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

Annasopra

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.

3. There are 3 gay men who stated publicly they will vote no.

Gunney

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Same sex marriage is about two people of the same sex getting married. That is all.

But that is not marriage. Marriage is about two complementaries not about two of the same thing.

If you are cooking are you going to marry lemon to a lemon to a meal? No, you are going to marry a lemon to a chicken.

Cheese and onion is a marriage. Cheese and cheese is just cheese.

Ave Sodalis

Gunney wrote: »

But that is not marriage. Marriage is about two complementaries not about two of the same thing.

If you are cooking are you going to marry lemon to a lemon to a meal? No, you are going to marry a lemon to a chicken.

Cheese and onion is a marriage. Cheese and cheese is just cheese.

Is that what marriage is about? Really? So why do two humans marry? They're both humans after all. Humans and dogs get along very well, why don't we insist marriage is about humans and dogs? :rolleyes:

Gunney

aloyisious wrote: »

Would you allow them marry the love of their lives if he/she was of the same sex?

That's not marriage.

Nodin

Gunney wrote: »

That's not marriage.

Why isn't it?

Gunney

sup_dude wrote: »

Is that what marriage is about? Really? So why do two humans marry? They're both humans after all. Humans and dogs get along very well, why don't we insist marriage is about humans and dogs? :rolleyes:

Two complementary human beings, the complimentary part being the gender difference.

Marriage involves two different things - in humans two different sexes, in cooking two different foods.

Ave Sodalis

Gunney wrote: »

Two complementary human beings, the complimentary part being the gender difference.

Marriage involves two different things - in humans two different sexes, in cooking two different foods.

Oh now it's humans. Are you just making up the definition of marriage as you go along, to suit your own purpose?

Gunney

Nodin wrote: »

Why isn't it?

Because marriage involves different sexes

B0jangles

Gunney wrote: »

But that is not marriage. Marriage is about two complementaries not about two of the same thing.

If you are cooking are you going to marry lemon to a lemon to a meal? No, you are going to marry a lemon to a chicken.

Cheese and onion is a marriage. Cheese and cheese is just cheese.

ROFL.

by your "logic" cheese + cheese is actually closer to the biblical concept of "two coming one"; after all its a hell.of a lot easier to inseperably join two bits of cheese together that a piece of cheese and an onion!

OldNotWIse

Gunney wrote: »

But that is not marriage. Marriage is about two complementaries not about two of the same thing.

If you are cooking are you going to marry lemon to a lemon to a meal? No, you are going to marry a lemon to a chicken.

Cheese and onion is a marriage. Cheese and cheese is just cheese.

If you have to resort to food porn I am afraid you've lost what little shred of credibility you had left

"Cheese and cheese is just cheese" - A Boards classic

Is fish and fish just fish too?

Gunney

sup_dude wrote: »

Oh now it's humans. Are you just making up the definition of marriage as you go along, to suit your own purpose?

No, I'm simply not changing the defintion of marriage. If you cannot understand analogy that is not my problem.

Flem31

K4t wrote: »

It did make sense in the context of the discussion with that person, the thinking behind it was imo worse. And I explained that!
Oh god, I was making quick estimates in my head. My point still stood, I think the poll is a lot closer to 2:1 than 6:1. Give me a break!
Funny how you mention the word crusade. Even if I was on some crusade, surely equal rights would be a noble one if any. My only smart comments were in relation to you and one other poster, both who made false accusations against me to discredit my whole argument and possibly me personally. I was having a very interesting and engaging conversation with another poster, when you barged in making accusations and taking what I said out of context. As did the other poster yesterday. It's so clear what you are doing in this thread, picking bits of entire posts, and using them to make a point or to quieten down passionate and reasonable posters, who are attempting to engage in discussion. You're not clever, and it's not in any way smart what you're doing. I'll say one thing for the NO side, at least a lot of them are honest in where they stand, and in their convictions. I'd accuse you of playing devil's advocate but that would be too kind. You're simply an annoyance, someone who isn't happy unless they're trying to take someone else down a peg or two. It's pathetic.

Didn't make any accusations, just looked for you to back up your statements.......maybe as a Yes advocate that isn't required.

There have been broad statements made by Yes advocates which seem to be accepted without question.
On a couple of them, I have asked for the reasoning\backup to justify those statements.

You just dislike anyone who doesn't accept everything you post without any reasoning. Welcome to the real world sonny

OldNotWIse

Gunney wrote: »

Because marriage involves different sexes

For now, yes.

Ave Sodalis

OldNotWIse wrote: »

If you have to resort to food porn I am afraid you've lost what little shred of credibility you had left

"Cheese and cheese is just cheese" - A Boards classic

Is fish and fish just fish too?

Not a fan of cheese to be honest. However, I can appreciate a cheddar and mozzerella combination.

OldNotWIse

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I think I've got it now. A child can marry a lemon, but a man can't marry 2 grapefruit. Am I getting this right?

What's your stance on sausages marrying hedgehogs?

Once they agree to procreate it is fine. It's all about the children after all. I think there is something about male grapefruits and lemon risotto too...can't quite remember. I'll check Leviticus this evening and get back to you :P

Nodin

Gunney wrote: »

Because marriage involves different sexes

Generally. However "marriage" is not like some natural law that remains static or universal. There is no reason it can't encompass a same sex union.

Gunney

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I think I've got it now. A child can marry a lemon, but a man can't marry 2 grapefruit. Am I getting this right?

What's your stance on sausages marrying hedgehogs?

Put it to a referendum, open a thread and I'll tell you

Ave Sodalis

Gunney wrote: »

No, I'm simply not changing the defintion of marriage. If you cannot understand analogy that is not my problem.

Oh I understand the analogy alright. It doesn't make it any less ridiculous. You've changed your definition several times now.

OldNotWIse

Gunney wrote: »

No, I'm simply not changing the defintion of marriage. If you cannot understand analogy that is not my problem.

Must...not....make...gay....joke :P

Gunney

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Once they agree to procreate it is fine. It's all about the children after all. I think there is something about male grapefruits and lemon risotto too...can't quite remember. I'll check Leviticus this evening and get back to you :P

Why are you being anti-semetic ?

Ave Sodalis

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I'll check Leviticus this evening and get back to you :P

I actually highly recommend reading Leviticus. It's very entertaining.

Zubeneschamali

Gunney wrote: »

the complimentary part being the gender difference.

Sadly, my wife is sometimes not very complimentary at all, especially when I forget to put out the bins.

Nodin

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Sadly, my wife is sometimes not very complimentary at all, especially when I forget to put out the bins.

....and if they catch you wearing some of their clothes, they won't even say if it suits you.

aloyisious

@Gunney: in response to your post "Originally Posted by Gunney: I would allow them marry a member of the opposite sex if they want to"...end quote. my question was whether you would allow them marry the love of their lives if he/she was of the same sex?

All I had expected was a YES or a NO answer, not what you define marriage as

Gunney wrote: »

That's not marriage.

jobbridge4life

Gunney wrote: »

I'm old school. I kinda think the gender of the parents is somewhat important in the conception of the child and seeing as it's their child they should be the ones to bring it up.

Firstly this issue is not related to the upcoming referendum. It is the subject of legislation currently progressing through the Houses. If you are going to vote no at least have it be for a reason that connects with reality.

Gunney wrote: »

I know there are cases where parents get killed or they can't bring up the kid themselves but gender models are important and ideally kids should have a mother and a father.

This doesn't relate to the referendum but I'll engage with it anyway. People very often say that 'ideally children should be raised by a mother and father', if that is there opinion then grand good for them the question I am left with is, given that is your opinion why is it that its only gay and lesbian people you are willing to legislate against in order to achieve your ideal? I mean if it is truly the critical model and ideal that you say it is why are you targeting only children with two parents who happen to share genders? After all in numeric terms these families must represent only a tiny fraction of children in 'less than ideal' circumstances so how can you possibly justify such a disproportionate effort to target this group while doing nothing to deal with the overwhelming majority of children who find themselves outside of the approved setting?

Additionally you have stated the above as though it were fact. Are you really really sure? Because if I was talking about denying other people their right to a family I'd want to be 100% convinced and convinced on the basis of the best available evidence and research. Not truisms and soundbites.

Gunney wrote: »

Am I not entitled to that opinion?

You are entitled to it, as everyone is free to their opinions of you having it. No doubt you agree?

Zen65

Rightwing wrote: »

I'll vote No.

Of course.

With a name like 'Rightwing' it would be strange for you to have any other position.

Annasopra

Gunney wrote: »

I guess you didn't look up a definition of sanctity then.

For me sanctity is about being holy, sacred and saintly. Is there anything holy, sacred or saintly about so called same sex marriage.

Seems to me a tiny percentage of the population is looking to redfine marriage for the vast majority of the country and change it from being child centered and selfless to being adult centred and selfish.

And yet many religious people will respectfully vote yes with their faith

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QfpzlohF1o

Zen65

Rightwing wrote: »

I'm not homophobic, rather I just don't want to see this thing get out of hand altogether. Next thing is it'll almost be a requirement to be gay to progress.

Ahh now wait . . . I do know when somebody is absolutely taking the p**s.

shruikan2553

I mixed more than 2 foods, is that polygamy?

Melted cheese and bacon go with everything, are they sluts?

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Must...not....make...gay....joke :P

And the word analogy is now ruined for me

jobbridge4life

Gunney wrote: »

I guess you didn't look up a definition of sanctity then.

'Does the sacred brook no improvement?' (100 bonus mega-nerd points for anyone who recognizes that without googling)

Gunney wrote: »

For me sanctity is about being holy, sacred and saintly. Is there anything holy, sacred or saintly about so called same sex marriage.

So many ways to answer this...

Firstly is there anything unholy, sacrilegious or unsaintly about allowing gay people participate in the sacrament of marriage in a meaningful, truthful way?

Secondly many religious organisations clearly believe there is indeed much holy, sacred and saintly about same-sex marriages as they celebrate them and offer blessings for unions etc.

Thirdly as a religious person I would argue that same-sex marriage was absolutely holy, sacred and saintly. Love is the greatest gift from God, it finds its greatest expression in the love of one person to another, and marriage/holy matrimony is the binding of them together in face of all the worldly troubles and challenges that otherwise would have them driven apart. To marry another person is to dedicate your life to them in tribute to Christs dedication to all mankind.

Thirdly this is all entirely irrelevant as it is not Church marriages that this referendum proposes to allow gay people access to (unless their particular church is amenable to such) it is solely the entirely secular civil marriage that is subject to this referendum. Catholic marriage will remain the Godly union of one man and one woman, this referendum can do nothing to change that.

Gunney wrote: »

Seems to me a tiny percentage of the population is looking to redfine marriage for the vast majority of the country and change it from being child centered and selfless to being adult centred and selfish.

A small percentage of the population is looking for the ability to join with the remainder and participate in marriage. Once upon a time gay people were targeted because they were seen as deviant and rejecting the mores of society, today gay people are kicking and screaming to join the most conservative institution in society and still they are deemed not good enough.