Gay Marriage

H.J Simpson

I think todays vote on the seanad proves that the Irish are big fans of maintaining the status quo and despite what polls say Gay marriage will be rejected by the irish too.

Nodin

H.J Simpson wrote: »

I think todays vote on the seanad proves that the Irish are big fans of maintaining the status quo and despite what polls say Gay marriage will be rejected by the irish too.

Why? Divorce was passed, risk of suicide as grounds for abortion was kept....I don't really see the link between the seanad and gay marriage as an issue.

ebbsy

Turnout would be low I would say. There would be a bigger No vote than expected as well.

jill_valentine

ebbsy wrote: »

Turnout would be low I would say.

Why?

The low turnout votes we've had recently were all about muddly questions that nobody really cared about because they didn't really look like they'd have any tangible effect on their day to day lives.

Same sex marriage is the first one in ages people actually do really feel very strongly about, referendum or no, and it could make a big difference to a lot of people.

I'd bet on it having the best turnout for a long, long time, tbh.

Manach

There would be a lively debate on the attempt to redefine the definition of traditional marriage.

An Riabhach

H.J Simpson wrote: »

I think todays vote on the seanad proves that the Irish are big fans of maintaining the status quo and despite what polls say Gay marriage will be rejected by the irish too.

Don't think so-they are two totally different issues.
I'm not gay but I'd vote yes to gay marriage-sure what the hell harm are they doing to anybody else?
And it certainly won't make a difference to the state this country is in,as far as I'm concerned anyway...

Nodin

Manach wrote: »

There would be a lively debate on the attempt to redefine the definition of traditional marriage.

Or a painful one, depending on what way you looked at it. And its a case of "will be" rather than would. Gilmore let on that he thought it might be in 2014.

Fr Tod Umptious

Firstly I don't think the support for same sex marriage is as big a some people say it is, and I am not sure it would pass a referendum in the next few years.

But there was an interesting point made by someone on a radio show today during the discussion about the seanad

The abolition of the seanad was very much a FG initiative, and certainly a Kenny initiative.
The support they got from their collation partner, Labour, was questionable, they allowed their TDs and Senators to choose which side they were on and which side they wished to canvas and show support for.
So when it comes to a same sex marriage referendum, which is very much a Labour initiative, FG may say, 'ye are on yer own with this one folks' and not get fully behind them, and remember FG is a fairly conservative party so it would be right down their street to allow their TD and Senators make up their own mind on it.

hfallada

I think the turn out for same sex marriage will be quite high. It is actually an issue that young people feel strongly about. They cant understand why someone just because of who they are, should be treated like a second class citizen by the Irish state. They cant understand why their friends cant be equal to them on something which is a human right. But I can imagine a lot of older people wanting to vote no on same sex marriage as it isnt normal( but I think a lot of them would vote no against a divorce referendum in the morning too).

Opinion polls have put support of same sex marriage significantly in favour in Ireland. It a referendum that can genuinely can improve the lives of thousands of people and not some ridiculous referendum like making Irish the first and official language of the state. As Hillary Clinton said gay rights, are human rights. Its time for the Government to put a decent referendum to the people. But this will be a very political sensitive one and I cant imagine it be anytime soon( although FG said it will be in 2014/2015, I imagine they will drag it out).

hmmm

It's hard to get any referendum passed when there's a portion of the electorate who vote against everything.

ebbsy

hmmm wrote: »

It's hard to get any referendum passed when there's a portion of the electorate who vote against everything.

True. I voted No on Friday just to shag up the government and will do so as well in the gay marriage vote.

jill_valentine

Some top notch reasoning there alright.

oscarBravo

Democracy: letting even the stupidest of people have a say in the running of a country for two and a half millennia.

Cody Pomeray

Arrogance: making thick people feel smart since the origins of man.

Swan Curry

I'd hope enough people would feel strongly enough about LGBT rights to vote Yes if there was a referendum,but unfortunately,many people in Ireland still have an attitude of "I've no problem with gays,I just don't want to have to ever think about them or have them near me".

It would be interesting to see how strong the opposition from the Catholic Church would be.Would they keep their head down and hope people forget their role in the historical persecution of LGBT people,or would they realise they're a dying institution and go for broke opposing this to attempt to please the hangers-on?

oppenheimer1

A gay marriage referendum in Ireland next year would almost certainly be defeated. Historically referendums do not exercise the electorate enough to bother going out to vote and those against a proposal always seem to be more motivated. Referendums that were not that controversial, such as the Childrens one, produced a sizeable no vote.

It would be likely that the two main political parties would stay neutral or be a soft yes to such a proposal. The right wing groups will produce scare literature in relation to adoption, which when introduced to the debate reduces significantly those in favour. This will be enough to convince enough of the electorate to go out to vote no to defeat the proposal.

The way I see it going is there won't be Gay marriage in Ireland with normal adoption rights for some years.

Fr Tod Umptious

hfallada wrote: »

I think the turn out for same sex marriage will be quite high. It is actually an issue that young people feel strongly about. They cant understand why someone just because of who they are, should be treated like a second class citizen by the Irish state. They cant understand why their friends cant be equal to them on something which is a human right. But I can imagine a lot of older people wanting to vote no on same sex marriage as it isnt normal( but I think a lot of them would vote no against a divorce referendum in the morning too).

Opinion polls have put support of same sex marriage significantly in favour in Ireland. It a referendum that can genuinely can improve the lives of thousands of people and not some ridiculous referendum like making Irish the first and official language of the state. As Hillary Clinton said gay rights, are human rights. Its time for the Government to put a decent referendum to the people. But this will be a very political sensitive one and I cant imagine it be anytime soon( although FG said it will be in 2014/2015, I imagine they will drag it out).

Young people feel strongly about a lot of things, but at the end of the day rarely come out and vote in large numbers.
Older people, who tend to be more conservative, vote in larger numbers

periodictable

Food for thought....

SeanW

My favourite take on this issue was this, quite sarcastic pic+quote:


"New Yorks first legally married gay couple"
"Clearly a threat to us all"

:rolleyes:

gandalf

The key to this being passed is that the Young voters actually turn up to make their voices count. If this happens then the referendum will pass. If there is a low turnout you can predict that it is the older people voting as usual and they will be a conservative bunch and therefore vote it down.

A critical factor will be the campaign leading up to this and especially the No campaign. If it becomes too vitriolic in its output and aggressively goes after the "evil homosexuals" and their destruction of old Catholic Ireland then I believe it will spur the youth to actually vote in numbers. Here's hoping that organisations like the Iona Institute, Youth Defence and Opus Dei are extremely vocal about the campaign.

I see they plan to hold this referendum in May 2015, I suspect there may be dirty tricks at play from FG as this is around the time of College exams; an effort to try and lower the youth participation. A Yes vote would cause difficulties for the organisation and could push the more conservative members within the organisation towards Creightons Reform Alliance which consists of Religiously conservatives on the whole.

Personally I will vote yes as I believe no person should be denied their rights no matter their sexual preference. Who you choose to spend you life with should be no concern of the states once they are over the age of consent.

Phill Ewinn

All this "denied their rights" commentary is wearing thin. No one wants to deny people rights. What people do want is the preservation of a structure so important to society, marriage.

I fail to see why people can be so conflicted. No all gay people want gay marriage.

Theres two issues.

A. The issue of rights for homosexuals, transsexuals and polygamists.
B. The special value that people put on "traditional" marriage.

The two issues do not need to conflict.

Nodin

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

All this "denied their rights" commentary is wearing thin. No one wants to deny people rights. What people do want is the preservation of a structure so important to society, marriage.
............

Marriage isn't being abolished, its being extended to everyone. I don't see where "preservation" comes into it.

Phill Ewinn

Nodin wrote: »

Marriage isn't being abolished, its being extended to everyone. I don't see where "preservation" comes into it.

Its not being extended to everyone Nodin. You know that better than I do.

Nodin

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Its not being extended to everyone Nodin. You know that better than I do.

Well, its being extended to gay people and I do fail to see why that should raise talk about the "preservation" of marriage.

_Redzer_

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

All this "denied their rights" commentary is wearing thin. No one wants to deny people rights. What people do want is the preservation of a structure so important to society, marriage.

I fail to see why people can be so conflicted. No all gay people want gay marriage.

Theres two issues.

A. The issue of rights for homosexuals, transsexuals and polygamists.
B. The special value that people put on "traditional" marriage.

The two issues do not need to conflict.

Preserving marriage? Is that what Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian are doing these days?

Could've fooled me

Phill Ewinn

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Preserving marriage? Is that what Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian are doing these days?

Could've fooled me

Am I missing something?

diograis

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Am I missing something?

britney spears married for some yoke for like 56 hours before divorcing or something like that, kinda flies in the face of the argument that the gays are "ruining its sanctity" etc etc

_Redzer_

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Am I missing something?

It's just that that point is misplaced. The preservation of marriage? Divorce rates are extremely high and many obviously don't hold marriage in any sacred way anymore.

Tell me how is preventing gay people from marrying is 'preserving marriage'? If you're going at from a traditional point of view it's nothing more than a monetary contract with no love involved at all.

Marriage has evolved a lot over the last 100 years, it's continuing to do so. Saying you're against it for traditional purposes and the 'preservation of marriage' is utter nonsense. You're argument against it is going to have to be far better than that because so you're keeping your opinions for irrational, ill thought out reasons.

Phill Ewinn

_Redzer_ wrote: »

It's just that that point is misplaced. The preservation of marriage? Divorce rates are extremely high and many obviously don't hold marriage in any sacred way anymore.

Tell me how is preventing gay people from marrying is 'preserving marriage'? If you're going at from a traditional point of view it's nothing more than a monetary contract with no love involved at all.

Marriage has evolved a lot over the last 100 years, it's continuing to do so. Saying you're against it for traditional purposes and the 'preservation of marriage' is utter nonsense. You're argument against it is going to have to be far better than that because so you're keeping your opinions for irrational, ill thought out reasons.

Its been a stable arrangement for many hundreds of years. Before that it was a very unstable arrangement. Now you want the return of instabilty? What purpose would that serve?

_Redzer_

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Its been a stable arrangement for many hundreds of years. Before that it was a very unstable arrangement. Now you want the return of instabilty? What purpose would that serve?

How is it unstable to let two people of the same sex marry?

You're going to have to explain

eviltwin

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Its been a stable arrangement for many hundreds of years. Before that it was a very unstable arrangement. Now you want the return of instabilty? What purpose would that serve?

Out of curiousity are you married? I am and I fully support marriage equality. I don't see why my marriage will be anymore unstable with gay marriage as it would be without. It has zero impact on my relationship if Mary and Ann can marry each other, nothing changes for me. Explain to me how my marriage is somehow weakened as you see it.

Nodin

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Its been a stable arrangement for many hundreds of years. Before that it was a very unstable arrangement. Now you want the return of instabilty? What purpose would that serve?

I've heard many arguments against gay marriage, but this would appear to be a new one. Please explain your argument, if you'd be as good.

Annasopra

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Its been a stable arrangement for many hundreds of years. Before that it was a very unstable arrangement. Now you want the return of instabilty? What purpose would that serve?

Actually ironically it is the complete opposite. Marriage as an institution is in many ways dying and collapsing but gay people wanting to get married will actually in a sense stabilise and strengthen it as an institution.

Phill Ewinn

mango salsa wrote: »

Actually ironically it is the complete opposite. Marriage as an institution is in many ways dying and collapsing but gay people wanting to get married will actually in a sense stabilise and strengthen it as an institution.

Whats dying?

Marriage is alive and well. Book yourself a hotel in June and see how you get on. No need for your superpowers there.

Annasopra

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Whats dying?

Marriage is alive and well. Book yourself a hotel in June and see how you get on. No need for your superpowers there.

The numbeers of people getting married are falling. The number of divorces are increasing. In many countries. I can dig out numerous articles and reports if you want.

oscarBravo

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Whats dying?

Marriage is alive and well.

And gay people marrying will harm that how?

Phill Ewinn

oscarBravo wrote: »

And gay people marrying will harm that how?

Is that what I said?

Sir Humphrey Appleby

It really is quite simple, the right to marry is a basic human and civil right in my book, and who other people marry should not be my business or the business of the state.
At a time when marriage rates are declining, and the numbers of children being born outside of marriage is constantly rising, the argument that the "institution" of Marriage would be damaged by gays getting married is facile. How could the "institution" of marriage be anything but strengthened if more people who are willing and ready to make a lifelong commitment to each other are allowed to partake in it.

oscarBravo

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Is that what I said?

You said that it would lead to the "return of instability" for marriage. You failed to explain how. You haven't explained much of anything, in fact.

So maybe you could spell it out for me: how will allowing gay people to marry have any negative impact whatsoever on heterosexual marriage?

Phill Ewinn

oscarBravo wrote: »

You said that it would lead to the "return of instability" for marriage. You failed to explain how. You haven't explained much of anything, in fact.

So maybe you could spell it out for me: how will allowing gay people to marry have any negative impact whatsoever on heterosexual marriage?

I answered a post. Care to explain how the introduction of marriage equality will strengthen marriage? History has shown this not to be the case.

oscarBravo

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I answered a post. Care to explain how the introduction of marriage equality will strengthen marriage? History has shown this not to be the case.

Whoah, back up. I haven't claimed that marriage equality will strengthen marriage. I don't care whether or not it will "strengthen marriage", whatever that even means.

You've expressed opposition to the idea that gay people should be extended the same rights as straight people. I'm asking you to explain why, not to continue to evade the question.

Phill Ewinn

oscarBravo wrote: »

Whoah, back up. I haven't claimed that marriage equality will strengthen marriage. I don't care whether or not it will "strengthen marriage", whatever that even means.

You've expressed opposition to the idea that gay people should be extended the same rights as straight people. I'm asking you to explain why, not to continue to evade the question.

Yes you did.

Also where EXACTLY did I suggest people be denied any rights?

If your going to keep twisting peoples words, misquoting them and sh1tstirring you're going on my ignore list.

PopePalpatine

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I answered a post. Care to explain how the introduction of marriage equality will strengthen marriage? History has shown this not to be the case.

[citation needed]

Annasopra

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I answered a post. Care to explain how the introduction of marriage equality will strengthen marriage? History has shown this not to be the case.

What does that mean?

K-9

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I answered a post. Care to explain how the introduction of marriage equality will strengthen marriage? History has shown this not to be the case.

You didn't answer this question:

How is it unstable to let two people of the same sex marry?

In response to this post of yours:

Its been a stable arrangement for many hundreds of years. Before that it was a very unstable arrangement. Now you want the return of instabilty? What purpose would that serve?

Just repeating "History has shown this not to be the case" doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

Nodin

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Whats dying?

Marriage is alive and well. Book yourself a hotel in June and see how you get on. No need for your superpowers there.

If you'd be good enough to get back to me
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88439557&postcount=32

Phill Ewinn

K-9 wrote: »

You didn't answer this question:



In response to this post of yours:



Just repeating "History has shown this not to be the case" doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

You're afraid of what?

I responded to this post. Which was incorrect on many levels and by your own standards 'doesn't cut it'.

_Redzer_ wrote: »

It's just that that point is misplaced. The preservation of marriage? Divorce rates are extremely high and many obviously don't hold marriage in any sacred way anymore.

Tell me how is preventing gay people from marrying is 'preserving marriage'? If you're going at from a traditional point of view it's nothing more than a monetary contract with no love involved at all.

Marriage has evolved a lot over the last 100 years, it's continuing to do so. Saying you're against it for traditional purposes and the 'preservation of marriage' is utter nonsense. You're argument against it is going to have to be far better than that because so you're keeping your opinions for irrational, ill thought out reasons.

But keep up the misdirection and mudslinging. Sure, by page 50 we might start a reasoned denate on the opening statement I made.

Until then I'll bow out and let you guys misquote, lie and argue amonst yourselves.

Annasopra

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

You're afraid of what?

I responded to this post. Which was incorrect on many levels and by your own standards 'doesn't cut it'.

But keep up the misdirection and mudslinging. Sure, by page 50 we might start a reasoned denate on the opening statement I made.

Until then I'll bow out and let you guys misquote, lie and argue amonst yourselves.

You're not answering any questions - just making vague statements with nothing absolutely nothing to back up your statements.

Nodin

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

You're afraid of what?

I responded to this post. Which was incorrect on many levels and by your own standards 'doesn't cut it'.



But keep up the misdirection and mudslinging. Sure, by page 50 we might start a reasoned denate on the opening statement I made.

Until then I'll bow out and let you guys misquote, lie and argue amonst yourselves.

Why can't you explain your position? You posted

"Its been a stable arrangement for many hundreds of years. Before that it was a very unstable arrangement. Now you want the return of instabilty? What purpose would that serve?"

and I asked you if you would explain what you meant, as its a new line of argument to me, at least.

_Redzer_

It's very clear he has no argument at all and is just being irrational.

*awaits post telling me I'm wrong just to divert further from the questions directed at him*

K-9

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

You're afraid of what?

I responded to this post. Which was incorrect on many levels and by your own standards 'doesn't cut it'.



But keep up the misdirection and mudslinging. Sure, by page 50 we might start a reasoned denate on the opening statement I made.

Until then I'll bow out and let you guys misquote, lie and argue amonst yourselves.

It doesn't seem you are interested in expounding upon your statements when requested so it probably is best we leave it at that.