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
Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
Kermit.de.frog wrote: »I won't because it does not affect me.
Probably the worst reason I can think of for not voting on an issue.
A few users have discussed reasons how it might actually affect you, so I will not repeat them.
But in a more general sense I see too often people who do not vote on issues that do not affect them. But then when society somehow does negatively affect them they bemoan the state of the modern nation, wonder why no one ever does anything about things like this, and then engage in all kinds of arm chair political moaning about how politics and the like achieve nothing.
EVERY vote on the rights of people is a chance to put a brick in the wall of the society you would like to build, even if the direct implications of the issue being voted on do not appear to have a direct impact on you. No issue is an island in the same was as no human is an island. It is part of a greater picture that maybe you are not seeing.
The right decision on human rights affects us all, regardless of how indirect that effect might be. And it always seems to me the people who have expressed apathy on many issues, who are the first to complain about a society where nothing ever seems to get done or improved. The very use of your democratic voice affects you, regardless of the issue you use that voice on.(I'm only presuming that you're not black because you are a frog)
;-)wexandproud wrote: »but this sort of attitude from one side of the debate really pi..e. me off and would help me make my mind up very quickly
Understandable in a way, but in actuality it says more about you than about the person you are talking about. You have pretty much openly said that your would vote on an issue based on your personal distaste for people espousing one side of it.
A stronger person will see past the characters of the people campaigning (and I strongly expect ugliness on BOTH sides of this campaign in the coming months) and see the actual issues involved. A vote of "This person on this side P'ed me off so I will vote against them" is as petty as it is shallow. Regardless of which direction it would make you vote.
Let us address the issues and the merits and demerits of a yes vote. Thus far I have seen none of the "no" side arguments at all yet so I guess we have to withold judgement for the present until they come up with some.That was clever. Almost looked like a valid point! Well played, sir. Well played indeed!
It is an argument you are going to see a LOT in the coming months. Aside from off topic comments about Adoption, it will be one of the most oft repeated argument you are going to get sick of hearing.
And it is not the first time essentially the same argument was tried (and failed). When one looks back at things like "Loving V. Virginia" where a couple were put before the courts for the "crime" of an inter-racial marriage.... the exact same argument was presented by people in that era. They claimed that everyone had the right to marry someone of the same race, therefore everyone had equality and equal rights.
It was not a good argument then. It is not a good argument now. But it is one you will hear a lot, to the muttered approval and head nodding of those who already agree with it's sentiment.I shall be voting NO. They can do whatever they like but 'marriage' itself was made to be a sign of a bonding between a man and a woman
This is a poor line of argumentation for two strong reasons. The first being that it is wrong anyway, but the second being that the kind of thinking it demonstrates is also fallacious.
Either one torpedoes your point alone but I will present both.
The first is that the history of marriage, how and why it was founded, and what it has historically entailed is not actually as clear cut as you just pretended it to be. In many eras and many places it has been exactly the opposite of what you describe.
The second is that not only is your historical revisionism frankly inaccurate, but even if it WAS accurate, so what? You are making an "appeal to tradition" fallacy here by pretending that something should remain the way it always was, simply because that is the way it always was. That kind of thinking is dangerous. Our institutions, laws and ethics and not set in stone for all time. They need to grow, adapt and evolve to match the requirements of the society in which they actually exist.cletus van damme wrote: »Simply put - this is about re-defining marriage in Ireland. I'm not in favour of that - I'll be voting no
Perhaps the paragraph just above this might also be of interest to you? And maybe even the one before that. Marriage has been defined and re-defined many times. Why not again now?
Further, an extension of marriage is not a redefinition of it. For the "traditional" marriages what exactly do you think is being redefined or affected in any way?SSC being allowed to adopt ?
This referendum has NOTHING to do with that for a start. Further however, SSC can already adopt. They just have to apply as a single person to do it. If anything being considered as a married couple will make it HARDER for them to adopt because more data will then be included in the selection and evaluation processes.golfball37 wrote: »Me personally- I will be voting no as I just don't believe its natural.
Yeah because "marriage" is natural in the first place
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement