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

K4t

floggg wrote: »

It still makes sense. If a poster states an intention to vote no, I would think deciding to abstain is progress.

Even if they aren't comfortable endorsing marriage equality, they aren't going out of their way to deny it.

My fear, and that of others, is that that is the predicament of a lot of people. As well as those who ARE comfortable endorsing marriage equality, but they aren't going to go out of their way to allow it. You end up with a whole lot of people who are FOR or DON'T MIND same-sex marriage, but none of them turn out to vote FOR it. We all know the NO side and the majority of the GAY community will be out in force. The swingers and the undecided voters are crucial.

Rightwing

aloyisious wrote: »

Re the upward sloping graph, it might increase in angle as more LGBT folk who feel it is safe for them to come out of the closet.

Graphs are one thing, the actual vote on the day is more reliable. It's not a sure thing that because there is one or more gay person in a family that that family will vote em-bloc YES. An example of that is the number of openly gay people who have stated publicly that they are going to vote NO.

I didn't see that, what was their reasoning for 'No' ?

OldNotWIse

Rightwing wrote: »

As in are the more gays now than ever before. Maybe in 5 years the % could be 10%

What is this based on? I can understand how it might seem like the incidence of homosexuality is increasing, when in fact there are simply more people coming out as it becomes less stigmatised...but that doesn't mean the amount of gay people are increasing.

seamus

Rightwing wrote: »

I didn't see that, what was their reasoning for 'No' ?

There are various spurious reasons for it, here's one deluded individual:
https://nogaymarriage.wordpress.com/

Typically gay people against same sex marriage tend to be vehement rejectors of the entire idea of marriage at all, hence they think this is a retrograde step. Others so enjoy being part of a fringe group and perhaps even enjoy being victimised so much, they lament the idea of normalising homosexuality - in much the same way that some people complain about cultures being destroyed by immigration, some gay people believe that gay culture will be destroyed if homosexuality is normalised. So they will actually vote against equality.

It's basic isolationist protectionism. It occurs every time; there were huge groups of women opposed to universal suffrage, and plenty of black people who opposed mixed marriage in the US.

Zubeneschamali

arayess wrote: »

yoru quote mentions race, nationality or religion it doesn't mentioned sexuality which is the crux of this debate.

Read it again:

Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

It states that men and women have the right to marry. Nowhere does it state that they only have the right to marry people of the opposite sex.

So if men and women are not allowed marry (which is the case for same sex couples), it is a denial of that right.

The declaration does not call out gender as a limitation in the way it calls out race, nationality and religion, but that is an inclusive list of limitations, not an exclusive one.

It would equally be a denial of this right to say red-headed people may not marry, or people under 1.5 meters tall, or left-handed people, even though those limitations are not specifically disallowed in the declaration.

aloyisious

Rightwing wrote: »

I didn't see that, what was their reasoning for 'No' ?

The Prime-time show last night, Keith Mills from the Mother And Father group. Keith is openly gay and is opposed to SSM as he believes marriage is solely for heterosexual couples. Keith say's children should not be brought up by gay men, but solely within opposite-sex (mummy and daddy) parented families.

Flem31

K4t wrote: »

Relax, hotshot. I was referring to the reasoning behind it, in the context of that poster's opinions, which we've been discussing over the last two pages.

"Relax, hotshot" ........what a mature measured response

K4t

Flem31 wrote: »

"Relax, hotshot" ........what a mature measured response

An explanation follows it, chief. Can I help you with anything else?

arayess

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Read it again:

Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

It states that men and women have the right to marry. Nowhere does it state that they only have the right to marry people of the opposite sex.

So if men and women are not allowed marry (which is the case for same sex couples), it is a denial of that right.

The declaration does not call out gender as a limitation in the way it calls out race, nationality and religion, but that is an inclusive list of limitations, not an exclusive one.

It would equally be a denial of this right to say red-headed people may not marry, or people under 1.5 meters tall, or left-handed people, even though those limitations are not specifically disallowed in the declaration.

Nowhere does it say they do. I disagree with you.
It's a ****e argument for gay marriage.

Even if the point held wtf has the UN got to do with anything . It's a sham organisation.

Rightwing

aloyisious wrote: »

The Prime-time show last night, Keith Mills from the Mother And Father group. Keith is openly gay and is opposed to SSM as he believes marriage is solely for heterosexual couples. Keith say's children should not be brought up by gay men, but solely within opposite-sex (mummy and daddy) parented families.

I'd be inclined to agree with them.

Zubeneschamali

arayess wrote: »

Nowhere does it say they do. I disagree with you. It's a ****e argument for gay marriage.

Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.

It says men and women have a right to marry. Same sex couples are composed of men and women, and they are denied that right.You are disagreeing with simple facts, not with me.

Ave Sodalis

Rightwing wrote: »

I'd be inclined to agree with them.

If you read back a few pages, this has already been gone over.

seamus

Rightwing wrote: »

I'd be inclined to agree with them.

You are both entitled to your opinion, but it has no foundation in reality.

Rightwing

seamus wrote: »

You are both entitled to your opinion, but it has no foundation in reality.

Probably not. Just seems unnatural.

Zubeneschamali

Rightwing wrote: »

I'd be inclined to agree with them.

Discovering you agree with Keith Mills is like finding you agree with Kevin Myers or Una Mulally, they are all professional sh!t-stirrers, who take up obnoxious positions purely to generate controversy.

Ave Sodalis

Rightwing wrote: »

Probably not. Just seems unnatural.

By that logic, so is single parenting though and there isn't a huge amount of problems with that. There's probably more problems with single parents that a gay couple if anything. Anyway, it's irrelevant to the referendum.

Zubeneschamali

Rightwing wrote: »

Probably not. Just seems unnatural.

Would you class the new Court of Appeal as natural or unnatural?

Rightwing

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Discovering you agree with Keith Mills is like finding you agree with Kevin Myers or Una Mulally, they are all professional sh!t-stirrers, who take up obnoxious positions purely to generate controversy.

Never heard of them before.

Flem31

K4t wrote: »

An explanation follows it, chief. Can I help you with anything else?

You didn't actually but not that surprised.
After reading your comments on the poll numbers yesterday and saw the hole in your logic there, I see a repeating pattern.

shruikan2553

Rightwing wrote: »

Probably not. Just seems unnatural.

Because humans are known for their natural lifestyles. I'm surprised people aren't against engineering being taught for making unnatural things.

Steppenwolfe

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.

It says men and women have a right to marry. Same sex couples are composed of men and women, and they are denied that right.You are disagreeing with simple facts, not with me.

I can't see this attempt to cast ssm as a human right working. Most people can see it's just twisting language to make a point. The average joe may not be too bright, but he will see right through that tactic. People don't like it when you try to sell them a pup. It's more likely to make them question some of the more legitimate arguements for ssm when you do. Still, I'm not running the campaign. The government seems happy enough to spin the equal rights aspect. Maybe they're right.

K4t

Flem31 wrote: »

You didn't actually but not that surprised.
After reading your comments on the poll numbers yesterday and saw the hole in your logic there, I see a repeating pattern.

It's not my fault if you are unable to understand my explanation, or if you're seeing imaginary patterns. Quote my posts and counter my argument, or make your own argument, instead of taking things out of context and making baseless accusations.

Flem31

K4t wrote: »

It's not my fault if you are unable to understand my explanation, or if you're seeing imaginary patterns. Quote my posts and counter my argument, or make your own argument, instead of taking things out of context and making baseless accusations.

The true sign of someone who can't back up their point.

K4t

Flem31 wrote: »

The true sign of someone who can't back up their point.

I really don't know what your problem is here. You quoted something I said in the context of a wider argument with another poster, referring to it as "crazy logic", which is fair enough, and I offered an explanation to you, as well as another post explaining my argument. (#3324) If you have something constructive to add, please do; otherwise you're wasting my time with this evasive nonsense.

Gunney

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

The government seems happy enough to spin the equal rights aspect. Maybe they're right.

They've right on everything else they've done so how could they be wrong?

M+F = M+M

F= M+M-M

F=M

See - even maths tells you that there is no difference between men and women.

Simple experiment seeing as the Governement likes social experiments - set up a community where it is forbidden for men and women to have sex or interact sexually with each other and populate it with couples who have same sex orientation.

Measure the birth rate over time and compare it to a community populated by heterosexual sexual couples.

Wht's the betting you get no significant differents in the birth rates thereby proving not only mathematically but biologically there is no difference between men and women.

If you haven't guessed yet - I'll be voting No

K4t

Gunney wrote: »

If you haven't guessed yet - I'll be voting No

You seem to be obsessed with sex, who is having sex, and who they are having sex with. This referendum is on same-sex marriage. As I'm sure you're well aware, lots of married couples do not engage in sexual activity. Men and Women are EQUAL. They are both HUMAN BEINGS.

Flem31

K4t wrote: »

I really don't know what your problem is here. You quoted something I said in the context of a wider argument with another poster, referring to it as "crazy logic", which is fair enough, and I offered an explanation to you, as well as another post explaining my argument. (#3324) If you have something constructive to add, please do; otherwise you're wasting my time with this evasive nonsense.

Not evasive nonsense

- In no circumstances would a No voter be preferable to a non voter for anyone in favour of SSM. You can paint whatever scenario or context you can pretend you had......and it is still rubbish.

- In your rejigging of the numbers in the poll, you managed to increase the No and Don't Know's by about 700 but yet the Yes side reduced by only about 300 giving the result you wanted which was a 2 to 1 result.


Carry on waffling

Ave Sodalis

Gunney wrote: »

They've right on everything else they've done so how could they be wrong?

M+F = M+M

F= M+M-M

F=M

See - even maths tells you that there is no difference between men and women.

Simple experiment seeing as the Governement likes social experiments - set up a community where it is forbidden for men and women to have sex or interact sexually with each other and populate it with couples who have same sex orientation.

Measure the birth rate over time and compare it to a community populated by heterosexual sexual couples.

Wht's the betting you get no significant differents in the birth rates thereby proving not only mathematically but biologically there is no difference between men and women.

If you haven't guessed yet - I'll be voting No

This is about SSM, not children or whether gay people should be allowed. It's about whether they should be allowed to marry. Whether this goes through or not, gay couples will still exist and they'll be able to adopt. Nothing you've said is anything to do with marriage.

Shiraz 4.99

I'm voting No unless they scrap Water Charges, that'll learn 'em

Ah no, seriously, I'm voting No cause I think they are going to get trolloped 4 to 1 & I feel sorry for all the old fogies.
Knock around outside mass tut tut tutting about the world falling apart & I could bag an old lonely dears inheritance.
Bang, back of the net, well played old boy.

Anywy, No on 34 or whatever this one is

K4t

Flem31 wrote: »

- In no circumstances would a No voter be preferable to a non voter for anyone in favour of SSM. You can paint whatever scenario or context you can pretend you had......and it is still rubbish.

Rightwing wrote:

But on reflection I may abstain from this particular vote.

K4t wrote:

Allowing same sex couples to marry will not affect the institution of marriage in any way, except same sex couples will also be allowed to marry! It's madness to think there is some kind of justification for voting against this referendum, and to abstain is to simply say that you don't mind if people vote against it, which is worse imo. You have a chance to make a difference, to see democracy in action as a force for good; why not put aside political differences and all that crap and simply do something to help your fellow human beings?

Ok, so the first part of the sentence in bold I think most people would agree with me on; it does not make sense to vote against this referendum, no matter how you want to argue it, or how you attempt to cloud the issue. Now the second part, "to abstain and simply say you don't mind if people vote against it is worse imo" was not meant to be interpreted as you did i.e. A NO voter is preferable to a NON-voter. It was meant as a direct reply to the poster who had already reverted from a NO vote to probably abstaining. My point was to show that abstaining from voting was if anything worse than voting NO, because you are aware that it does not make sense to vote NO, nor is it worth actively opposing the referendum. Obviously the poll will favour better without the extra NO vote, but it's the poster's frame of mind I was questioning. I then followed this up with an explanation to floggg's post:

floggg wrote:

Even if they aren't comfortable endorsing marriage equality, they aren't going out of their way to deny it.

K4t wrote:

My fear, and that of others, is that that is the predicament of a lot of people. As well as those who ARE comfortable endorsing marriage equality, but they aren't going to go out of their way to allow it. You end up with a whole lot of people who are FOR or DON'T MIND (but aren't comfortable endorsing) same-sex marriage, and none of them turn out to vote FOR it. We all know the NO side and the majority of the GAY community will be out in force. The swingers and the undecided voters are crucial.

- In your rejigging of the numbers in the poll, you managed to increase the No and Don't Know's by about 700 but yet the Yes side reduced by only about 300 giving the result you wanted which was a 2 to 1 result.

I made estimates, based on my own opinion. I believe the polls to be much closer than they are. Why is that such a problem for you too? You obviously don't care too much about this referendum, as those who read through previous posts of yours on this thread will see. But that's no reason to attempt to tarnish and rile up those who do care about this issue and this referendum. We're trying to engage in discussion and see all perspectives. You seem to be nothing more than a contrarion.