Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

pharmaton

I'm going to get married, with the blessings of my family and friends and community and thats a great great thing to have to look forward to, so thanks in advance.

david75

fran17 wrote: »

Why would I need sentences when yours are clear to view.You and your social grouping are not the views of Ireland,traditional or modern,and that david is something you'll never understand.Be a love and answer me this,if you receive recognition in marriage,Is starting a family something you and your partner see as the next step in the integration process?

As usual, your posting is barely legible for being so utterly nonsensical but I'll meet it at its own level. Just for you.

I think you're about to discover it is the view of Ireland's people that they do support gay marriage and they will elect to at last shake off that last hypocritical grasp of a church long since made irellevant and finally be rid of the hateful claptrap of the churches self obsessed and self aggrandising splinter group, them four lonely sad clowns in Iona. I just wonder about what will be the next target for your irrelevant and outdated view once the referendum passes and Ireland's people let their unwillingness to be controlled by such a hateful few be known.
You're not allowed dismiss other religions anymore, or assume superiority over people of different belief(or skin Colour) anymore (wouldn't be very Christian of you if you did).

So where for you next? Are you married? Would any sane woman have you with such a view? The priesthood maybe? You have nobody left to hate, but yourself. And Like most self repressed self loathing closet cases you'll find the closet you've built for yourself is one you revere but despise. You very clearly are a closeted gay. Stop being obsessed with hating gay lifestyle and gay sex, start by loving your life and living it and go have the sex you really want to have. You'll be glad you did(unless you're the priest in which case leave those kids alone)


MOD: Take a few days off.

david75

Forgot to answer your question. Yep. We'll be having kids. As will thousands of gay couples.


All that's really changed is that they'll be brought up to respect faith but ignore hate. Oh wait. That's the same as being Christian. Well I guess you need to go back to Jesus and his main message.
Love one another.

TwoShedsJackson

So has anyone come up with anything better than 'have to go to more weddings' as a reason for voting No yet?

gizmo555

floggg wrote: »

The ECHR is not the only (or even primary) source of human rights in this country. The constitution, common law and natural justice all provide us with various additional rights - one of the principal of which is equality.

Indeed. But in the main case which was heard in our courts on the matter, Zappone and Gilligan were unsuccessful in seeking to have their Canadian marriage recognised.

Tipsy McSwagger

I will and I'll be voting Yes.

20Cent

Yes and yes. Shouldn't even be a referendum just make it law. Awful we have to vote to allow fellow citizens the basic right to marry. Will be a great day when this passes.

Susandublin

Totally voting YES
We can only judge a society based on how well it treats its citizens. To date, same sex couples have been treated pretty poorely. The fact marriage currently does not exist is crazy - don't think anyone should be able to have a monopoly on marriage, happiness, joy, love etc.
We are all human just trying to get some joy into our lives.
I have a few same sex couple friends and hope for their sake this gets through and we become a bit closer to being an accepting society.

floggg

gizmo555 wrote: »

Indeed. But in the main case which was heard in our courts on the matter, Zappone and Gilligan were unsuccessful in seeking to have their Canadian marriage recognised.

Yes, though that was only heard by the HC, in a judgment which used somewhat questionable logic (interpreting the constitution by reference to legislation).

I would wonder whether the SC would rule differently if given the chance - particularly given the large body of persuasive precedent now available to them from US and Canada.

That judgment also relied on the fact marriage equality wasnt generally permitted in other westen countries.

We now have many more countries with marriage equality, and public demand for it in many more.

Tasden

I plan on voting yes.

Was speaking to a gay friend of mine about it and he is voting no. His reasoning was that marriage was and is something between man and woman and it should remain so. Not that he sees himself or his partner, or their relationship, as inferior or deviant, just not man and wife and therefore not a relationship that should end in marriage. I sort of saw where he was coming from but I'm not sure I agree. But his opinion wasn't from a homophobic or hateful place, he's openly and happily gay and in a loving relationship, he just thinks that marriage itself was between man and wife and it should remain that way. He wants civil partnership to be the same as marriage in the way of legal rights etc for gay couples.

kylith

Tasden wrote: »

I plan on voting yes.

Was speaking to a gay friend of mine about it and he is voting no. His reasoning was that marriage was and is something between man and woman and it should remain so. Not that he sees himself or his partner, or their relationship, as inferior or deviant, just not man and wife and therefore not a relationship that should end in marriage. I sort of saw where he was coming from but I'm not sure I agree. But his opinion wasn't from a homophobic or hateful place, he's openly and happily gay and in a loving relationship, he just thinks that marriage itself was between man and wife and it should remain that way. He wants civil partnership to be the same as marriage in the way of legal rights etc for gay couples.

This is the thing that really confuses me. He wants civil partnership to be the same as marriage in every way, but not to call it marriage. If it's identical to marriage then why should it be called anything else? We have a word for partnerships that are the exact same as marriage - marriage.

Do you know is this marriage-by-some-other-name is something he would like to do someday?

VinLieger

kylith wrote: »

This is the thing that really confuses me. He wants civil partnership to be the same as marriage in every way, but not to call it marriage. If it's identical to marriage then why should it be called anything else? We have a word for partnerships that are the exact same as marriage - marriage.

Do you know is this marriage-by-some-other-name is something he would like to do someday?

I agree why not just call a spade a spade? Also the concept that marriage is limited to only a man and woman is actually a modern concept as has been proven many times previously here.

Captain Flaps

Some shocking views here.

I have to be honest, if SSM gets voted down I'll put some serious consideration into emigrating. I've always thought of Ireland as a place where everyone is welcome even despite a tradition of exclusion of those who were different, and that the country had finally moved forward to that place. I can struggle through government after government dragging us over the coals, cuts, charges, booms and busts, whatever, because this is where I want to live. If a large enough portion of Irish society feels strongly enough to deny others a basic human right my opinion of the country will be utterly smashed and I think I honestly would just give up and not look back.

Not gay btw, just feel strongly about this.

Daith

Tasden wrote: »

He wants civil partnership to be the same as marriage in the way of legal rights etc for gay couples.

Which would never be the case because a civil partnership having the same rights as marriage would undermine marriage which is a no no in our constitution. It's the reason straight couples can't opt for civil partnerships.

Does he understand that?

Tasden

kylith wrote: »

This is the thing that really confuses me. He wants civil partnership to be the same as marriage in every way, but not to call it marriage. If it's identical to marriage then why should it be called anything else? We have a word for partnerships that are the exact same as marriage - marriage.

Do you know is this marriage-by-some-other-name is something he would like to do someday?

He just sees it as something that is what it is and doesn't want that to change.
That it would be the same as marriage in that its the same rights etc but its not the same because its not between a man and woman so it is different and as such it should be called something else.

He doesn't know if he'd want a civil partnership but said he wouldn't get married if it was made possible. Like i said I'm not sure I'd agree with his stance either but I could see where he was coming from. But I don't think i ever plan on getting married either so marriage as a concept in general is not something I'd put much thought into other than believing everyone should be free to have that choice.

bodice ripper

I will in my hole beg for parity of esteem from people who have blatantly made their mind up already.


this


'hey bucko, I am through begging'

Daith

Tasden wrote: »

That it would be the same as marriage in that its the same rights etc but its not the same because its not between a man and woman so it is different and as such it should be called something else.

It can't have the same rights as marriage. Whatever way he wants to put he's voting no and willing to have his relationship be seen as inferior. That's his choice but I don't see why he would want it.

Separate but equal is not equal. Everyone can ride a bus, but the gay people should stand and straight people can sit. You're still getting to where you're going and you're still paying the same but it's not equal.

VinLieger

Daith wrote: »

It can't have the same rights as marriage. Whatever way he wants to put he's voting no and willing to have his relationship be seen as inferior. That's his choice but I don't see why he would want it.

Separate but equal is not equal. Everyone can ride a bus, but the gay people should stand and straight people can sit. You're still getting to where you're going and you're still paying the same but it's not equal.

Exactly, he needs to inform himself a bit more as to what is and isn't possible to have per the limits of the constitution and its safeguards as far as marriage is concerned.

kylith

Tasden wrote: »

He just sees it as something that is what it is and doesn't want that to change.
That it would be the same as marriage in that its the same rights etc but its not the same because its not between a man and woman so it is different and as such it should be called something else.

He doesn't know if he'd want a civil partnership but said he wouldn't get married if it was made possible. Like i said I'm not sure I'd agree with his stance either but I could see where he was coming from. But I don't think i ever plan on getting married either so marriage as a concept in general is not something I'd put much thought into other than believing everyone should be free to have that choice.

If it's his opinion it's his opinion, I guess. It just confuses me. It's like someone seeing a small dog and saying it can't be a dog because dogs are bigger than that. It's still a dog, it's just a little different, just like SSM is still marriage, just a little different.

Tasden

VinLieger wrote: »

Exactly, he needs to inform himself a bit more as to what is and isn't possible to have per the limits of the constitution and its safeguards as far as marriage is concerned.

Just because he personally wants something (possible or not) it doesn't mean he isn't informed on the issue at hand or the limitations etc. He said he wants civil partnership to have the same/similar rights and not for marriage to be between two men/woman. That would be his ideal. He isn't saying if he votes no to marriage equality that that will happen or that it is an option available. What he wants is separate to how he votes re marriage because he personally sees marriage as between man and woman regardless.

VinLieger

Tasden wrote: »

Just because he personally wants something (possible or not) it doesn't mean he isn't informed on the issue at hand or the limitations etc. He said he wants civil partnership to have the same/similar rights and not for marriage to be between two men/woman. That would be his ideal. He isn't saying if he votes no to marriage equality that that will happen or that it is an option available. What he wants is separate to how he votes re marriage because he personally sees marriage as between man and woman regardless.

Fair enough but its an incredibly confusing position to take, he may be informed on what is involved in doing it it's just from what you described of his reasons it sounded like he was not, no offense was meant.

floggg

Tasden wrote: »

I plan on voting yes.

Was speaking to a gay friend of mine about it and he is voting no. His reasoning was that marriage was and is something between man and woman and it should remain so. Not that he sees himself or his partner, or their relationship, as inferior or deviant, just not man and wife and therefore not a relationship that should end in marriage. I sort of saw where he was coming from but I'm not sure I agree. But his opinion wasn't from a homophobic or hateful place, he's openly and happily gay and in a loving relationship, he just thinks that marriage itself was between man and wife and it should remain that way. He wants civil partnership to be the same as marriage in the way of legal rights etc for gay couples.

It's not homophobic (per se), but it is illogical. If he wants CPs to have equal rights as marriage, but for CPs to remain separate, then he is arguing to maintain an illogical and pointless distinction between the two and for no apparent reason.

If my civil partnership is to have all the equal rights as your marriage, then what is the point of preventing me calling my relationship a marriage other than to maintain an artificial difference between the two relationships.

Certainly there will be no difference in law or in practice as to the legal status.

So apart from the additional cost and beauracracy required to maintain two separate but equal systems, it would just artificially mark out the two relationships as being different or unequal even though in the eyes of the law they will be exactly the same.

It's absurd and creates unnecessary division.

kylith

Tasden wrote: »

Just because he personally wants something (possible or not) it doesn't mean he isn't informed on the issue at hand or the limitations etc. He said he wants civil partnership to have the same/similar rights and not for marriage to be between two men/woman. That would be his ideal. He isn't saying if he votes no to marriage equality that that will happen or that it is an option available. What he wants is separate to how he votes re marriage because he personally sees marriage as between man and woman regardless.

But if he votes no to marriage because of this 'man and woman' nonsense then he can never see his wish of gay people's relationships being equal to straight people's relationships because it is constitutionally impossible to make CP be equal to marriage.

Tasden

VinLieger wrote: »

Fair enough but its an incredibly confusing position to take, he may be informed on what is involved in doing it it's just from what you described of his reasons it sounded like he was not, no offense was meant.

None taken at all.
Was my fault for how I phrased it more so than his actual opinion if that makes sense.

Sebastian Dangerfield

I will be voting yes. Im straight but feel really strongly that this be passed. People are entitled to their opinion to the contrary but I would be mortified if the No side won

tayto lover

Deleted User wrote: »

Are there any of those links in particular that you think present valid or coherent arguments against same sex marriage? Some of those House of Lords quotes, for example, were just downright nasty and merely rehashed the same old ignorant tripe - gay marriage will open floodgates to incest and polygamy (#5, #9), marriage is only for procreation and gays would undermine the family (#2) etc - that have been refuted time and time again. Plus we don't have to worry about the "lesbian queen conundrum" over here! :pac:

As for the Jewish doctor in News Observer, I can appreciate that he does not come across as homophobic or bigoted but I can't help but feel that he defeats his own argument by (correctly) stating the following:




If you can acknowledge all of the above, it baffles me why you'd still be against gay marriage. The author of that piece really just seems to reduce it to having a gut feeling that it would be a bad idea without much in the way of evidence to back up this feeling, which with all due respect is a very flimsy basis to deny marriage equality to a large group in society who has historically been treated as second class citizens and who still have to fight for what others take for granted.

I am not against gay marriage at all. I am for it.
I am however against all these silly insulting posts on both sides that we have seen here for numerous pages. That is why I posted those links i.e. to get some reasons from genuine people even if they're right/wrong.

floggg

Tasden wrote: »

Just because he personally wants something (possible or not) it doesn't mean he isn't informed on the issue at hand or the limitations etc. He said he wants civil partnership to have the same/similar rights and not for marriage to be between two men/woman. That would be his ideal. He isn't saying if he votes no to marriage equality that that will happen or that it is an option available. What he wants is separate to how he votes re marriage because he personally sees marriage as between man and woman regardless.

I'd only be willing to consider accepting that position of the "back of the bus" same sex relationships and related words are called "smarriage" or something equally ridiculous.

At least that way, every time somebody hears the words "smarriage", "smarried " "shusband" and "swife" etc they will be reminded just how ridiculous and pointless the word is, and how ridiculous they are for insisting on its use or thinking it actually has any actual purpose.

Hulk Hands

I likely won't vote because there is close to 0% chance of the Yes side not winning. If it were going to be any way even semi close, I would vote yes. This one is done and dusted though

Tasden

kylith wrote: »

But if he votes no to marriage because of this 'man and woman' nonsense then he can never see his wish of gay people's relationships being equal to straight people's relationships because it is constitutionally impossible to make CP be equal to marriage.

Even so, they are the two options he is faced with and he's making the decision he sees fit I guess.
Unfortunately I can't argue his point or clarify any further than what I've already said because that's all I know. If I had more understanding I obviously would, I'll send him a link to this thread anyway and ask him to address the last few points posters made cause they are valid.

VinLieger

Hulk Hands wrote: »

I likely won't vote because there is close to 0% chance of the Yes side not winning. If it were going to be any way even semi close, I would vote yes. This one is done and dusted though

And what if every other yes voter is of the same opinion that a win is a dead cert so theres no point in voting? This apathetic attitude could actually be the downfall of the yes side.