How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

TheBeardedLady

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm just wondering though, are people here giving Iona more credit than they're worth, and not giving the Irish population enough credit?

By that I mean, people here do seem have a tendency to jump all over someone who expresses their decision not to support marriage equality, and I just wonder, why bother?

The vast majority of people in Ireland already support marriage equality, so shouldn't we be concentrating our efforts on supporting those people, rather than becoming obsessive almost with tackling people who are unlikely to change their minds anyway?

It just reads to me like a futile exercise people getting themselves all worked up in knots about disputing what are clearly strawman arguments. People aren't that stupid that they are likely to be swayed by arguments they already consider irrelevant, but seeing other people get so bent out of shape about these irrelevant arguments may simply turn people off bothering to vote at all.

That's the way I could see things going anyway the more the yes campaign obsess about the no sides arguments instead of simply supporting those people who support them already and solidifying that support for the benefit of everyone in society long after this referendum is done and dusted.

It's just a debate like any other on Boards though, isn't it?

Lau2976

Venus In Furs wrote: »

I'm still wondering how the above would affect whether someone would vote yes in relation to same-sex marriage?
That is the argument you made initially: you weren't sure whether to vote yes because there are more deserving (in your opinion) issues, implying that you might vote no on the basis of this not being as important an issue (to you) as others. Can you explain this? It makes absolutely zero sense.

Surely just take each issue on its own merits? Even if it feels to you that there are more deserving issues, they are separate; they have to be addressed via separate referenda.

Well look at it this way, your standing in a que to get in to a club, for whatever reason the bouncer skips over the first 6 people and takes the one after them. Now the bouncer goes to take the first person but everyone behind the six now thinks they are next so they argue.

The point I'm trying to make now is that voting yes on this matter opens up a floodgate of other issues. Issues that groups are going to try to challenge in an attempt to get equality on the matter.

As I've said, it was a fleeting thought which challenged my almost certain yes vote. The point of bringing it up was that not all of someone's reasons (whether we take them as just or not) automatically make them homophobic.

MrPudding

RobertKK wrote: »

The same as a will, with your solicitor.

And where does the legal force of a will originate?

MrP

One eyed Jack

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

It's just a debate like any other on Boards though, isn't it?

It's not though really, I mean, this isn't anything like "how often do you change your underwear", etc, decisions that pertain to the individual where we all have our own personal opinions and there's no particular right or wrong that's going to affect society in any significant positive or negative way.

This decision is one which will affect everyone in society, so that's why I say that the yes campaign should be solidifying the support of the vast majority of people that already support them, and focussing on the benefits of a fairer society for all, rather than wasting their time and energy on the likes of handing out internet smackdowns to one or two posters who clearly have no intention of supporting marriage equality.

I know people have mentioned Iona and YD, but how relevant are these organizations in people's everyday lives? Who actually really pays them any heed apart from a small handful in the yes campaign that seek to rally against them? The vast majority of people in Irish society dismiss them as the nutbars they are without giving them a second thought.

We're not going to get 100% support for marriage equality, but we don't need it IMO, we only have to support the 70 odd % that already support marriage equality, and accept that not everyone is always going to agree with our opinions.

Davei141

Lau2976 wrote: »

Well look at it this way, your standing in a que to get in to a club, for whatever reason the bouncer skips over the first 6 people and takes the one after them. Now the bouncer goes to take the first person but everyone behind the six now thinks they are next so they argue.

The point I'm trying to make now is that voting yes on this matter opens up a floodgate of other issues. Issues that groups are going to try to challenge in an attempt to get equality on the matter.

As I've said, it was a fleeting thought which challenged my almost certain yes vote. The point of bringing it up was that not all of someone's reasons (whether we take them as just or not) automatically make them homophobic.

ohbygod

Can i ask how many of ye are gay or have a gay friend or gay family member. do ye understand what its like to be gay in this country well its awful. People staring, passing hurtful remarks. Why does it bother some people that i hold my partners hand or kiss her. You cant help who you fall in love with.

COYVB

I can't vote since I no longer live in the country, but I would be worried by anyone who could possibly vote no to this. Why intentionally aim to negatively affect someone else's life over something that won't affect you directly... Unless of course one of your kids, grandkids or great grandkids turns out to be gay and ends up running into difficulty in their lives because what you voted

AnonoBoy

Lau2976 wrote: »

The point I'm trying to make now is that voting yes on this matter opens up a floodgate of other issues.

It really doesn't.

Why would someone campaigning for immigrant rights think that the result of marriage equality referendum has any bearing on their issue?

What you seem to be saying is that social change will encourage other people to want social change? I don't see that as a bad thing.

TheBeardedLady

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not though really, I mean, this isn't anything like "how often do you change your underwear", etc, decisions that pertain to the individual where we all have our own personal opinions and there's no particular right or wrong that's going to affect society in any significant positive or negative way.

Obviously it's not as frivolous as "how often do you change your underwear" but serious issues have always been debated in Boards and you yourself are often involved in debates with people who will never change their mind. Obviously something as contentious and as topical as this will be debated. I don't see the problem?

One eyed Jack

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Obviously it's not as frivolous as "how often do you change your underwear" but serious issues have always been debated in Boards and you yourself are often involved in debates with people who will never change their mind. Obviously something as contentious and as topical as this will be debated. I don't see the problem?

Yeah but on those issues there's no right or wrong answer, just different perspectives, and that's why I'd always see them as discussions rather than debates. There's not a whole lot of debate going on in marriage equality threads when the vast majority are overwhelming in favour of marriage equality, yet they seem to ignore the fact that the onus isn't on the 'no' side to come up with any argument to change the constitution. They only have to turn up on the day, tick the box, and toddle off.

This issue isn't nearly as contentious as it's being made out to be here where for every 'no' poster there are 20 'yes' posters going out of their way to entertain their irrelevant arguments, like the polygamy and the children and the this that and the other.

I just think people here aren't giving the Irish people enough credit, that they think Iona or YD could ever influence the outcome of the referendum. Most people don't even know who Iona or YD are, let alone does their opinion have any bearing on ordinary Irish people's opinions.


EDIT:

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Edit: Actually, I see your point. You're saying we should concentrate on shaky yes votes as opposed to definite nos? Fair enough. I agree with that.

Exactly! You just said it better!

floggg

jimboblep wrote: »

Why are you bringing the no campaign in I have voiced no support for that
as I have said previously my belief is that the yes campaign holds the ethical and moral highground but they are damaging their cause with a sometimes condescending attitude
a previous poster( EVILTWIN) showed how this should be argued by presenting a positive reason to vote yes
in college a couple of weeks back the LGBT rep came in and and asked are you all registered to vote and made no mention of why we should vote yes its this presumptive attitude that doesnt sit right with me

Why though would you punish all LGBT people for the perceived poor behaviour of some commentators - many of whom may not even be LGBT themselves?

If your argument was that negative campaigning discourages you from voting at all, I could understand your position somewhat.

But I can't understand why you would go out of your why to punish all LGBT people at the ballot because because you didn't like how some people argued the point.

Particualrly as in doing so, you will be rewarding the negative campaigning of the other side of the debate.

Why is it the entire LGBT community should be punished for the negative campaigning of some members and supporters, but then hold the other side to any account whatsoever for similar behaviour?

If negative campaigning was so serious that you consider it justifies punishing even "innocent" members of the LGBT community, why is it that you don't consider negative campaigning by the other side of the debate to be worthy of any sanction whatsoever.

Also, if as you said, you were leaning towards yes until you so the tone of the debate, I presume you must have been in broad agreement with the actual arguments made in favour of equality, if not the tone.

I can't see how the tone of some commentators would change your views on the merits of the debate, so why is it you see tone to be more important than substance.

COYVB

jimboblep wrote: »

in college a couple of weeks back the LGBT rep came in and and asked are you all registered to vote and made no mention of why we should vote yes its this presumptive attitude that doesnt sit right with me

Honestly, I think this is one referendum where there should be absolutely no need to explain why any right minded person should vote yes

reprise

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I've said this before in a previous thread on marriage equality: those who say that any potential "nastiness" from the either side will push them to vote the other way always seem to focus on attacks from the "Yes" campaign rather than the scummy behaviour of the likes of the Ionanists and Youth Defence.

Don't we always perceive our adversaries as such?

I'm still hearing homophobia a lot which beggars belief when one considers that it's heterosexuals that will call this vote.

Lau2976

AnonoBoy wrote: »

It really doesn't.

Why would someone campaigning for immigrant rights think that the result of marriage equality referendum has any bearing on their issue?

What you seem to be saying is that social change will encourage other people to want social change? I don't see that as a bad thing.

It's not about the argument I was making. It was that not every reason for considering no was homophobic.

conorh91

Equality for all, except threesomes and unmarried couples in long-term relationships!1!!!

floggg

reprise wrote: »

wtf!

I am not canvassing here. Vote whatever way your heart desires.

I offered a very benign reason why a lot of people may vote no and feel quite justified in doing so based on the core institution of marriage, whether you like it or not, or have kids or not.

You might think it benign but i think most others would see it as absurd.*

The idea that my marriage to my bf would tear asunder others marriage is frankly farcical. Those who marry make a life long commitment to each other, to remain faithful to each other, to love, support, protect and cherish each other and any family they may or may not build together.

I doubt there is anybody in the world who's marriage is predicated on the fact that two men or women are unable to marry, or whose commitment to each other would in any way be altered by any such marriage. If their commitment was so altered, then the same sex couple really aren't the problem.


*I don't use the word absurd or farcical to ridicule, demean, belittle or condescend to no voters. I use it because they are the words which most appropriately describe the argument. Seriously, how in the world does my relationship threaten or affect anybody else's? How in the world could somebody see same sex couples being excluded from the institution of marriage as being fundamental to their own relationship? Those arguments just dont make sense to me.

professore

Is it going to be like the Seanad referendum where you had to vote Yes to abolish it and No to keep it? I still think that's why that referendum failed ... surely a majority of people wanted it abolished?

reprise

floggg wrote: »

You might think it benign but i think most others would see it as absurd.*

The idea that my marriage to my bf would teat asunder others marriage is frankly farcical. Those who marry make a life long commitment to each other, to remain faithful to each other, to love, support, protect and cherish each other and any family they may or may not build together.

I doubt there is anybody in the world who's marriage is predicated on the fact that two men or women are unable to marry, or whose commitment to each other would in any way be altered by any such marriage. If their commitment was so altered, then the same sex couple really aren't the problem.


*I don't use the word absurd or farcical to ridicule, demean, belittle or condescend to no voters. I use it because they are the words which most appropriately describe the argument. Seriously, how in the world does my relationship threaten or affect anybody else's? How in the world could somebody see same sex couples being excluded from the institution of marriage as being fundamental to their own relationship? Those arguments just dont make sense to me.

Thanks, but I think you are missing my point. It's nothing to do with you personally or gay people in general, it's everything to do with what some people perceive marraige to be. As I have stated previously, it's about removing a core pillar of what has constituted marriage since there was such a concept and side stepping the family component as trivial rather than pivotal.

Add to that the very substantial link between state and religious marraige and the fact the church will never move on its stance and you have a formidable force for no.

floggg

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

No, but it is the reason society has made marriage an elevated institution.



Not a very positive reason.



once again, hardly a ringing endorsement.
Why are we overthrowing millennia of marriage structures for something that doesn't do much?

It doesn't do much harm, or any for that matter.

It does an awful lot of good for many people - LGBT people and the children and families of LGBT families.

And our current marriage structure is less than 100 years old. The idea of women being entitled independently own property, resist marital rape and being viewed as equal partners rather than their husbands chattels were far more radical changes than marriage equality.

And nor will marriage equality overturn or affect any heterosexuals marriage or family structure.

floggg

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

If you are going to change the Constitution and affect hundreds of pieces of legislation then a stronger justification than "we might as well" is needed.A more mature debate is needed, but doesn't seem likely, especially in After Hours.

If your going to treat one group of society unequally to others, then a stronger justification than "its the status quo" is needed.

floggg

Lau2976 wrote: »

I certainly disagree that the state hasn't skimmed over abortion, they passed a bill that they thought would placate the masses but still didn't actually get to the issue. But this isn't only about abortion.

Euthanasia? the rights of asylum seekers? Adoption rights? To name the few that come to mind right now.

Why should we deal with the rights of asylum seekers or euthanasia when there are issues like marriage equality which remain to be dealt with?

If you approached debates like that, you would never fix anything or progress as a society as somebody would always argue that priorities should be elsewhere.

Lets deal with issues as the are put before us. If you think other issues needed to be advanced, then the appropriate response is to work to draw greater attention to that issue - not to refuse to make positive changes in other areas until your issues is addressed.

floggg

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah but on those issues there's no right or wrong answer, just different perspectives, and that's why I'd always see them as discussions rather than debates. There's not a whole lot of debate going on in marriage equality threads when the vast majority are overwhelming in favour of marriage equality, yet they seem to ignore the fact that the onus isn't on the 'no' side to come up with any argument to change the constitution. They only have to turn up on the day, tick the box, and toddle off.

This issue isn't nearly as contentious as it's being made out to be here where for every 'no' poster there are 20 'yes' posters going out of their way to entertain their irrelevant arguments, like the polygamy and the children and the this that and the other.

I just think people here aren't giving the Irish people enough credit, that they think Iona or YD could ever influence the outcome of the referendum. Most people don't even know who Iona or YD are, let alone does their opinion have any bearing on ordinary Irish people's opinions.


EDIT:





Exactly! You just said it better!

If you look at the history of referenda on social issues in this State, muddying the waters of the debate with artificial concerns for children and unrelated issues is a highly effective and successful tactic.

So i think there is legitimate reason to fear that Iona's and YDs diversionary tactics will be effective.

reprise

floggg wrote: »

If your going to treat one group of society unequally to others, then a stronger justification than "its the status quo" is needed.

You are entitled to marry under the current definition of marraige subject to the lawful definition of marraige. That's arguably all the equality you are entitled to. You are in danger of overplaying your hand.

One eyed Jack

floggg wrote: »

If you look at the history of referenda on social issues in this State, muddying the waters of the debate with artificial concerns for children and unrelated issues is a highly effective and successful tactic.

So i think there is legitimate reason to fear that Iona's and YDs diversionary tactics will be effective.

You don't think society has evolved in the last 20 or so years?

A referendum like this would have been unthinkable in 1994, yet now Irish society is in a position where some 70 odd % of the electorate support marriage equality. People are thinking for themselves more than ever, and the likes of Iona and YD simply don't have the influence in society that they once had.

I see no reason to give them any regard whatsoever, there's no real 'debate' to be had here, and Iona and YD wouldn't court half the attention they do if people simply paid them no heed, but concentrate on encouraging the 70 odd % of people that already support marriage equality to come out and vote, instead of being taken up with the 25 or so % that are guaranteed to vote no.

Venus In Furs

It disturbs me a bit that people who already have marriage rights get to decide in relation to those who don't have marriage rights. **** the fundamental meaning of marriage tbh - it's going way way way back, it's not relevant any more.
Traditional marriages won't go away - they'll still be the majority of marriages.

conorh91 wrote: »

Equality for all, except threesomes and unmarried couples in long-term relationships!1!!!

Who's saying they shouldn't be equal and what's stopping them from lobbying for more rights?

Areyouwell

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum?

If I was in Ireland when it's on, I would vote no. Simply because I believe the institution of marriage has become a joke. Too many friends of mine have been burned and hurt by it. So my advice to homosexual couples would be - don't do it.

Blahblah2012

Areyouwell wrote: »

If I was in Ireland when it's on, I would vote no. Simply because I believe the institution of marriage has become a joke. Too many friends of mine have been burned and hurt by it. So my advice to homosexual couples would be - don't do it.

I'd have to agree..It certainly is one way to get fûcked...and taken to the cleaners.

Shrap

Areyouwell wrote: »

If I was in Ireland when it's on, I would vote no. Simply because I believe the institution of marriage has become a joke. Too many friends of mine have been burned and hurt by it. So my advice to homosexual couples would be - don't do it.

No, I'm sorry. Imposing your opinion by casting your vote is not the same thing as giving advice.

Not sure if you realise how condescending it is to say to grown adults who want to commit to each other for life that you're saying no to their decision.

Homosexual couples are not looking for your advice in much the same way as newly engaged heterosexual couples wouldn't appreciate your advice not to marry.

Shrap

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

I'd have to agree..It certainly is one way to get fûcked...and taken to the cleaners.

Interestingly, my husband was paid in full (over the odds) for the house he co-bought with his first wife. First I paid her share. Then I bought his half from him. Not my problem if he blew the whole lot on a holiday and a very mid-life-crisis motorbike. He still thinks it's his house. But you and I are completely off topic.

conorh91

Venus In Furs wrote: »

Who's saying they shouldn't be equal and what's stopping them from lobbying for more rights?

I don't make that claim. Such a claim would be totally ridiculous. I think you're putting forward a strawman really aren't you.

The term marriage equality has taken on a silly, teleological dimension; it is an oxymoron in itself: we have an inner circle called "marriage" and granting the right of marriage to same-sex unions will herald "equality". Except, those who are not invited into the circle (close relatives, threesomes, unmarried couples) are of course unequal.

All people are equal but some are more equal than others etc etc.

The idea of marriage equality is just fundamentally ridiculous. If you want to give it to everyone, it becomes meaningless babble.

By the way, I'm not opposed to this same-sex marriage amendment, I object only to these lefty sermons on marriage equality.