SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Daith

RobertKK wrote: »

Well we hear the term 'marriage equality', I just think it is a stupid term when the possibilities for couples of child bearing age are different for heterosexual couples compared to homosexual couples within a marriage.

It makes the people who use the term seem uneducated if they are arguing for something and different possibilities exist for heterosexual compared to homosexual.
It is viewing different possibilities within marriage as equal, where one groups has a high percentage chance of one outcome and the other has no chance of the same outcome.
It is a stupid term as it is not marriage equality.

Again. NO MARRIED PERSON IS REQUIRED TO HAVE CHILDREN!

_Redzer_

What if I want to get married and don't even want fúcking children?

The way some people talk you're not allowed a marriage without children... if you're gay. Rule doesn't apply if you're straight it seems :rolleyes:

Shiraz 4.99

Does anyone remember the divorce referendum in the 80's that swung 10% against on the final weekend once the bishops got the priests to speak out during their Sunday sermons ?.
This was after they assured the government they would allow people make up there own minds.
I'd love to see them do that again.

Stinicker

I am voting no because I believe Marriage is for heterosexual couples only. Left-wing liberal beliefs like this are not good for Ireland, like I can never understand why a man would want to marry another man. It makes no sense and while I am myself am sympathetic towards lots of things the attitudes of the gay community is as if they are somehow superior to everyone else and that they are are so discriminated against. Looking back at that guy "Panti" on RTE a few months ago and the furore about it and they way the way the other guy was ostracised leads me to believe there is a lot more intolerant people in the left wing than the right which really shows them up as hypocrites.

I am also against Gay adoption and believe children who are adopted should be given the same upbringing as everyone else and have a father and mother in their lives.

I'm not shy to say I'm voting No and while it's fine for people have the privacy of their bedroom and private lives I just wish they'd stop pontificating about it to the rest of society and whining about being oppressed. Go to Saudi Arabia or much of the Middle East, Africa etc. and then you'll know what true oppression is.

Maximus Alexander

If things aren't as bad as they could possibly be for you, then sure they're not bad at all. :rolleyes:

denhaagenite

Following this announcement yesterday, one of my friends (whose opinion and intelligence I highly regard) posted this statement on Facebook:

"You are in a not so admirable position to be voting on my rights as a citizen so I hope those of you that care about same will make sure and register to vote!"

I'm highly insulted. I think that while the referendum might change the rules about what gay people can/ can't do, they are not the only people who are affected by this. There are gay couples up and down the country who are raising families, whose childrens rights are being affected. There are parents of gay couples up and down the country whose rights are being affected. I really felt like he was insinuating that if people aren't gay, then they should have no say whatsoever in anything to do with the issue.

I'm a staunch believer in marriage for everyone (of age and sound mind etc etc), and I fervently disagree with those who aren't, but I am very tired of the likes of Rory O Neill (Panti) and the likes on crusades even with very little opposition- he talks about being called a queer when crossing the road in Dublin, that has happened to many straight friends of mine in numerous cities, it's just knackery kids ffs. Just for the sake of it, just to be known as a campaigner (and to further his own business and career). I think his efforts are very much needed in some Middle Eastern and African countries, wonder why he doesn't take them there?

I am not gay, but I have friends who are, family who are and I may one day have children who are. I want to pave the way for them to have the same freedoms and rights as I do, and as a citizen this also affects my rights.

P_1

floggg wrote: »

What ****ing lifestyle?

Sorry, I know you didn't mean anything by it, but I live the same lifestyle as my straight brother. The only difference is the gender of the person in attracted to - that's hardly a lifestyle in of itself.

Apologies, poorly phrased, personally I blame a lack of coffee

RobertKK

Daith wrote: »

Again. NO MARRIED PERSON IS REQUIRED TO HAVE CHILDREN!

Much easier if of the same sex...

floggg

RobertKK wrote: »

That is a poor argument. Look to reproduction, and apply your argument.
Nature denies biological children to two people of the same sex. Producing biological children naturally is confined to opposite sexes.
So nature denies equality in humans. Nature has the relationship between man and woman differently than to that of the same sex.
Using the arguments some use, nature is bigoted and homophobic for denying same sex couples the "right" to produce biological children together.

In real life same sex marriage will not give equality, that is why the government has to fiddle around with adoption rights to give a perception it is equal, due to nature denying same sex couples a biological child.
Nature has children with a mother and father. If nature wanted same sex adoption and equality as some argue they are fighting for it would have allowed biological children for same sex couples.

The fact is same sex marriage will never be truly equal as people of child bearing age in a marriage will only have the possibility of a biological child in an opposite sex marriage.

We can vote yes for perception reasons.

Where in the civil registration acts does it say marriage is only for procreation?

And why does the state sell condoms to married people if they are meant to be having babies.

Or give child allowance and support Unmarried couples and parents?

It seems that there's no much evidence to suggest procreation is a necessary prerequisite or requirement for marriage.

Edit - and ignoring the fact that nature isn't a thinking or otherwise sentient being, if nature wanted same sex adoption, why in the world would it have given then why would it have given them "biological" children. Wouldn't that kinda make the adoption but redundant?

_Redzer_

Stinicker wrote: »

I am voting no because I believe Marriage is for heterosexual couples only. Left-wing liberal beliefs like this are not good for Ireland, like I can never understand why a man would want to marry another man. It makes no sense and while I am myself am sympathetic towards lots of things the attitudes of the gay community is as if they are somehow superior to everyone else and that they are are so discriminated against. Looking back at that guy "Panti" on RTE a few months ago and the furore about it and they way the way the other guy was ostracised leads me to believe there is a lot more intolerant people in the left wing than the right which really shows them up as hypocrites.

I am also against Gay adoption and believe children who are adopted should be given the same upbringing as everyone else and have a father and mother in their lives.

I'm not shy to say I'm voting No and while it's fine for people have the privacy of their bedroom and private lives I just wish they'd stop pontificating about it to the rest of society and whining about being oppressed. Go to Saudi Arabia or much of the Middle East, Africa etc. and then you'll know what true oppression is.

Tough shít. Gay people can already adopt. And all major scientific studies show no disadvantage to same-sex parenting.

Gas how you're all about gay people doing what they like in the privacy of their bedroom, yet you publicly air your views and try to force them on the whole population. Bit hypocritical, no?

I won't even address the superiority part, because that's just ignorant nonsense.

Philo Beddoe

Stinicker wrote: »

I am voting no because I believe Marriage is for heterosexual couples only. Left-wing liberal beliefs like this are not good for Ireland, like I can never understand why a man would want to marry another man. It makes no sense and while I am myself am sympathetic towards lots of things the attitudes of the gay community is as if they are somehow superior to everyone else and that they are are so discriminated against.

Why should what makes sense to you have any bearing on whether two people should be allowed to marry? It has absolutely no bearing on your life whatsoever. If there were a pointless ban on people eating tomatoes would you support that ban simply because you didn't like the taste of tomatoes?

P_1

RobertKK wrote: »

Much easier if of the same sex...

Robert again marriage =/= making babies.

It's about two people electing to join their lives. It's about one person allowing their husband/wife to act as their next of kin. It's about one person deciding to leave their assets to their husband/wife in their will. Its about one person deciding that they want to commit to another person.

fran17

PopePalpatine wrote: »

A prime example of playing the victim.

"DE QUARES ARE OPPRESSIN ME, DEY WON'T LET ME BEAT THEM UP!"

An excellent example of my point being proved,thanks.you'll be disappointed to learn though that you won't be allowed to stand in the polling booth and frown on anyone who's vote you disapprove of on the day

Philo Beddoe

denhaagenite wrote: »

"You are in a not so admirable position to be voting on my rights as a citizen so I hope those of you that care about same will make sure and register to vote!"

I'm highly insulted. I think that while the referendum might change the rules about what gay people can/ can't do, they are not the only people who are affected by this. There are gay couples up and down the country who are raising families, whose childrens rights are being affected. There are parents of gay couples up and down the country whose rights are being affected. I really felt like he was insinuating that if people aren't gay, then they should have no say whatsoever in anything to do with the issue.

He raised a reasonable objection to having his rights voted upon and then encouraged you to vote anyway. Why would you object to this?

hallo dare

Daith wrote: »

Again. NO MARRIED PERSON IS REQUIRED TO HAVE CHILDREN!

I completely agree with you, but the biggest laugh I had was when my Wife and I attended an Accord pre Marriage course and the "Priest" that was doing the course at the time stood up in front of us all pointing his finger at us and stating "That your Marriage will not be seen or accepted by the Catholic Church until a Child is born into this Marriage!!"

WTF!!!! When he didn't get the chair to the head that day!! Couldn't have been bothered my ar$e fighting with him after 2 days of listening to him rant and rave about Marriage.

Ironic, a Priest lecturing you about Marriage!!!! Anyway, that's for another day.

shruikan2553

Stinicker wrote: »

I am voting no because I believe Marriage is for heterosexual couples only. Left-wing liberal beliefs like this are not good for Ireland, like I can never understand why a man would want to marry another man. It makes no sense and while I am myself am sympathetic towards lots of things the attitudes of the gay community is as if they are somehow superior to everyone else and that they are are so discriminated against. Looking back at that guy "Panti" on RTE a few months ago and the furore about it and they way the way the other guy was ostracised leads me to believe there is a lot more intolerant people in the left wing than the right which really shows them up as hypocrites.

I am also against Gay adoption and believe children who are adopted should be given the same upbringing as everyone else and have a father and mother in their lives.

I'm not shy to say I'm voting No and while it's fine for people have the privacy of their bedroom and private lives I just wish they'd stop pontificating about it to the rest of society and whining about being oppressed. Go to Saudi Arabia or much of the Middle East, Africa etc. and then you'll know what true oppression is.

Should I have been taken away from my family to ensure I had a mother and a father? My mother managed to raise me just fine after my parents split up but I keep getting told that somehow my upbringing was lesser and shouldn't be allowed.

iwantmydinner

RobertKK wrote: »

That is a poor argument

Yet you can't find any counter argument that makes sense.

Marriage is a civil right you enjoy access to. You would deny access to that civil right to another citizen simply because the person they wish to marry is of the same gender.

Marriage and child-bearing, child-birth, and child-rearing are entirely - ENTIRELY - unconnected. Unmarried people often have babies. Married people often choose not to. There is no connection between the two.

Please provide an justification for denying access to marriage to same-sex couples that doesn't reference children.

denhaagenite

Philo Beddoe wrote: »

He raised a reasonable objection to having his rights voted upon and then encouraged you to vote anyway. Why would you object to this?

I am no longer resident so don't have a right to vote, but for the people he was addressing I felt like it was a statement of "You shouldn't have a right to vote, but you better do it anyway". People who are not homosexual are also being affected by this referendum. Just as his rights were affected by the abortion referendum, the divorce referendum, the childrens referendum etc etc. Should I say to him "Well you can't have an abortion so you voted on my rights". Would it be OK if I said that to my husband/ brother/ dad/ male friends/ female friends who aren't able or don't want to have or have already had their children?? He's not married so can't get divorced, he doesn't have children (but may in the future).

Maximus Alexander

denhaagenite wrote: »

Following this announcement yesterday, one of my friends (whose opinion and intelligence I highly regard) posted this statement on Facebook:

"You are in a not so admirable position to be voting on my rights as a citizen so I hope those of you that care about same will make sure and register to vote!"

I'm highly insulted.

I think you might be taking him up the wrong way, I don't see anything insulting here.

I took it to mean "It's pretty sh*tty that you're being dragged in this, because really, I should just have these rights already and you shouldn't have to go out of your way to grant them to me. However, that's the situation we are in, so please don't be apathetic; get out and vote."

floggg

RobertKK wrote: »

If that was the case, the state wouldn't be changing the adoption laws. The only way same sex couples can have children together is through adoption.

The state and others are saying these need and will be changed before the referendum, which in effect is to keep a perception of equality alive, given nature doesn't allow procreation to same sex couples of child bearing age.

Nobody's arguing that we can provide for equality in nature. To do so would be absurd.

We want equality as a matter of law.

Nobodies expecting the state to bring in legislation that magically allows gay men to get pregnant. It will however bring in legislation to say that in all applicable situations it will treat a same sex couple and an opposite sex couple equally. That's it.

It's the same way that equal pay legislation doesn't magically enable women to grow penises and pee standing up (equality in nature) but it does provide for equal pay for equal or comparable work (equality in law).

iwantmydinner

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I think you might be taking him up the wrong way, I don't see anything insulting here.

I took it to mean "It's pretty sh*tty that you're being dragged in this, because really, I should just have these rights already and you shouldn't have to go out of your way to grant them to me. However, that's the situation we are in, so please don't be apathetic; get out and vote."

This.

RobertKK

Daith wrote: »

It's a separate issue. Even if the referendum fails, gay people will still be able to adopt as a couple.

The referendum should only be about two people getting married. Not your idea that marriage must mean children. The fact you need to bring up children shows you actually have no argument against two people of the same sex marrying.

The thing is adoption law is being changed because of the referendum. So yes irrespective of the outcome the adoption law will have been changed, but it will be due to the referendum.

Daith

RobertKK wrote: »

The thing is adoption law is being changed because of the referendum. So yes irrespective of the outcome the adoption law will have been changed, but it will be due to the referendum.

Yes the adoption law will be changed to allow two gay people to adopt children jointly rather than one gay person to adopt.

However the fact remains that gay people can already adopt in Ireland!

Corkfeen

fran17 wrote: »

An excellent example of my point being proved,thanks.you'll be disappointed to learn though that you won't be allowed to stand in the polling booth and frown on anyone who's vote you disapprove of on the day

If anyone wishes to take a moment to look through your posting history, it is pretty accurate.

floggg

RobertKK wrote: »

Well we hear the term 'marriage equality', I just think it is a stupid term when the possibilities for couples of child bearing age are different for heterosexual couples compared to homosexual couples within a marriage.

It makes the people who use the term seem uneducated if they are arguing for something and different possibilities exist for heterosexual compared to homosexual.
It is viewing different possibilities within marriage as equal, where one groups has a high percentage chance of one outcome and the other has no chance of the same outcome.
It is a stupid term as it is not marriage equality.

Marriage is a legal state not procreative ability. There is no reference whatsoever to an procreative ability or requirement in the definition of marriage.

Just because two couples have the potential to do different things doesn't make their marriages less valid or equal as a matter of law. As long as the law would treat them in the same way if they were in the same situation that's all that counts. So the fact that one can't procreate naturally doesn't change that.

So I think you should hold off on the accusations of stupidity until you learn what marriage is as a matter of law.

denhaagenite

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I think you might be taking him up the wrong way, I don't see anything insulting here.

I took it to mean "It's pretty sh*tty that you're being dragged in this, because really, I should just have these rights already and you shouldn't have to go out of your way to grant them to me. However, that's the situation we are in, so please don't be apathetic; get out and vote."

I hope so but sometimes I do question some of the statements he makes. I have other gay friends with different political leanings that I would agree with much more. I appreciate that Senator Norris, for example, was instrumental in the gay movement of the 70s and 80s but I would oppose most of his more recent actions. Some gay "activists" seem to want to keep a level of isolation from the rest of the population. I favour inclusion rather than broad statements made on a soapbox to garner a reaction. Rory O Neill is a performer, as is Senator Norris and they have an innate need to be heard. If they were from any other group they would be shouting about something else. I think the lines can very easily be blurred between politics and entertainment these days. Russell Brand anyone??

dxhound2005

denhaagenite wrote: »

I hope so but sometimes I do question some of the statements he makes. I have other gay friends with different political leanings that I would agree with much more. I appreciate that Senator Norris, for example, was instrumental in the gay movement of the 70s and 80s but I would oppose most of his more recent actions. Some gay "activists" seem to want to keep a level of isolation from the rest of the population. I favour inclusion rather than broad statements made on a soapbox to garner a reaction. Rory O Neill is a performer, as is Senator Norris and they have an innate need to be heard. If they were from any other group they would be shouting about something else. I think the lines can very easily be blurred between politics and entertainment these days. Russell Brand anyone??

If homosexuals are a group then heterosexuals must be a group as well.

denhaagenite

dxhound2005 wrote: »

If homosexuals are a group then heterosexuals must be a group as well.

I don't understand your point? Being gay is the only thing that most gay people have in common, being straight is the only thing that most straight people have in common. Replace sexuality with race, religion, career....

RobertKK

Daith wrote: »

Yes the adoption law will be changed to allow two gay people to adopt children jointly rather than one gay person to adopt.

However the fact remains that gay people can already adopt in Ireland!

I know that, but my point on why adoption law is being changed still stands.

padd b1975

floggg wrote: »

What ****ing lifestyle?

Generally speaking....

A freewheeling attitude to sexual promiscuity, a lot of gay men would have little or no concept of monogamy and the figures for HIV/ AIDS amongst gays are beyond shocking-they are a disgrace with the amount of info and precautions freely available.


Obviously I accept there are exceptions, but unless attitudes to the above change drastically amongst gays, (can't see it happening myself any day soon) I will be voting no.