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

Ave Sodalis

arayess wrote: »

Have gay marriage all you want but spare me the hand-wringing over equality

What would you call it? Is it not part of equality? Why can't it be called equality if that's what it is?

To Elland Back

floggg wrote: »

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.

It is natural reaction to being bullied that someone might take such action. I have no problem in someone arguing their point strongly, but personal abuse if you hold a different opinion is unacceptable (on both sides).

I intend to vote yes, but if the some of the vitriol that I have heard lately gathers momentum, it might make me reconsider, as is my right

efb

To Elland Back wrote: »

It is natural reaction to being bullied that someone might take such action. I have no problem in someone arguing their point strongly, but personal abuse if you hold a different opinion is unacceptable (on both sides).

I intend to vote yes, but if the some of the vitriol that I have heard lately gathers momentum, it might make me reconsider, as is my right

You can change your vote cos you didn't like your breakfast that's your right too

floggg

reprise wrote: »

And again, marriage has a primary focus on providing the best possible environment for the children that it may produce.

Just so we are clear - that's the children that it may produce.

That distinction doesn't really plug the holes in your argument. It doesnt change the fact that infertile couples are in a similar situation to LGBT couples.


So either we accept that the inability to conceive children naturally and unassisted is not a requirement for marriage, or we say infertile couples should not be permitted to marry under the current formulation of marriage.

floggg

To Elland Back wrote: »

It is natural reaction to being bullied that someone might take such action. I have no problem in someone arguing their point strongly, but personal abuse if you hold a different opinion is unacceptable (on both sides).

I intend to vote yes, but if the some of the vitriol that I have heard lately gathers momentum, it might make me reconsider, as is my right

It is entirely your right, but I still can't understand it.

Surely LGBT people have suffered much more serious bullying than opponents of equality for LGBT people. So surely you should be more likely to react to that bullying, no?

Why is bullying by some supporters on one side of the debate an issue for you, but not bullying by some supporters on the other side of the debate?

the_monkey

Sheep Lover wrote: »

I will vote no in this referendum

Morning Adolf

floggg

sup_dude wrote: »

What would you call it? Is it not part of equality? Why can't it be called equality if that's what it is?

Can i suggest you just ignore the red herring slippery slope, equality for all non-existent groups of mothers who want to marry their daughters nonsense.

I very much doubt there is anybody who wants to marry their daughter, so lets not side track the issue arguing about whether or not we should be fighting for it.

its just muddying the issue and playing into the hands of all the slippery slope arguments, as here we are lumping all the issues in as one.

osarusan

Funny how almost all of those who claim to be swayed by the vitriol and insults involved only comment on the 'yes' side.

They seem to miss the vitriol and insults coming from the 'no' side.

I mean, you would think that anybody whose vote would change depending on the ugly language coming from one side or another would have had their mind irrevocably made up by the 'sounds of sodomy' leaflet.

Herb Powell

I'll voting yes because I'm not an absolute cunnt.

AudreyHepburn

I'll vote yes because there is absolutely no good reason to vote no and I don't believe that I or anyone else should have the right to dictate anyone's private lives.

Riverireland

Hat would the situation be for bi sexuals? Would they not need to marry both a man and a woman? Thanks.

Daith

Riverireland wrote: »

Hat would the situation be for bi sexuals? Would they not need to marry both a man and a woman? Thanks.

No, bisexuality doesn't mean you're only attracted to two different genders at the same time.

ZiabR

Yes from me.

arayess

efb wrote: »

Equality and polygamy lol

Please enlighten me to your point

what do you know of polygamy ?which I mean in the broad sense

Cabaal

Ok lets look at this and lets look at who's campaigning for a no on this,

This might be somewhat ranty but stick with it, a few weeks ago I saw that the Catholic Church has finally started its campaign against marriage equality,

The Catholic Church all of a sudden seems awful concerned about the children of Ireland as they believe its a "grave injustice" if Ireland makes it legal for gay and lesbian couples to marry.

Their new tactic? Claiming every child has the right to a mother and father in a loving marriage. (this ignores the fact that over 40% of children born in Ireland are born outside of a marriage based on 2013 figures) Do the Catholic Church somehow believe all these children are less loved and cared for?.

Funny thing is, for an organization that now acts so very concerned about children they were more then happy to sell off children in Ireland for over 3 decades to American couples. Not to mention the hundreds of cover ups of sexual abuse which were covered up by the Vatican's own policies on how to handle cover-ups.

I also note that Bishop Kevin Doran is involved in this campaign against marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples. For those that have not heard of Kevin, he used to be on the board of Dublin's Mater Hospital.

In 2005 Kevin and two other individuals on the board of the hospital took the decision to stop trials of the drug for lung cancer patients. The reason?? They objected because female patients who could get pregnant would have to take contraceptives under the treatment. The drug to be tested at the time may have prolonged the lives of lung cancer patients by several months.

Kevin & his "friends" objected to use of the drug because women taking contraceptives was against the catholic church's "ethos". Due to this the cancer treatment was stopped.

So when it comes to cancer, they'd rather a women would die quickly then take the pill. In my book thats pretty messed up thinking. So forgive me if I don't respect Kevin on any level, he is pond scum and nothing more.

The bottom line is gay and lesbian couples deserve marriage equality, if a couple wants to get married then that is their personal choice.

If you think that marriage equality somehow de-value's your own marriage then you must be in an awful insecure marriage to begin with as I know that in the morning if marriage equality passes it doesn't change my marriage to my wife or my love for her one bit.

A marriage is what YOU as a couple make it, not what the catholic church claims it stand for. Thats why many people get married and decide never to have children for whatever the reason, thats their choice. It doesn't mean their marriage is less of a marriage because of this.

If you think that marriage is only to create a loving family for children then you do a disservice to the 40% of children born outside of marriage in Ireland by even suggesting that their parents somehow love or care for them in a lesser way to a couple that is married.

At the end of the day unlike nuns, priests and bishops the vast majority of people that will vote on marriage equality in 2015 have allowed themselves the most normal and natural thing in the world......to have feelings, relationships and sex with another human being.

How priests and bishops feel they are somehow qualified to comment on relationships and sex when they deny themselves these very normal feelings and experiences is beyond me. Would you trust a person to tell you how to drive if they never drove a car?

For those of us that have allowed themselves to create relationships, marry, divorce, have sex or whatever, you know that real life and marriage isn't some super dream land were children will experience nothing negative.

The Catholic church's attempt to somehow classify marriage as something that no gay or lesbian couple should ever experience is utter nonsense and a few very short years from now we'll look back at Bishop Kevin Doran and Bishop Liam MacDaid and call them bigots,

I'll be voting yes in May,

Riverireland

Daith wrote: »

No, bisexuality doesn't mean you're only attracted to two different genders at the same time.

Can you clarify what a bi sexuals marriage would entail then. My understanding is that a bi sexual is attracted to both men and women? Surely that would involve a lot of marriages and divorces or numerous extra marital affairs unless they were allowed to marry one of each? Thanks.

Duggy747

I'll be voting yes because I haven't seen one good solid reason not to throughout this entire debate.

eviltwin

Riverireland wrote: »

Can you clarify what a bi sexuals marriage would entail then. My understanding is that a bi sexual is attracted to both men and women? Surely that would involve a lot of marriages and divorces or numerous extra marital affairs unless they were allowed to marry one of each? Thanks.

A bisexual is attracted to both sexes. There are plenty of married bisexuals out there. Like anyone they are usually faithful to one partner.

floggg

Riverireland wrote: »

Can you clarify what a bi sexuals marriage would entail then. My understanding is that a bi sexual is attracted to both men and women? Surely that would involve a lot of marriages and divorces or numerous extra marital affairs unless they were allowed to marry one of each? Thanks.

Are you for real? I hope not.

Though not exclusive to bisexuals, bisexuals have developed a novel way of dealing with this problem, which scientists are calling "self control." Self control enables them to resist acting on all sexual attractions if they wish and to honour the terms of their committed monogamous relationships.

Self control has also been reported by various heterosexual and homosexual people in committed relationships, and more astonishingly had been credited by non-rapists with enabling them to resist the urge that rape any attractive person that crosses their path.

As obviously the concept of self control seems to be somewhat alien to you, I would suggest staying away from attractive people until you learn to practise it.

Baggy Trousers

77% Yes is healthy but I still think it will be very tight in May.
Boards would be frequented by younger, more progressive and open minded folks. Don't let apathy lose this vote.

humanji

the_monkey wrote: »

Morning Adolf

Herb Powell wrote: »

I'll voting yes because I'm not an absolute cunnt.

MOD: Lads, give that nonsense a rest. There's more than enough vitriol to come as we get closer to the referendum, so we don't need to go overboard just yet.

RobertKK

eviltwin wrote: »

A bisexual is attracted to both sexes. There are plenty of married bisexuals out there. Like anyone they are usually faithful to one partner.

They are made conform to one partner in marriage due to the law, we have never seen bisexuals given a choice to marry two people: one of either sex.

eviltwin

RobertKK wrote: »

They are made conform to one partner in marriage due to the law, we have never seen bisexuals given a choice to marry two people: one of either sex.

Do you think bisexuals want to be married to multiple people?

Shrap

RobertKK wrote: »

They are made conform to one partner in marriage due to the law, we have never seen bisexuals given a choice to marry two people: one of either sex.

That would be bisexual polygamists you're thinking of there. Not bisexual monogamists.

Most people (of any gender or sexual preference) are in monogamous relationships because that is what they are comfortable with. An extremely tiny minority of people are comfortable being in a polygamist relationship.

Riverireland

Riverireland wrote: »

Hat would the situation be for bi sexuals? Would they not need to marry both a man and a woman? Thanks.

No more than heterosexuals who find themselves attracted to more than one opposite sex member at the same time. Whatever your sexuality - there is likely many more than one person in the world who would be attractive to you - however the vast majority of us pick one person and stick to them.

There is no reason to expect this to be any different with bisexuals than it is with heterosexuals.

RobertKK wrote: »

They are made conform to one partner in marriage due to the law, we have never seen bisexuals given a choice to marry two people: one of either sex.

And being in such a relationship myself - I can tell you we have nought sought to be offered such a thing either. We do not feel we are being made to conform to law. We simply are not interested in seeking the option of marriage.

floggg

RobertKK wrote: »

They are made conform to one partner in marriage due to the law, we have never seen bisexuals given a choice to marry two people: one of either sex.

It's amazing how the one time people seen to show concern for bisexuals is when they are trying to derail a debate on something which many bisexuals actually want introduced.

RobertKK

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No more than heterosexuals who find themselves attracted to more than one opposite sex member at the same time. Whatever your sexuality - there is likely many more than one person in the world who would be attractive to you - however the vast majority of us pick one person and stick to them.

There is no reason to expect this to be any different with bisexuals than it is with heterosexuals.

Divorce was brought in as a concept because some can't stick to one.

Shrap

RobertKK wrote: »

Divorce was brought in as a concept because some can't stick to one.

They can stick to one at a time. We're pretty much all serial monogamists, really.

RobertKK

RobertKK wrote: »

Divorce was brought in as a concept because some can't stick to one.

Sounds like something of a historical revisionism to me. Divorce exists for a multiple set of reasons - which have nothing to do with infidelity or multiple partners. Some people simply do not want to be in that relationship any more - and infidelity has little to do with it. Even if infidelity were eradicated by magic tomorrow - there would still be a multitude of motivations for divorce.

Shrap

Deleted User wrote: »

Even if infidelity were eradicated by magic tomorrow - there would still be a multitude of motivations for divorce.

Totally correct. My divorce was nothing to do with infidelity. And the right to divorce did not lead to the demise of my marriage.