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

ebbsy

We are now getting so far away from normality......what is next ????????

Shrap

conorh91 wrote: »

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.

It's no strawman. Interestingly, your unmarried couples there above are welcome to get married if they so desire, so long as they're hetero. So that doesn't count.

With "close relatives and threesomes" you are trying to conflate these with legally recognised relationships. If you want these relationships recognised, start a campaign. Stop muddying this one.

Marriage equality between two consenting adults regardless of gender is what is being sought here. Equality for all as to how couples are recognised by law. Note: I did say couple, didn't I? Oh, yes I did.

Shrap

ebbsy wrote: »

We are now getting so far away from normality......what is next ????????

Eh?

My mother thinks her version of "normal" is right and everyone who doesn't conform isn't right in the head. It's abnormal to her to sleep in till 10am, and a person rewarding themselves for a hard week's work by staying partying till 3am is the sign of a "slut".

What is normal exactly? Do you agree with my mother, or do we all get to decide what is normal?

TheBeardedLady

ebbsy wrote: »

We are now getting so far away from normality......what is next ????????

A joint referendum to ban straight couples and to force people to wear multi-coloured clothing and tiny bowler hats.

Shrap

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

A joint referendum to ban straight couples and to force people to wear multi-coloured clothing and tiny bowler hats.

I'm with that!!! Oh...wait. No straight couples???? I feel oppressed. Why can't I marry my man? What's your reasoning? :pac:

TheBeardedLady

Shrap wrote: »

I'm with that!!! Oh...wait. No straight couples???? I feel oppressed. Why can't I marry my man? What's your reasoning? :pac:

Well if you could marry your man then we'd have to let the animals and vegetables marry too! Where would it end!


Put on your bowler hat and zip it! :mad:

conorh91

Shrap wrote: »

It's no strawman. Interestingly, your unmarried couples there above are welcome to get married if they so desire, so long as they're hetero. So that doesn't count.

Perhaps they are not yet eligible for a divorce for another four or five years. Perhaps they can't afford a divorce because they're busy subsidising marriage through their taxes, in other words, earning less take-home pay than married couples and civil partners at the end of the month. Doesn't seem very equal, does it?

The Yes campaign are clinging to this "marriage equality" meme because, after all, who opposes equality in and of itself? But the term is being used entirely without cause. Marriage, by definition, is about affording greater rights to certain people over others.

With "close relatives and threesomes" you are trying to conflate these with legally recognised relationships.

This is why I said the term is teleological. Only admitting "legally recognized" relationships into a discussion about marriage equality is profoundly stupid. At that rate, you could have excluded gay people from the discussion, prior to the enactment of the Civil Partnerships Act in 2010.

Shrap

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Well if you could marry your man then we'd have to let the animals and vegetables marry too! Where would it end!


Put on your bowler hat and zip it! :mad:

But I only want to marry my man. Why would you take a stand against our commitment to each other?

Just because some couples split up and people get bitter and twisted about other couples marrying based on their own experiences doesn't mean our experience will be the same! Have a heart?!

I mean, my relationship is recognised in law, but not my solemn commitment. A vegetable can't make a commitment - it's not the same!

I like the bowler hat part though.

Shrap

conorh91 wrote: »

Perhaps they are not yet eligible for a divorce for another four or five years. Perhaps they can't afford a divorce because they're busy subsidising marriage through their taxes, in other words, earning less take-home pay than married couples and civil partners at the end of the month. Doesn't seem very equal, does it?

And? So what? Yeah, I'm in the position of not affording a divorce actually, but do you hear me whinging that because "my rights" are not included in this referendum, I won't vote on it because I didn't get a mention? What are we, playing tit for tat on the playground here?

Ditto for the rest of your post, so I can't be arsed answering to "well, they didn't include ME!"

To Elland Back

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

I'll be voting no for 3 reasons.
1. I seen on another thread on this site how the homosexual posters ganged up on another poster, the end result being that she closed her account.
A cohort of people who demand to be treated equally and want tolerance seem to want to force their views on others by shouting the loudest and intimidating people.

2. I will not vote for anything this government proposes, Enda's due another wallop...

and

3. I believe that the ideal family unit is a married hetrosexual couple and their children.

I couldn't thank your post as although I fully agree with you on point 1, not so much on points 2 and 3

conorh91

Shrap wrote: »

And? So what?

I can't be any more clear.

Marriage Equality is a misnomer.

If Ireland levies a tax on blacks, Asians and Jews, and after extensive negotiation, Jews are emancipated from this tax, the outcome is not "equality".

What's happening here is that we're being told that the proposed amendment is a referendum on marriage equality. It patently is not. It's about one group attempting to enjoy greater rights than everyone else, by allying themselves with the original beneficiary of discrimination. That can never be equality.

Venus In Furs

To Elland Back wrote: »

I couldn't thank your post as although I fully agree with you on point 1, not so much on points 2 and 3

I find it bizarre to agree with "Some of the people voting one way are really annoying me so I'll vote the opposite to them just for that", which is what point 1 is.

Blahblah2012

Shrap wrote: »

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.

U obviously stayed out of the courts. Lucky enough

Dacelonid

Personally I would like to vote no. Maybe I am old fashioned, or coloured by my parents prejudices, or maybe it is the fact that of all the gay people that I personally know, I hate them all and their campness. Or maybe it is just that I can't buy the clothes I like any more, because the shops are full of clothes that I would classify as gay.

However I will be voting yes. I will be voting yes as a big f*** you to the likes of the iona institute, and the catholic church, and the other organisations that will use fear/intimidation/manipulation to get people to vote no.
But I think the biggest reason I will vote yes, is because I don't want my two toddlers to grow up in a society that would prevent them from enjoying their lives, if they were gay.

Annasopra

Venus In Furs wrote: »

I find it bizarre to agree with "Some of the people voting one way are really annoying me so I'll vote the opposite to them just for that", which is what point 1 is.

To be honest I doubt thats their main reason for voting no.

floggg

reprise wrote: »

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 marriage and the fact the church will never move on its stance and you have a formidable force for no.

I dont think I did miss you point. I was dont think the point is vey well made though.

I dont think that the fact that two men or two women cant marry is a core pillar of anybodys marriage. Nor is the fact that they are of opposite genders. Its because they are in love and want to commit to each other for life.

Further, any argument based on the traditional nature of marriage is also not very well made. It would be incorrect to argue that gender has been at the core of marriage since the invention of marriage, since there is evidence of same sex marriage dating back almost as far as the first evidence of marriage itself.

And any appeal to the traditional nature of marriage falls apart when you consider just what traditional or historical marriage was - a property transaction whereby a man acquired one or more wives from their fathers, who became his property and lacked any independent sense of self or rights.

You can't argue that we should maintain any historical version of marriage since that was destroyed when we allowed married women to work, own property, divorce, refuse sex, use contraception, exercise free will and we criminalised domestic violence, marital rape etc.

As for the churches stance on marriage, it is frankly irrelevant to the debate. the church has no say or control over how the state defines marriage (hence divorce laws), and the state cannot look to any one religion to define its marriage laws.

floggg

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Look at the Childrens Rights referendum and how easily scare mongering and allusions to unintended consequences can sow doubt and muddy the waters.

DeJa VooDoo

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

To be honest I doubt thats their main reason for voting no.

Give up with your persecution complex, it's boring if not a little pathetic.

floggg

reprise wrote: »

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.

That argument is absurd, and I don't believe anybody could really make it in good faith.

It was one used by supporters of the ban on interracial marriage - that each race was free to marry within their race on equal terms - and was found to be completely without merit then.

Unless and until the state recognises my relationship on equal terms as it does my brothers, that is not equality.

gg2

When is it?

Ave Sodalis

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

Give up with your persecution complex, it's boring if not a little pathetic.

You really don't think "someone said something I don't like (most likely in defense of something ridiculous/nasty that was said to them) so I'm going to punish the thousands of others and enable the nastiness" sounds a tad like it's a bad reason to vote no?

the_syco

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

- Remarks by Iona members have further alienated me from their cause. On Morning Ireland a few days ago, Breda O'Brien compared same-sex marriage to a mother marrying her daughter. This reminds me of the rhetoric of the Christian Right in the US Deep South.

For this to be an issue, Iona would have to support Mothers marrying their sons...

Baggy Trousers

Make no mistake, this one will be very tight.

I have been listening to the misinformation and propaganda on the media over the past week or so and the No vote is gathering momentum. There are a lot of people trying to derail this referendum and many people are buying their nonsense.

And Enda will get personally involved which is another liability (how are those Senate reforms going Enda?).

We don't need to wait for a 2nd referendum on this one.

Annasopra

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

Give up with your persecution complex, it's boring if not a little pathetic.

Lol. Im just doubting anyone would seriously decide:

Someone said something mean on the internet so Im going to be their enemy and vote against them.

reprise

floggg wrote: »

I dont think I did miss you point. I was dont think the point is vey (

---

) marriage laws.

I'm sorry flogg, but to tackle my points and totally disregard what I am saying about family and children is simply disingenuous. You will never be able to wish away the family aspect of what marriage is designed for.

I will say again, unequivocally, that my marriage will be neither enhanced or diminished by anyone else's inclusion or exclusion in the definition of marriage and that, again, is a pointless accusation.

reprise

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Lol. Im just doubting anyone would seriously decide:

Someone said something mean on the internet so Im going to be their enemy and vote against them.

I don't believe you. I think just about the worst thing that could happen to you is that you were treated equally. Really, really, big bad world equally.

floggg

reprise wrote: »

I'm sorry flogg, but to tackle my points and totally disregard what I am saying about family and children is simply disingenuous. You will never be able to wish away the family aspect of what marriage is designed for.

I will say again, unequivocally, that my marriage will be neither enhanced or diminished by anyone else's inclusion or exclusion in the definition of marriage and that, again, is a pointless accusation.

While firstly LGBT couples can and do have children, so any child related purposes of marriage is equally applicable to LGBT couples.

Secondly, the state has never made children, or child production capacity a requirement of marriage. it never will.

It allows married couples to have kids if they wish, and supports them if they do, but it has never been a requirement. the state views a childless marriage as equal to one which has produced children.

LGBT people are in no different position to infertile couples, and so they argument that lgbt couples are incapable of marriage is fallicous when infertile couples quite plainly are.

floggg

reprise wrote: »

I don't believe you. I think just about the worst thing that could happen to you is that you were treated equally. Really, really, big bad world equally.

What the f...?

To Elland Back

Venus In Furs wrote: »

I find it bizarre to agree with "Some of the people voting one way are really annoying me so I'll vote the opposite to them just for that", which is what point 1 is.

Because bullies should never win

floggg

To Elland Back wrote: »

Because bullies should never win

So all LGBT people should be disadvantaged legally because you want to teach some people you consider bullies a lesson?

That's hardly fair, is it? And taking such a stance erodes an moral high ground which you might seek.

Edit - actually, as pointed out above, by voting No would you not be rewarding the bullies on the No side. There are lots, some of which have been saying some incredibly nasty things about LGBT people, their parents and their families.