have no problem with civil partnership but believe marriage should only be between a man and a woman. I completely disagree with that but I'm not sure it's stupid.

I'm sure it is stupid. I've heard no non stupid reason to oppose gay marriage.

Jamie Cal

I always think it's funny when the anti-equality crew say s**t like "well, if can marry a man, what can you do next, marry your dog?" like that wouldn't be the most fun thing in the world.

cletus van damme

omahaid wrote: »

Feckin democracy :mad:

terrible thing - should be taken away from us and given to the Burmese - we clearly don't deserve it cos of some people had the cheek to voice an opinion against to the "accepted" view.

lazygal

Jamie Cal wrote: »

I always think it's funny when the anti-equality crew say s**t like "well, if can marry a man, what can you do next, marry your dog?" like that wouldn't be the most fun thing in the world.

And where gay marriages take place no straight people get married any more, and straight people get divorced because their marriages are now worthless.

krudler

Jamie Cal wrote: »

I always think it's funny when the anti-equality crew say s**t like "well, if can marry a man, what can you do next, marry your dog?" like that wouldn't be the most fun thing in the world.

I like when people stoop to that level of stupidity, it's a nice red flag to indicate they're beyond rational thought and can just be ignored.

1ZRed

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

Maybe its for their own good.

Maybe straight people should be relinquishing their right to marry. People move around too much, are always looking for something better, people change. As "progress" progresses it will be easier to get divorced. People will get married on a whim like they do in the States. What is the point of it all?

If 2 people truly want to stay together they don't need the State(who are a worthless pack of bastards anyway) to approve, or recognise or otherwise acknowledge that fact. It should be none of their business

They do if they want legal protection for their children as one example, otherwise if parent dies the children have no legal guardian and will lose both in one fell swoop. It's not for their own good at all.

Derpington95

Leroy42 wrote: »

Are they simply stupid because they do not agree with your viewpoint?

It depends on the reasons as to why they don't agree with the viewpoint :cool:

150 years ago in this country most marriages were arranged. I know people from my parents generation (getting married in the 1970's) who didn't marry a boyfriend/girlfriend because they were Protestant and the families were against it. Until 1995 1st cousins could marry in Ireland.

If you're straight you can marry someone because they're a millionaire or because they have a boob job and if that doesn't work out you can marry someone else. Marriage isn't a sacred institution it's only as strong as the two people involved.

It's no one elses business if those two people happen to be a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

Sh1tbag OToole

1ZRed wrote: »

They do if they want legal protection for their children as one example, otherwise if parent dies the children have no legal guardian and will lose both in one fell swoop. It's not for their own good at all.

That could be done with a simple form that states who 'owns' the child. Could have multiple backups on it incase more than one person dies. Without commiting two people to a lifetime of misery together

lazygal

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

That could be done with a simple form that states who 'owns' the child. Could have multiple backups on it incase more than one person dies. Without commiting two people to a lifetime of misery together

Would the owner be able to sell/trade the child?

Foxhound38

I don't think I've ever heard an argument against Marraige Equality that wasn't utterly moronic - I don't think one actually exists to be honest...

Sh1tbag OToole

lazygal wrote: »

Would the owner be able to sell/trade the child?

maybe in China they would

Amirani

Leroy42 wrote: »

@Niallsparky, they were asked their opinion and gave it. How you can infer that it is either over-inflated or that they are forcing others to adhere to it I don't know.

A time will come when we will be asked to vote on it, and everyone will have their voice. Just because people disagree with your viewpoint doesn't make them stupid or indeed wrong. If these things were black and white then we would never have a division in the 1st place.

Fair point, but people really shouldn't be having a voice on people's private lives when it has no effect on their own or anyone else's.

I'm all for democracy, but if I want to take a sh*t tonight I shouldn't need the approval of the people of Ireland.

1ZRed

Sh1tbag OToole wrote: »

That could be done with a simple form that states who 'owns' the child. Could have multiple backups on it incase more than one person dies. Without commiting two people to a lifetime of misery together

Alright, you've a really cynical view of marriage, some people just want it so they can be together and have a family with support structures in place that doesn't make it a legal nightmare. They are entitled to that because your form solution wouldn't stand up at all because the person who may not be the legal parent to that child will have no relation to them at all in the eyes of the law. If it was as easy as you think many people would be doing it and it wouldn't nearly be such a big deal in regard to raring children.

RDM_83 again

lazygal wrote: »

I'm sure it is stupid. I've heard no non stupid reason to oppose gay marriage.

First let me point out that I support Gay marriage.

But there is valid reasons for people having reservations on about knock on effects in its application.

I can think of one example of the top of my head, in the UK most catholic adoption agencies have pulled out of offering services as they have had their charitable status revoked due to not considering gay couples as valid candidates, now I personally don;t have any major issue with Gay couples raising children however I do think that the mother giving up a child for adoption loosing her right to choose a provider that reflects her beliefs is not a good thing*.

* I'm sure the general religion bashing crowd love the idea though, its not very pro-choice though

Zonda999

NiallSparky wrote: »

Fair point, but people really shouldn't be having a voice on people's private lives when it has no effect on their own or anyone else's.

I'm all for democracy, but if I want to take a sh*t tonight I shouldn't need the approval of the people of Ireland.

You'll like liberalism. However, you can make that point about anything. When you put it like that its no different than abortion, seeing as it doesn't affect your ordinary Irish joe soap. In that case why do you need Irish Joe Soaps approval to do ti?

Leroy42

I agree that people should let others get on with their own lives, but at what point does the individual become a society? We have had conventional marriage for years, and that is how our society is arranged. 'Gay' marriage would have an effect on society (I'm not argueing if that is a good or bad thing, simply that there will be an effect) and people are concerned as to what the effects will be over time.

The point of democracy is that each person gets to have their say, and the majority is then taken. Invariably that results in many people not liking the result, but they accept it as the price of society. There are many laws that I am not in favour of, but I understand the need for them although I don't seem to get anything positive from them directly.

Yes all those that favour gay marriage are deeply enlightened and caring individauls, while those with the opposite view are knuckledragging religious zealots. I have a suspicion that most people fit somewhere between these two.

lazygal

RDM_83 again wrote: »

First let me point out that I support Gay marriage.

But there is valid reasons for people having reservations on about knock on effects in its application.

I can think of one example of the top of my head, in the UK most catholic adoption agencies have pulled out of offering services as they have had their charitable status revoked due to not considering gay couples as valid candidates, now I personally don;t have any major issue with Gay couples raising children however I do think that the mother giving up a child for adoption loosing her right to choose a provider that reflects her beliefs is not a good thing*.

* I'm sure the general religion bashing crowd love the idea though, its not very pro-choice though

That's still a stupid reason to oppose gay marriage.

jill_valentine

Foxhound38 wrote: »

I don't think I've ever heard an argument against Marraige Equality that wasn't utterly moronic - I don't think one actually exists to be honest...

Ditto. People dress it up in something sounding vaguely rational nowadays, but scratch the surface it invariably comes down to religion or just a "gut feeling".

I've never seen a good reason to oppose it, because there isn't one.

RDM_83 again

lazygal wrote: »

That's still a stupid reason to oppose gay marriage.

Why is it so stupid? surely a woman giving up a child for adoption should be allowed to choose a provider that she feels is best or do you think her choice should be restricted? If so why?

lazygal

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Why is it so stupid? surely a woman giving up a child for adoption should be allowed to choose a provider that she feels is best or do you think her choice should be restricted? If so why?

Why should all gay people not be allowed to marry for that reason alone?

1ZRed

Leroy42 wrote: »

I agree that people should let others get on with their own lives, but at what point does the individual become a society? We have had conventional marriage for years, and that is how our society is arranged. 'Gay' marriage would have an effect on society (I'm not argueing if that is a good or bad thing, simply that there will be an effect) and people are concerned as to what the effects will be over time.

The only effect gay marriage will have on society is that gay people will be able to marry.

Do you expect it's going to somehow change or collapse for some reason?

krudler

Leroy42 wrote: »

I agree that people should let others get on with their own lives, but at what point does the individual become a society? We have had conventional marriage for years, and that is how our society is arranged. 'Gay' marriage would have an effect on society (I'm not argueing if that is a good or bad thing, simply that there will be an effect) and people are concerned as to what the effects will be over time.

The point of democracy is that each person gets to have their say, and the majority is then taken. Invariably that results in many people not liking the result, but they accept it as the price of society. There are many laws that I am not in favour of, but I understand the need for them although I don't seem to get anything positive from them directly.

Yes all those that favour gay marriage are deeply enlightened and caring individauls, while those with the opposite view are knuckledragging religious zealots. I have a suspicion that most people fit somewhere between these two.

Yes, gay people can marry. aaand... well that's about it really. It won't be the harbinger of Cthulu like some would have you believe.

St.Spodo

Journal polls, contrary to the content in the comments section, tend to be curiously right wing-leaning. I really wouldn't read to much into it.

shruikan2553

RDM_83 again wrote: »

First let me point out that I support Gay marriage.

But there is valid reasons for people having reservations on about knock on effects in its application.

I can think of one example of the top of my head, in the UK most catholic adoption agencies have pulled out of offering services as they have had their charitable status revoked due to not considering gay couples as valid candidates, now I personally don;t have any major issue with Gay couples raising children however I do think that the mother giving up a child for adoption loosing her right to choose a provider that reflects her beliefs is not a good thing*.

* I'm sure the general religion bashing crowd love the idea though, its not very pro-choice though

What if she doesnt like black people? Suppose they are allowed not to give the child to them either.

Everyone is equal and has the freedom to do whatever they want as long as it doesnt harm anyone else. What difference does it make between a man and a man or a man and a woman? Oh no, they're gay, I guess that means they.....they have good taste? Whatever will we do in a society where the carpet matches a sofa in someones living room! Someone needs to protect the children.

Terry1985

Foxhound38 wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-how-will-you-vote-on-gay-marriage-997136-Jul2013/

At the time of posting this, 45% or 3551 people have indicated that they intend to vote against giving gay people the right to be as miserable in matrimoney as the rest of us.

I just can't believe this many people, on that site of all sites, could be still living in backwards land...

Calling people morons and backwards SHOULD get you banned. If I were to call the LGBT crowd offensive names I'd probably get an infracton or banned.

So your hate filled post against other peoples beliefs about what Irish society should rubber stamp and fund via the tax payer/society is detestable.

CastingCouch

Leroy42 wrote: »

Are they simply stupid because they do not agree with your viewpoint?

+100

Amirani

Terry1985 wrote: »

Calling people morons and backwards SHOULD get you banned. If I were to call the LGBT crowd offensive names I'd probably get an infracton or banned.

So your hate filled post against other peoples beliefs about what Irish society should rubber stamp and fund via the tax payer/society is detestable.

Opposing equality when it's not harming you and only benefiting others is backwards thinking, that's a close to an objective fact as you can get.

Your comparison to LGBT issues really shows a lack of empathy for the situation that some people are in.

Sh1tbag OToole

1ZRed wrote: »

Alright, you've a really cynical view of marriage, some people just want it so they can be together and have a family with support structures in place that doesn't make it a legal nightmare. They are entitled to that because your form solution wouldn't stand up at all because the person who may not be the legal parent to that child will have no relation to them at all in the eyes of the law. If it was as easy as you think many people would be doing it and it wouldn't nearly be such a big deal in regard to raring children.

Maybe so but statistically speaking most marriages end in divorce in the States, things might not be as "progressive" here as they are over there but we will probably get there. Support structures can exist without the requirement of two people having to stay together. The owner-list system would ensure the child always goes to the next available suitable guardian, the list can be drawn up before the child is born with relatives putting their name on the lower entries incase both parents are unable to look after the child. No more custody battles and that carry on, unless you are able to prove they are a druggie or otherwise unsuitable the next person on the list gets the child