Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

UncleChael

I will be voting yes, I will be very embarrassed if we vote No. I really hope the young people come out and vote in this referendum, we can not leave this one to the old people of this country like we do general elections.

mrsbyrne

eviltwin wrote: »

The Church will have a campaign urging people to vote No. They did it with divorce, they did it with abortion. I was at a wedding in the lead up to the last election where the priest used his position to remind everyone that if they voted for a pro-choice candidate it was a sin. There are plenty of "good Catholics" who support SSM but equally there are people on the fence who will be hearing all sorts of rubbish in mass that could influence their vote.

Thing is this, whether you like it or not the Church , any church, or any organisation for that matter, is entitled to advise its members on how they should vote. That's it. No point in complaining about it or railing about it. Thank God this is not N Korea. You'll agree i'm sure that we don't want to change that.
What the LGBT organisations can change however is how they respond to different organisations stance on the proposal.
They should stop the angry finger pointing and the tearful remonstrations and present a positive non-threatening manifesto for voting yes.
I don't see much hope for that on this thread though.
Too many too willing here to feed an obvious troll.

Pherekydes

Manach wrote: »

I'll be voting No.

Both in defence of the traditional norms of marriage and to show there are some cultural legacies that cannot be changed, especially if this spikes this government moves to appease the PC brigade.

You probably voted against divorce too. I'm divorced and remarried and my kids are law-abiding, upstanding citizens. Plus, my wife and I haven't reproduced since we got married. Ergo, our marriage must be invalid.

I think "Tradition" is going to be my favourite angle of the anti-equality side. Especially when people like Cora Sherlock mention the word. Shouldn't she be at home peeling sprouts and keeping her mouth shut, as tradition demands?

I also like the mention of the word 'appease' and the term 'PC brigade'.

The government should appease the 20% instead, eh Manach?

kunst nugget

fran17 wrote: »

I will be voting and it will be a no.I'm sick and tired of the Catholic Church bashing and this is just more of the same.Homosexuals already have a union thats recognised legally,marriage is a religious ceremony.They have an extreme intolerance for religion,which is very clearly visible here by the postings of the pro gay union people,but want a religious ceremony!Make up your minds.

Actually nobody is suggesting that churches should be forced to participate in gay marriage but the civil partnership does not afford same sex couples the same rights as a marriage - which is a legally binding agreement adjacent to the religious ceremony that takes part in a church, mosque, etc. If you voted yes, it would have no day to day effect on your church-going lifestyle or your religion.

FutureGuy

Manach wrote: »

I'll be voting No.

Both in defence of the traditional norms of marriage and to show there are some cultural legacies that cannot be changed, especially if this spikes this government moves to appease the PC brigade.

You see, there's the point. They can be changed.

There are a number of cultural legacies I hope we change in the next few decades, with religon being the big one. "Don't treat people fairly because it's that's what you should do based on what someone may or may not have said thousands of years before you were born."

Nothing to do with the government, nothing to do with the PC brigade, everything to do with a the happiness of our fellow human beings.

Newsflash. Homosexuality and bisexuality is perfectly normal. Perfectly normal.

endacl

Manach wrote: »

I'll be voting No.

Both in defence of the traditional norms of marriage and to show there are some cultural legacies that cannot be changed, especially if this spikes this government moves to appease the PC brigade.

Which traditional norm?

Grayson

frankeee wrote: »

Yes, but not really an avid reader of the parochial newspapers. But from speaking to actual people who would be considered god botherers I genuinely don't know anyone who would be in the no camp (no pun intended). Similarly the CC is against sex before marriage, but don't know anyone who agrees with it. Are they hypocrites for not leaving the church? Possibly. But to each their own.

the Irish times survey a few months ago had something like 80 percent in favour of gay marriage. So I have no doubt that the vast majority of catholics are in favour of it.

That doesn't mean that there aren't God botherers. there's the actual catholic church. They released a statement last week about definitions and stuff like that. Then there's the nutjob I posted.

There's also the definitely-not-filled-with-homophobes-and-please-don't-sue-boards Iona institute.

In this situation Ireland might not have a preponderance of god botherers but there's still enough loud ones left.

c_man

floggg wrote: »

However, I also believe in calling a spade a spade. Nobody has been able to come up with one arguenbts against marriage equality that isn't rooted in religion, prejudice or stupidity.

Fair enough.It will be interesting to see what arguments the Referendum Commission come with against the proposal (as they're legally bound to do so)

kunst nugget wrote: »

Tbf, it might not be a big issue for you but it is to those it affects.

I don't think this is as big as abortion, euthanasia etc. all of which don't affect me personally at the mo but I really think we need to sort out. But hell, the date is almost set for this one so lets have at it.

Jingle_Balls wrote:

Did you miss the part where a no vote campaigner called same sex parents child abusers?

I did actually. Absolute bollox imo.

Shiraz 4.99

My only qualm is we're getting nothing out of the gays for all these concessions, it's all take take take with them & nothing back.

Surely we could look for a nice musical for free or something more akin to there skill set.


This is a massive wind up btw, I love gays really

nozzferrahhtoo

fran17 wrote: »

marriage is a religious ceremony.

That is simply entirely false.

fran17 wrote: »

They have an extreme intolerance for religion

Show me one part of any argument I have made on this thread so far which displayed an intolerance for religion.

When you fail to do so, perhaps an honest move would be to retract your claim that the "pro gay union" are displaying it with their postings here.

nozzferrahhtoo

1123heavy wrote: »

Some crap there my friend

Very nice of you to preface your post so accurately. Would that more people would do this.

1123heavy wrote: »

I know of many cases where the biological parents got to have some say in who eventually took the child, ensuring it wasn't a SSC was one of them !

How do you know of such cases given SSCs can not adopt now? That makes no sense.

However interestingly, as I said above, SSM would actually benefit you in this. Because currently a SINGLE gay person can adopt and the process has no idea what kind of relationship that single person is in.

With SSM that information will now become part of the process. So in terms of adoption, a vote FOR SSM would actually benefit your position on this.

1123heavy wrote: »

So we have gotten to the stage at which people think it is perfectly normal and reasonable to have 2 mothers or 2 fathers !?!?!?!?!?!? I despair !

I can alleviate your despair some because it is simply unwarranted in any way. Already we have a society where one common "norm" is single parenting. And children of such situations seem to grow up with no significantly different issues or neurosis than the rest of us in the "traditional" world.

So what despair you glean from a child having two parents of the same sex is unwarranted and groundless. Highlighted by the fact you did not move at all to offer any basis for it either. You just present a directionless despair with no apparent source.

1123heavy wrote: »

Due to a child's very nature, they need both a father AND a mother to carry out the upbringing

Once again the single parenting world simply shows that the reality you present exists no where but in your own head. It simply is not true, and much like the adoption cases you mention above, you appear to have simply invented it out of nowhere.

But by all means lay out the attributes of this "nature" of which you speak, and speak to exactly what elements of a male+female parenting configuration are specifically demanded by it. And perhaps I can then move to put yet more of your fears to bed.

1123heavy wrote: »

they each bring two different thigs to the child's development that no other combination of SSC could bring.

Like what? A list would be useful here. Aside from a variance in genitalia I can myself not think of a SINGLE difference that is relevant to child development. Your are being very vague here, and I quite suspect you are willfully contriving to do so too.

1123heavy wrote: »

I can go on all day about how the mother and father's roll differs and how they are both equally important.

"all day" might not be required. But it might be useful if you were to START to do so. Because so far you have merely declared and asserted it without "going on" at all about the substance of what exactly it is you are claiming.

1123heavy wrote: »

You can have all the wonderful modern ideas in the world, but we are humans and need a mother and a father.

And yet aside from the basics of human biological reproduction, you have simply offered not a single thing that demands this requirement. You are simply making it up and backing it up with nothing but a rhetoric that includes phrases like "you people".

nozzferrahhtoo

Zemuppet wrote: »

Does anyone actual have any peer reviewed and proper studies that SSCs are worse parents than hetro couples?

A good question and one I have asked MANY times. Alas the result I always get are contrived studies that hold "Traditional Couples" up against a cherry picked _amalgamation_ of several other configurations which only loosely include SSCs.

That is they contrive to include single parents from poor economic backgrounds and/or from broken relationships. So the figures and utility of the study gets warped to nothing, but is useful cherry picking material for the anti gay lobby.

What studies have been done with a transparent and useful methodology and data selection process have shown little difference between the couples (gay or straight) and their success in parenting.

In fact some of them show the gay parenting to be slightly BETTER. But I do not think this is valid either. I think it is affected by the figures positively skewed by the fact that gay couples who obtain children have to work hard to do so, so they genuinely generally WANT to be parents, and are invested in it, more than SOME of the control group in the hetero group.

Zemuppet wrote: »

The main 'issue' some have over gay couples adopting or having kids is that they would be bullied because of it.

This too I have heard often but the concern is fabricated as it is based on seriously misconstruing the methodology by which bullies select victims. It essentially reverses the selection process to what actually happens in reality.

nozzferrahhtoo

golfball37 wrote: »

I personally don't believe the sexual act between SSC's is natural. Nothing to do with God. Man and woman were created so they could procreate by sharing themselves. Its at odds with nature for same sex couples to make love imo.

To make this move in the conversation however you have to pretend that the function of sex is SOLELY for procreation and use this assumption as the square on the chess board you make your move FROM.

Alas the assumption itself is invalid and you can not usefully make that move.

And that is before I make the move of comparing your point to infertile couples, and how it is no less "natural" for them to "make love" despite this also being an act without procreative benefits. Contraception can be thrown into that counter move too, as can oral sex, and it can all be rammified by pointing out the existence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, and organisms specifically evolved to be non-reproducing AT ALL. (Hive Species).

The third move I could do to invalidate yours is point out that "natural" is not a valid basis to make such arguments anyway because our society is built on a plethora of things that are not "natural" in the first place. From cooking food, the use of money and electrical lighting, marriage itself, to many many more things. Clearly "natural" is not the arbiter upon which we form our societal norms.

golfball37 wrote: »

Call me what you want but thats my opinion.

Note how I called you nothing at all while pointing out the failure in your reasoning here I hope others will note that thus far I have been consistent in this approach too.

The only thing I will call you here is "wrong" and point out that your debate chess move can be check mated by three counter moves any one of which, despite all three together, simply torpedo your thinking on this. You will simply be out played if you make the move you tried to make.

Grayson

fran17 wrote: »

I will be voting and it will be a no.I'm sick and tired of the Catholic Church bashing and this is just more of the same.Homosexuals already have a union thats recognised legally,marriage is a religious ceremony.They have an extreme intolerance for religion,which is very clearly visible here by the postings of the pro gay union people,but want a religious ceremony!Make up your minds.

Yes, marriage is a religious ceremony. Except for the ones in registry offices of course.

And gay people have a huge aversion to religion. that can easily be seen by all the gay men who joined the church.

And marriage is defined as a union of men and women. except for when it isn't. And except for when the definitions of words change. And they change literally all the time. I can say that because the definition of literally changed last year to include both the literal definition and a figurative definition. So even if I'm wrong about the definitions of words changing, I'm right because the definition of that word changed.

But yeah. I'm with you man. It's a gay conspiracy to take down the church. FIGHT THE POWER. (especially when that power is a traditionally oppressed minority)

TwoShedsJackson

Manach wrote: »

I'll be voting No.

Both in defence of the traditional norms of marriage and to show there are some cultural legacies that cannot be changed, especially if this spikes this government moves to appease the PC brigade.

Lumping people who don't think like you into a 'brigade' is colossally lazy.

Timberrrrrrrr

fran17 wrote: »

I will be voting and it will be a no.I'm sick and tired of the Catholic Church bashing and this is just more of the same.Homosexuals already have a union thats recognised legally,marriage is a religious ceremony.They have an extreme intolerance for religion,which is very clearly visible here by the postings of the pro gay union people,but want a religious ceremony!Make up your minds.

Except when it's not, Right?

ebbsy

Pherekydes wrote: »

You probably voted against divorce too. I'm divorced and remarried and my kids are law-abiding, upstanding citizens. Plus, my wife and I haven't reproduced since we got married. Ergo, our marriage must be invalid.

I think "Tradition" is going to be my favourite angle of the anti-equality side. Especially when people like Cora Sherlock mention the word. Shouldn't she be at home peeling sprouts and keeping her mouth shut, as tradition demands?

I also like the mention of the word 'appease' and the term 'PC brigade'.

The government should appease the 20% instead, eh Manach?

I am in favour of divorce but will vote no next year.

Nothing wrong with voting no to either.

Demosthenese

Don't mind same sex couples having the same tax breaks and rights as everyone else in the country ... but ... i wonder why they would want to be married under the eyes of GOD - the bible doesn't condone same sex in any regard ... i agree they should be able to make a declaration of their love etc ... but marriage. Probably not. That said if they are like alot of us and are more traditional and do not really delve too much into the whole religion thing and get married cos its the norm/way we were brought up ... i've no problem with it. The vote would be yes, but the reasoning needs a little more thought in my mind.

Daith

Demosthenese wrote: »

Don't mind same sex couples having the same tax breaks and rights as everyone else in the country ... but ... i wonder why they would want to be married under the eyes of GOD

We are talking about civil marriage. Not the religious ceremony.

Timberrrrrrrr

Demosthenese wrote: »

Don't mind same sex couples having the same tax breaks and rights as everyone else in the country ... but ... i wonder why they would want to be married under the eyes of GOD - the bible doesn't condone same sex in any regard ... i agree they should be able to make a declaration of their love etc ... but marriage. Probably not. That said if they are like alot of us and are more traditional and do not really delve too much into the whole religion thing and get married cos its the norm/way we were brought up ... i've no problem with it. The vote would be yes, but the reasoning needs a little more thought in my mind.

What's "god" got to do with it?

floggg

Pherekydes wrote: »

It's the brilliant and very sane logic of "If we let gay people marry, they'll start marrying anything. Maybe they'll want to marry their favourite bush (presumably flaming) in their garden."

Who wouldn't want to marry God though?

Pherekydes

ebbsy wrote: »

I am in favour of divorce but will vote no next year.

Nothing wrong with voting no to either.

Well, of course there's something wrong with denying people a right based on their sexuality. That's called discrimination, and is always wrong.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

fran17 wrote: »

I will be voting and it will be a no.I'm sick and tired of the Catholic Church bashing and this is just more of the same.Homosexuals already have a union thats recognised legally,marriage is a religious ceremony.They have an extreme intolerance for religion,which is very clearly visible here by the postings of the pro gay union people,but want a religious ceremony!Make up your minds.

So by "Chruch bashing" you mean people simply opting for something else, right? Yay freedom.

I went to a Humanist wedding earlier this year which actually made a point of having no religious tones to it. That's why it was chosen and it was the firsdt thing the presiding officer (forget his actually title) stated.

Really don't see where Catholicism - or any religion for that matter - gets (or should get) a say in the matter. Nothing to do with them.

Pherekydes

floggg wrote: »

Who wouldn't want to marry God though?

Hmm, I never thought of that angle. I was thinking the bush was gay.

kylith

fran17 wrote: »

They have an extreme intolerance for religion

Maybe people would be more tolerant of religion if religions themselves were more tolerant.

eyescreamcone

I'm voting YES

I don't feel I have the right to prevent someone from having the same entitlements as me.

I am married with children.

If anyone else wants that - go for it.
If you don't - go for that too.

I haven't heard one half decent reason not to have same sex marriage.
It's just bigoted people trying to put their noses where it's not welcome.

Not only do I hope YES wins. I hope we hammer the bigots back to McQuaid's 1950s Ireland where they belong. You're not the boss anymore and this vote will ram that fact up yer holes!!!

kollegeknight

I will be voting yes. Doesn't affect me directly. I don't think I know many of any gays but they shouldn't be treated any differently.

floggg

c_man wrote: »

Fair enough.It will be interesting to see what arguments the Referendum Commission come with against the proposal (as they're legally bound to do so)



I don't think this is as big as abortion, euthanasia etc. all of which don't affect me personally at the mo but I really think we need to sort out. But hell, the date is almost set for this one so lets have at it.



I did actually. Absolute bollox imo.

There have been a number of court cases in the US and other jurisdictions recently where the arguments were considered in depth. In most cases they were dismissed as utterly baseless (I think there was one judge on Louisiana that ruled in favour of the anti-side, but that was the only one in about 20 or more US cases).

In at least one case, the judge openly ridiculed the anti-equality arguments as being absurd and baseless.

Flem31

kylith wrote: »

If you vote to deny people equal rights because of their sexuality then yes; in my opinion you are a bad person in that respect.

Why you're bringing up the water charges I have no idea. Is someone trying to get a licence to marry their meter?

I used the water charges as an example at how labelling people in the negative doesn't achieve anything.

Similarly, labelling someone as bad because they don't agree with your point of view is not a good idea either.

Personally I am neutral on the Yes\No as I haven't thought about it.....however labelling me as a bad person if I vote No isn't going to make me vote Yes.

rochey84

secman wrote: »

I too was a dinosaur...... when my daughter came out.... well human nature in me won and i very quickly wised up and realised how backward and futile my feelings on the subject were. Live and let live.... have a beautiful happy grandson now..... pure tonic he is.. he deserves both mammies to have equal rights .
If this leopard can change his spots believe me anyone can....... just saying......

Obviously voting YES





.

I want to thank this post a million times, well done sir wish more people had your experience and as a follow on wisdom!