Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Options
1…1516182021…69

Comments

  • Options
    #512
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    NewCorkLad wrote: »
    At the same time not everyone who is against marraige equality is a homophobic bigot. There are people in this world who have no problem with the gay community and support it in every other way but who were brought up with the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman and this is a belief that is so ingrained it will never be changed.

    This might not be right in your or most peoples opinion but this is how they feel and accusing people like this as homophobic bigots will take the debate nowhere.

    What would we call somebody who wants to maintain a rule which discriminates against me as a matter of law, just because it was something he was brought up to belief - but without there being any valid reason for that belief or for doing so.

    Whatever the word is, I presume it's not going to be flattering.


  • Options
    #513
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,522 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    hoodwinked wrote: »
    Marriage is related to religion by the fact we are a catholic country

    You've posted this drivel before and you were wrong then too. Where in our constitution does it say that we're a Catholic country? It doesn't. The following are the only nations with a state religion: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Map_of_state_religions.svg/800px-Map_of_state_religions.svg.png


  • Options
    #514
    miss no stars
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,957 ✭✭✭miss no stars


    RobertKK wrote: »
    It is natural and I never said there was anything wrong with it.

    I just find the equality argument in regards to marriage as weak, as it is really just for perception of equality, as nature denies what some would argue is a 'right' if they could change it.

    Changing marriage to allow same sex marriage does not equate to equality, when the possibility in a marriage of couples of same sex couples of child bearing age are not the same as the possibilities for those of the opposite sex.

    Marriage wasn't constructed by nature. Therefore whether two men in a committed relationship or two women in a committed relationship can biologically produce children is irrelevant to whether they should be allowed marry - because marriage isn't a construct of nature. It's a social construct currently used to provide security and long term commitment between two consenting adults. If you want to go back to the very start of marriage it was about a man assuming possession of a girl so that she would "belong" to him.

    Marriage as an entity doesn't have anything to do with children, it's to do with an adult relationship and how two adults are legally committed to each other. Religious groups use it as just another tool for controlling their members - much like religious food restrictions in the middle east 1000s of years ago helped prevent food poisoning, marriage helped create a settled environment where men didn't fight over who had "rights" to a woman.


    On the separate note of whether people who oppose SSM are bigoted/homophobic... Neither I nor anyone else can force someone to accept in their conscience what they find wrong. Society can only try to show them other view points in the hopes that it will widen their perspectives and increase their tolerance. However, I think there is a massive difference between disagreeing with something and denying a minority the rights that are automatically granted to the majority. It's the difference between "I don't personally like it, I don't want to be a part of it, but other people are free to do what they like as long as nobody's being hurt" and "I don't like it so I don't want anyone to be able to do it".

    Marriage is a legal contract of commitment between two consenting adults. Allowing two consenting adults of the same gender to marry does not cause anyone any harm.

    So people who don't support SSM can fall into one of two categories:
    1. Don't support it, but follow a principle of "live and let live" and so do not vote against (or for) it.

    2. Don't support it and vote against it.

    Those in category 1 are neither here nor there for me. I wouldn't call them bigots or homophobes myself, but then, I don't have to endure homophobia so who am I to say.

    But those in category 2 are undeniably bigoted homophobic people. These are people who actively seek to deny equal rights to a minority. If that's not bigoted and homophobic, exactly what is?


  • Options
    #515
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    NewCorkLad wrote: »
    Yes it is completely irrational but to them it is not depriving a swath of people the opportunity to get married, marriage is something that happens between a man and a woman. To them the law doesnt come into it.

    So if everytime someone like this speaks out they are accused of being a homophobic bigot they are just going to start shutting up and holding to their beliefs instead of becoming engaged in a open debate where hopefully their outdated beliefs can be changed.

    You do catch more flies than honey, and outside of boards in sure we would all be rather more polite than we may be here.

    But just because you are nice about your bigotry, doesn't stop it being bigotry.

    So let's agree that it is, and then agree to smile false smiles at them while we introduce them to our good friends, facts!


  • Options
    #516
    Bubbaclaus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,461 ✭✭✭Bubbaclaus


    miss no stars wrote: »
    So people who don't support SSM can fall into one of two categories:
    1. Don't support it, but follow a principle of "live and let live" and so do not vote against (or for) it.

    2. Don't support it and vote against it.

    Those in category 1 are neither here nor there for me. I wouldn't call them bigots or homophobes myself, but then, I don't have to endure homophobia so who am I to say.

    But those in category 2 are undeniably bigoted homophobic people. These are people who actively seek to deny equal rights to a minority. If that's not bigoted and homophobic, exactly what is?

    Hit the nail on the head there.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #517
    NewCorkLad
    Registered Users Posts: 957 ✭✭✭NewCorkLad


    floggg wrote: »
    What would we call somebody who wants to maintain a rule which discriminates against me as a matter of law, just because it was something he was brought up to belief - but without there being any valid reason for that belief or for doing so.

    Whatever the word is, I presume it's not going to be flattering.


    Yes but name calling is the easy option.. Openly debating them and trying to change some of their mis-guided opinions now when you will be given the media platform to do it is the harder option but it will lead to a much better outcome without the lingering resentments.

    Beating them by shouting them down as bigots will still win you the referrendum I beleive but you wont change any of their outdated and wrong beliefs.


  • Options
    #518
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    NewCorkLad wrote: »
    Beating them by shouting them down as bigots will still win you the referrendum I beleive but you wont change any of their outdated and wrong beliefs.

    Nor will actually debating them with facts and logic.


  • Options
    #519
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,584 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    NewCorkLad wrote: »
    Beating them by shouting them down as bigots will still win you the referrendum I beleive but you wont change any of their outdated and wrong beliefs.

    Your idea is predicated on the idea that they are receptive to logic.

    If they still hold these outdated and wrong beliefs in 2014/2015, I'd say it's not because of a lack of reasoned argument in favour of SSM.


  • Options
    #520
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Daith wrote: »
    Yes and the Supreme Court have stated it's not up to them to legislate.

    There is no reason why this could be not legislated however I would agree that a referendum is unfortunately the best choice.

    There is no reason it could not be legislated for BUT, it would be open to an immeadiate and very likely constitutional challenge (which it would fail). Leaving smae sex couples in a no-mans land.


  • Options
    #521
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    NewCorkLad wrote: »
    Yes but name calling is the easy option.. Openly debating them and trying to change some of their mis-guided opinions now when you will be given the media platform to do it is the harder option but it will lead to a much better outcome without the lingering resentments.

    Beating them by shouting them down as bigots will still win you the referrendum I beleive but you wont change any of their outdated and wrong beliefs.
    There comes a point where you have to give up being polite to people who spread mistruths and question your position in society against others, and just say it as it is. Nobody ever made big social changes by pussyfooting around people's opinions.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #522
    hoodwinked
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭hoodwinked


    Diego Simeone wrote: »
    You've posted this drivel before and you were wrong then too. Where in our constitution does it say that we're a Catholic country? It doesn't. The following are the only nations with a state religion: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Map_of_state_religions.svg/800px-Map_of_state_religions.svg.png

    No it doesn't BUT (and yes i know wiki is a ****e resource but it makes the point for the moment) Religion in Ireland

    we have catholic schools, the church played too large a role in peoples lives and everything in our constitution was tied and influenced by the church,

    the sooner we fix this by opening more educate together schools and by allowing all citizens to marry regardless of what the church thinks, like i said previously this includes gay marriage and the ability to marry inside or outside or where ever the couple (of any gender) should choose,

    my point was if the catholic church had always allowed same sex marriage, our civil marriage would allow for it, and everybody knows it,

    so why the hell is it only now in 2015 we finally get to vote on it? because this country was predominately a catholic country (even if the constitution didn't say it) and i for one am glad it is changing!


  • Options
    #523
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    NewCorkLad wrote: »
    Yes but name calling is the easy option.. Openly debating them and trying to change some of their mis-guided opinions now when you will be given the media platform to do it is the harder option but it will lead to a much better outcome without the lingering resentments.

    Beating them by shouting them down as bigots will still win you the referrendum I beleive but you wont change any of their outdated and wrong beliefs.

    Sorry, but it is not name calling to call out bigotry when you see it. Neither would it be name calling to call a KKK member racist.

    If you look at any of the various debates on this to date, the only ones name calling, slandering and denigrating are the no side.

    The marriage equality side remain incredibly poised and composed despite being called deviants or having the validity of their relationships and families questioned. The respond with facts and logic, citing relevant sources too. The will occasionally call a spade a spade and point out arguments based on bigotry, which is the perfectly right thing to do.

    Bigotry and prejudice shouldn't be just accepted as a difference of belief - they should be challenged.

    Having to listen to the prejudicial nonsense spouted is hard enough as a gay men, but then to be told I am not even allowed call it prejudicial nonsense is doubly offensive. Sorry, but I refuse to respect any argument that tells me I am less than.

    Now if there was somebody who was willing to listen to my arguments and take them on board i would treat them with the height of respect.

    We haven't had that here though.


  • Options
    #524
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    There is no reason it could not be legislated for BUT, it would be open to an immeadiate and very likely constitutional challenge (which it would fail). Leaving smae sex couples in a no-mans land.

    There is no basis for saying it would definitely fail. At best the position is unclear.


  • Options
    #525
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    floggg wrote: »
    Now if there was somebody who was willing to listen to my arguments and take them on board i would treat them with the height of respect.

    We haven't had that here though.

    In fairness, you can't dismiss other people's arguments and then insist that your own be listened to instead.


  • Options
    #526
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    floggg wrote: »
    There is no basis for saying it would definitely fail. At best the position is unclear.

    If we're going to have SSM it is only fair that we offer cast-iron legal protection to those couples partaking in them...not some kind of suck-it-and-see approach to legislation.


  • Options
    #527
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    In fairness, you can't dismiss other people's arguments and then insist that your own be listened to instead.

    I never said anything of the sort.

    Firstly, I haven't dismissed them. I have considered them, evaluated them, tested them using the available facts and data and found them to be without logic or merit.

    Secondly, I have just said if people are willing to engage in an honest debate, and consider the merits of my arguments, I would engage with them in a respectful manner.

    That doesn't mean they have to agree with me, but just be willing to take them on board and consider their merits.

    Nobody has the right to be listened to. Nobody has the right to have their arguments respected. Nobody is even required to engage in an honest or respectful debate.

    I however don't need to respect you if you aren't willing to respect me.


  • Options
    #528
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    In fairness, you can't dismiss other people's arguments and then insist that your own be listened to instead.


    That would depend on the argument.


  • Options
    #529
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    NewCorkLad wrote: »
    Beating them by shouting them down as bigots will still win you the referrendum I beleive but you wont change any of their outdated and wrong beliefs.

    You won't change these beliefs using reasoned argument, either, because "The parish priest says vote no", "I don't like thinking about bum sex!", and it's close relation "I like thinking about bum sex too much!" are not positions people reach through rational consideration of the issues.


  • Options
    #530
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    If we're going to have SSM it is only fair that we offer cast-iron legal protection to those couples partaking in them...not some kind of suck-it-and-see approach to legislation.

    Well as somebody who hopes to get gay married I would rather it be brought in by the courts and not the ballot box personally.

    The idea that my rights are up for debate is very unsettling and offensive.


  • Options
    #531
    StudentDad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,459 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    I am in favour of equality in marriage. It's a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned.

    Unfortunately, the phrase 'marriage' gets mixed up with religion all too readily. Just as 'organised' religions are entitled to define marriage as they see fit.

    So is the State. I hope this passes. Although as far as I know the wording of the proposal hasn't been published yet.

    We need equality in society. Allowing individuals to marry as they see fit is another needed step in that direction.

    SD


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #532
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,522 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    hoodwinked wrote: »
    No it doesn't BUT (and yes i know wiki is a ****e resource but it makes the point for the moment) Religion in Ireland

    The first line of that article - "Ireland's constitution states that the state may not endorse any particular religion and guarantees freedom of religion."

    Ireland is not a catholic country, it's a country with a population that is predominantly catholic. That's a fairly crucial difference.


  • Options
    #533
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    StudentDad wrote: »
    I am in favour of equality in marriage. It's a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned.

    Unfortunately, the phrase 'marriage' gets mixed up with religion all too readily. Just as 'organised' religions are entitled to define marriage as they see fit.
    With that in mind, I do hope the Government are mindful to put it across as civil marriage, not religious marriage, as I imagine people think they are one of the same.


  • Options
    #534
    hoodwinked
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭hoodwinked


    Diego Simeone wrote: »
    The first line of that article - "Ireland's constitution states that the state may not endorse any particular religion and guarantees freedom of religion."

    Ireland is not a catholic country, it's a country with a population that is predominantly catholic. That's a fairly crucial difference.

    well fair enough, i assumed by the fact Ireland is stated to be of predominately catholic population meant when i said we were a catholic country that is what people read, i will try and be more clear in my meanings from now on,

    but i would question those figures too as if they were true the referendum would surely not pass, BUT everyone i talk to, my husband and even his friends are all voting yes, most of the people i know want an equal and fair ireland when it comes to marriage rights.


  • Options
    #535
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    Cydoniac wrote: »
    With that in mind, I do hope the Government are mindful to put it across as civil marriage, not religious marriage, as I imagine people think they are one of the same.

    Equally, I hope they don't block churches or religious bodies who want to perform same-sex marriages from doing so. That was originally proposed as part of the SSM legislation in the UK as a sop to the Church of England. Since we don't have an established church in this country there should be less of an issue.


  • Options
    #536
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Cydoniac wrote: »
    With that in mind, I do hope the Government are mindful to put it across as civil marriage, not religious marriage, as I imagine people think they are one of the same.

    Indeed.

    Things are not helped by some developments in other jurisdictions:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html
    Homosexual couples in Denmark have won the right to get married in any church they choose, even though nearly one third of the country's priests have said they will refuse to carry out the ceremonies.

    (Although it should be said that the churches in question here are the Established Lutheran church)


  • Options
    #537
    fran17
    Registered Users Posts: 1,264 ✭✭✭fran17


    Daith wrote: »
    Except for Panti talking about it? The fact that it didn't pickup mainstream media is an issue with mainstream media.

    When's the last time you went for an STI check btw?

    Well this fellow panty is hiv positive so i am at a loss to understand why the media wouldn't publicise what is obviously a topic that he feels strongly about.do you have an opinion why?


  • Options
    #538
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    fran17 wrote: »
    Well this fellow panty is hiv positive so i am at a loss to understand why the media wouldn't publicise what is obviously a topic that he feels strongly about.do you have an opinion why?


    Rory was on The Last Word on Today FM talking specifically about HIV/AIDS just a few weeks ago actually


  • Options
    #539
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Indeed.

    Things are not helped by some developments in other jurisdictions:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html

    (Although it should be said that the churches in question here are the Established Lutheran church)

    It's a state church. They didn't add the good and the bad up of the arrangement, evidently. Always struck me as odd they still had that kind of thing over there.


  • Options
    #540
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    fran17 wrote: »
    Well this fellow panty is hiv positive so i am at a loss to understand why the media wouldn't publicise what is obviously a topic that he feels strongly about.do you have an opinion why?

    I don't know. I thought it was very well publicized. You must have seen it too otherwise you wouldn't have known about it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #541
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    fran17 wrote: »
    Well this fellow panty is hiv positive so i am at a loss to understand why the media wouldn't publicise what is obviously a topic that he feels strongly about.do you have an opinion why?

    Explain how this is relevant to the marriage equality discussion.


Advertisement