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

K4t

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I'd really like to know why those on the no side who do not believe that civil marriage is real marriage are bothering to vote at all! LGBT couples won't really be getting married anyway in your opinion. If your churches refuse to preform ceremonies for LGBT couples, then they are not really married right? So what is your issue? Why bother to vote or even enter into the debate?

You don't consider that I am legallymarried either due to our civil wedding and I couldn't care less. Why can't LGBT people just join our category of what you consider to be pretend marriages? Win win. They aren't 'really' getting married so you don't need to worry about it, oppose it or even vote!

Because they don't want to be directly associated with them, which the change in the wording of the constitution will do. And because they, like a lot of good Christians, wish to exert control over others and impose their religious beliefs on those who could not give a flying f**k about them.

Any true Christian would abstain from this vote or vote YES.

One eyed Jack

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This referendum is simply Homophobia: Yes or No?

No it's not. The question people are being asked is do they agree with the following wording being inserted into our Constitution -


'Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex'.


Yes/No.

Nobody needs to relate to the No side, any more than Catholics had to "relate" to the Penal Laws.

I never said that. I said that we as people who support marriage equality need to start relating to people outside our own circles in order to create understanding and solidify support among people. The support is there, but most people don't particularly care one way or the other as they don't see the referendum and what it means as particularly important or relevant to them. Hell even my own wife's brother who is gay and not living in Ireland has said he isn't coming home to vote in the referendum - because he feels he personally isn't going to be affected by the outcome one way or another.

If we lose, wait for some old bigots to die and run it again.

I'd rather we win first time round tbh, but it's quite telling that you automatically assume those who will vote against the referendum are only the elderly. I've met plenty of young people who are utterly bigoted, and it's pointless calling them out on their bigotry and irrational hatred because they only love it, they love to see people hurt and angry and frustrated. They're going to instill that same hatred of other people in their own children when they have them and no matter how many times you propose a referendum, they're still going to be there. They're still going to exist in society.

The fact that we have to go to a vote to ask for equality is already embarrassment enough:

Completely agree with you there.

no fecking way should any Yes voter think they have to be polite to homophobes voting no.

You don't have to kiss any no voters arses, nobody is suggesting that, but you don't have to abuse them either, as that's simply a waste of your time. You do however, if you want this referendum to pass, listen to other people's concerns, address their concerns in a polite manner, and inform them about what they're being asked to vote on, because there's far more people that want to support marriage equality that aren't interested in turning other people's lives into a point scoring political football among the various lobby groups.

folamh

K4t wrote: »

Because they don't want to be directly associated with them, which the change in the wording of the constitution will do. And because they, like a lot of good Christians, wish to exert control over others and impose their religious beliefs on those who could not give a flying f**k about them.

Any true Christian would abstain from this vote or vote YES.

Careful now, criticizing religion in any context opens you up to a tirade of abuse by a bunch of of self-righteous teenagers positively salivating at any chance to accuse you of being a fedora Redditor.

InTheTrees

As an Irish citizen living abroad with no vote, I'm fascinated to watch this debate unfold.

How times have have changed. Twenty years ago this vote would have been absolutely unthinkable.

It has been so encouraging to watch Ireland gradually shed the shackles of religion.

S.O

folamh wrote: »

A writer for the Journal reckons the referendum will fail because only No campaigners are appealing to undecided/wavering voters, whereas Yes campaigners are hostile to the unddecided: http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/same-sex-marriage-vote-no-2053769-Apr2015/

I sympathise with the Yes campaigners, in that it's difficult not to be hostile to someone who is "undecided" about denying you equal rights (I think it was Eddie Hobbs who was arguing that we shouldn't even be having a referendum at all?). But at the same time, for practical purposes, maybe it's necessarily for Yes campaigners to engage those who have reservations about their cause in a civil and positive manner.

Tend to agree about yes campaigners being hostile, a few twitter conversations I observed between yes campaigners and others, the tone of some yes posts gives off the vibe of a you re either with us or against us type attitude , I don,t know if they realeaze if that,s the vibe they re giving or not, but it won,t do them much favours, + to the fact the age demographics of 18 to 2o yr old yes campaigners without much experience in how to campaign and try win people over.

One eyed Jack

InTheTrees wrote: »

As an Irish citizen living abroad with no vote, I'm fascinated to watch this debate unfold.

How times have have changed. Twenty years ago this vote would have been absolutely unthinkable.

It has been so encouraging to watch Ireland gradually shed the shackles of religion.

1. Ireland hasn't "shed" any 'shackles of religion'. Religion is still deeply embedded in Irish society and underlies much of our Constitution.

2. With Ireland becoming more multicultural and more religions being introduced into Irish society as a result, the irony is that the only way a majority religion's influence in society will be diluted is by accommodating for other religions in society. This is the only going to help Ireland move toward a secular society.

3. This referendum itself is a civil matter which has no bearing one way or the other on religion or it's influence in Irish society.

4. Don't be so complacent. Look at the poll above:

On a site with 600,000 members, only 2,000 voted in the poll, and a quarter of those are either undecided, abstaining, or just voting no.

I wouldn't take any sort of inspired confidence from those figures tbh.

galljga1

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I'd really like to know why those on the no side who do not believe that civil marriage is real marriage are bothering to vote at all! LGBT couples won't really be getting married anyway in your opinion. If your churches refuse to preform ceremonies for LGBT couples, then they are not really married right? So what is your issue? Why bother to vote or even enter into the debate?

You don't consider that I am legallymarried either due to our civil wedding and I couldn't care less. Why can't LGBT people just join our category of what you consider to be pretend marriages? Win win. They aren't 'really' getting married so you don't need to worry about it, oppose it or even vote!

Kiwi, your marriage is perfectly valid. Religious marriages however are not valid unless the civil elements are carried out. Without these elements, religious marriages are invalid.

Kiwi in IE

galljga1 wrote: »

Kiwi, your marriage is perfectly valid. Religious marriages however are not valid unless the civil elements are carried out. Without these elements, religious marriages are invalid.

Haha I know my marriage is valid and the law knows my marriage is valid. My point was that quite a few no voters of the more religious persuasion have commented in debates on the issue that they do not believe that civil marriages are 'real' marriages due to the lack of the churchy bit. The most recent suspect was in this thread yesterday and is now banned. It interests me that they hold these views and then kick up at the idea of LGBT couples being offered what they do not even consider to be a 'real' marriage. If they don't believe it's a real marriage, why should they have a problem with it?

These types say that they don't believe that civil marriages are 'real' marriages at the same time as opposing civil marriages for LGTB couples, which proves that they clearly do believe civil marriages are real or why bother with the opposition. I was being a tad facetious!

folamh

One eyed Jack wrote: »

1. Ireland hasn't "shed" any 'shackles of religion'. Religion is still deeply embedded in Irish society and underlies much of our Constitution.

2. With Ireland becoming more multicultural and more religions being introduced into Irish society as a result, the irony is that the only way a majority religion's influence in society will be diluted is by accommodating for other religions in society. This is the only going to help Ireland move toward a secular society.

3. This referendum itself is a civil matter which has no bearing one way or the other on religion or it's influence in Irish society.

4. Don't be so complacent. Look at the poll above:

On a site with 600,000 members, only 2,000 voted in the poll, and a quarter of those are either undecided, abstaining, or just voting no.

I wouldn't take any sort of inspired confidence from those figures tbh.

Would you disagree that the current state of affairs is an improvement compared to twenty years ago?

One eyed Jack

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Haha I know my marriage is valid and the law knows my marriage is valid. My point was that quite a few no voters of the more religious persuasion have commented in debates on the issue that they do not believe that civil marriages are 'real' marriages due to the lack of the churchy bit. The most recent suspect was in this thread yesterday and is now banned. It interests me that they hold these views and then kick up at the idea of LGBT couples being offered what they do not even consider to be a 'real' marriage. If they don't believe it's a real marriage, why should they have a problem with it?

They're simply throwing out any silliness to make their distaste for people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender sound rational. The whole "real marriage" nonsense is the same nonsense as their "marriage has no place in a modern society" bollocks talk sound rational.

Cleary one is wasting their time even going there. Their agenda is as obvious as it is unrealistic.

eviltwin

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Haha I know my marriage is valid and the law knows my marriage is valid. My point was that quite a few no voters of the more religious persuasion have commented in debates on the issue that they do not believe that civil marriages are 'real' marriages due to the lack of the churchy bit. The most recent suspect was in this thread yesterday and is now banned. It interests me that they hold these views and then kick up at the idea of LGBT couples being offered what they do not even consider to be a 'real' marriage. If they don't believe it's a real marriage, why should they have a problem with it?

These types say that they don't believe that civil marriages are 'real' marriages at the same time as opposing civil marriages for LGTB couples, which proves that they clearly do believe civil marriages are real or why bother with the opposition. I was being a tad facetious!

The fact some people would put religious laws about the laws of the land says it all. I have people like that in my life too - You got married in one of those registry office places? Oh well its not a real marriage then - and I just ignore them. And have lots of sex, that annoys the hell out of them

One eyed Jack

folamh wrote: »

Would you disagree that the current state of affairs is an improvement compared to twenty years ago?

I'd say it's both a help, and a hindrance, especially when it comes to issues like this where people don't particularly care one way or another about people are LGBT. People who are LGBT are more accepted in society, and that's led to people's apathy about issues that affect people who are LGBT.

Back in '93, when homosexuality was decriminalised, it was a massive deal. Nowadays, people wouldn't care all that much, and that's why people aren't all that interested now. The weird thing is, some people eligible to vote in this referendum can't even relate to a time when homosexual behaviour was illegal! Their faces are almost priceless when I tell them

The other, more worrying aspect for me at least, is that when these people think of people who are LGBT, they're not thinking of parents and ordinary people who are LGBT, they're thinking of the overtly camp and eccentric types of people who aren't always LGBT either! They've grown up with role models like Perez bloody Hilton and Lady Gaga and so on. They actually find it hard to grasp the concept of people who are LGBT being just normal, average people that don't flaunt their sexuality.

That's a perception that's hard to get through to them. It's not religious beliefs are the real stumbling block with ordinary people at all, it's their preconceived notions about people who are LGBT.

Kiwi in IE

eviltwin wrote: »

The fact some people would put religious laws about the laws of the land says it all. I have people like that in my life too - You got married in one of those registry office places? Oh well its not a real marriage then - and I just ignore them. And have lots of sex, that annoys the hell out of them

Hahaha my OH's family have a priest friend who soon after we got married told us to come and see him when we 'really' want to marry. The irony of these types vehemently opposing civil marriages for LGTB couples is wonderful, seeing as they supposedly don't 'recognise' civil marriages anyway.

Benny_Cake

eviltwin wrote: »

The fact some people would put religious laws about the laws of the land says it all. I have people like that in my life too - You got married in one of those registry office places? Oh well its not a real marriage then - and I just ignore them. And have lots of sex, that annoys the hell out of them

You're a better person than I'd be in that case.

For various reasons, we got married in a registry office. Wonderful day, and not one of my Catholic relatives implied that it was anything less than a real wedding, although I'm sure that deep down they would have preferred a church
wedding.

Height of ignorance to suggest that anyone's marriage isn't real.

fermanagh_man

This will be my first time voting on anything down South since registering and I will be voting yes

folamh

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The other, more worrying aspect for me at least, is that when these people think of people who are LGBT, they're not thinking of parents and ordinary people who are LGBT, they're thinking of the overtly camp and eccentric types of people who aren't always LGBT either! They've grown up with role models like Perez bloody Hilton and Lady Gaga and so on. They actually find it hard to grasp the concept of people who are LGBT being just normal, average people that don't flaunt their sexuality.

All sorts of people are LGBT, of course, just as all sorts of people are heterosexual. But I think Kim Harris raises a point here that's worth keeping in mind:

"Very nice to see you [Stephen Fry] ranking high on The Independent’s Pink List. Quite right too. They made one vast and vastly suggestive mistake, though. They instituted a Rogues Gallery and frogmarched Louie Spence into it. Do you know who I mean? He’s a big old lisping, nelly screamer at Pineapple Dance Studios (Sky something) whom Joe Sixpack has clasped to his bosom because he’s sweet and funny and fabulous. Brightens the day, cheers the hour. There’s another reason the public loves him, but we’ll get to that in a mo. The compilers of the List, however, hate him because – well, can’t you guess? What’s the least imaginative, least penetrating thing you could possibly say about an unreconstructed flamer? That’s right – he “perpetuates the stereotype.” Christ on a marmalade cross but that pisses me right off.

Occupying the top spot was the rugby player, Gareth Thomas, who came out (finally) last year. Well done for that, boyo, I suppose. Can’t have been easy. It usually isn’t for most people, even on the Liberal Riviera where we’re all supposed to be basking today. Now, you can see where I’m going with this, can’t you? Gareth is a “real man”. He was married to a real woman. Louie is not and was not. If only we could all disport ourselves like Gareth the straights won’t hate us whereas if we all carry on like Louie….ach, how quickly these cowardly, self-oppressed, social-climbing McCarthyites forget where they come from. If I remember rightly, the whole Gay Lib thing wasn’t engineered by “real” men at all. It wasn’t sponsored by marines or scaffolders or rugby players. It was ignited by…ah, yes: drag queens."

http://www.stephenfry.com/2010/08/09/think-pink/

One eyed Jack

folamh wrote: »

All sorts of people are LGBT, of course, just as all sorts of people are heterosexual. But I think Kim Harris raises a point here that's worth keeping in mind:

"Very nice to see you [Stephen Fry] ranking high on The Independent’s Pink List. Quite right too. They made one vast and vastly suggestive mistake, though. They instituted a Rogues Gallery and frogmarched Louie Spence into it. Do you know who I mean? He’s a big old lisping, nelly screamer at Pineapple Dance Studios (Sky something) whom Joe Sixpack has clasped to his bosom because he’s sweet and funny and fabulous. Brightens the day, cheers the hour. There’s another reason the public loves him, but we’ll get to that in a mo. The compilers of the List, however, hate him because – well, can’t you guess? What’s the least imaginative, least penetrating thing you could possibly say about an unreconstructed flamer? That’s right – he “perpetuates the stereotype.” Christ on a marmalade cross but that pisses me right off.

Occupying the top spot was the rugby player, Gareth Thomas, who came out (finally) last year. Well done for that, boyo, I suppose. Can’t have been easy. It usually isn’t for most people, even on the Liberal Riviera where we’re all supposed to be basking today. Now, you can see where I’m going with this, can’t you? Gareth is a “real man”. He was married to a real woman. Louie is not and was not. If only we could all disport ourselves like Gareth the straights won’t hate us whereas if we all carry on like Louie….ach, how quickly these cowardly, self-oppressed, social-climbing McCarthyites forget where they come from. If I remember rightly, the whole Gay Lib thing wasn’t engineered by “real” men at all. It wasn’t sponsored by marines or scaffolders or rugby players. It was ignited by…ah, yes: drag queens."

http://www.stephenfry.com/2010/08/09/think-pink/

I'm genuinely not sure what I'm supposed to be picking up on there, apart from his efforts to exclude himself from other people on the basis of his sexual orientation when he refers to "the straights that hate", and this paragraph on from it is even more telling of his persecution complex -

So, instead of getting a hate on at poor Louie, instead of frantically trying to patrol their butch and instead of gussying up their drool for Gareth into blather about bravery, these creeps should remember the Rainbow. They should remember Diversity. They should remember Tolerance. They should remember that in evincing a distaste for effeminacy they’re simply making an exhibition of their own misogyny. And they should remember that (and here’s that other reason the public likes him) Louie isn’t trying to pass. There’s nothing a straight boy hates more than an obvious fag trying to hide it. I know lists like these are mere churnalism but they’re telling nonetheless.

Simply sounds like a very bitter individual with some preconceived ideas of his own tbh, reminds me somewhat of when I used take part in organising the local PRIDE Parade and LGBT events or even when I go into an "LGBT friendly" bar, there's always the one or two individuals who try to make you feel like you have no right to be there.

It reads to me like the author of that letter has a very poor understanding of what diversity and tolerance actually mean, but that doesn't surprise me tbh. It's a point I keep making again and again -

If you (not you personally, but anyone) want people to respect you, understand you, show you tolerance and understanding, then the onus is upon you to practice what you preach.

folamh

What Harris is saying is that gay people shouldn't feel pressured to confirm to "straight stereotypes" in order to be accepted and respected, especially since it was the "camps" who started the gay rights revolution. You might remember what Panti said in his speech about checking oneself all the time, so as not to "give the gay away". I agree with Harris and Panti that gays should be able to relax and just be themselves - whether that involves conforming to "straight stereotypes" or "gay stereotypes" or indeed neither - however, his characterization of straight-acting gays as "an obvious fag trying to hide it" is problematic because it presupposes a conception of what a gay person is necessarily like, rather than that some gays who are straight-acting simply are that way naturally and aren't hiding anything.

endacl

Feck it. I don't have to confirm to straight stereotypes, and I'm straight. No interest in football. Don't like 'going on the piss'. Never whistled at a woman. Couldn't tell one car from another.

I do confirm to some gay stereotypes. I dress reasonably well. I'm tidy. I'm interested in arts and culture. I am in a long term relationship with a woman?

Now I don't know which way to vote.

hotmail.com

Confirm or conform?

Gunslinger92

Did anyone just see the man on the rte news claiming that there is already marriage equality because gay people can marry straight people? Dear oh dear..

hotmail.com

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

Did anyone just see the man on the rte news claiming that there is already marriage equality because gay people can marry straight people? Dear oh dear..

He also "a gay can marry" in an extremely dismissive way.

Ah well, important the Yes voters come out in force on the day.

folamh

endacl wrote: »

Feck it. I don't have to confirm to straight stereotypes, and I'm straight. No interest in football. Don't like 'going on the piss'. Never whistled at a woman. Couldn't tell one car from another.

I do confirm to some gay stereotypes. I dress reasonably well. I'm tidy. I'm interested in arts and culture. I am in a long term relationship with a woman?

Now I don't know which way to vote.

I don't think there's anything gay nor straight about the traits you mention, but I just use terms like "gay stereotypes" for convenience reasons in order to explain points. In other people's eyes, these traits and behaviours are stereotyped, even though they should not be.

folamh

hotmail.com wrote: »

Confirm or conform?

Oh dear, it appears I typed confirm instead of conform. How do you propose I rectify this situation? :rolleyes:

endacl

folamh wrote: »

Oh dear, it appears I typed confirm instead of conform. How do you propose I rectify this situation? :rolleyes:

Did you? I was sure that was me....

Gunslinger92

hotmail.com wrote: »

He also "a gay can marry" in an extremely dismissive way.

Ah well, important the Yes voters come out in force on the day.

Yeah I noticed that too

Absolutely. I was back up in DCU during the week and I know they, and UCC, have been doing great work getting students registered to vote, and there's been loads of interest shown on both campuses Young people really need to make the effort to vote if it's to pass, I think.

eviltwin

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

Did anyone just see the man on the rte news claiming that there is already marriage equality because gay people can marry straight people? Dear oh dear..

Who was he?

Gunslinger92

eviltwin wrote: »

Who was he?

Nobody well known as far as I know. He's involved in some form of No campaign.

One eyed Jack

folamh wrote: »

What Harris is saying is that gay people shouldn't feel pressured to confirm to "straight stereotypes" in order to be accepted and respected, especially since it was the "camps" who started the gay rights revolution. You might remember what Panti said in his speech about checking oneself all the time, so as not to "give the gay away". I agree with Harris and Panti that gays should be able to relax and just be themselves - whether that involves conforming to "straight stereotypes" or "gay stereotypes" or indeed neither - however, his characterization of straight-acting gays as "an obvious fag trying to hide it" is problematic because it presupposes a conception of what a gay person is necessarily like, rather than that some gays who are straight-acting simply are that way naturally and aren't hiding anything.

That's my point exactly - he's using separatist and divisive terms and perpetuating stereotypes himself. I mean, some people define themselves by their sexual identity whether they be heterosexual or homosexual, and some people don't want to be accepted by mainstream society because they see it as "conformist".

That's fine, be as non-conformist as they like, but then they can hardly complain that they feel society will never accept them when they choose to see themselves as being above or set themselves apart from that society. They can hardly expect the support of society when they themselves have chosen to reject society's expectations.

Rather than Panti's and Harris' take on who was actually responsible for the evolution of rights for people who are LGBT, I think it had a lot more to do with Kenny Everett's take on the issue - it's not about confirming to a "stereotype" based on your sexual identity, but more important just to be yourself -

hotmail.com

The No side seem to want to claim victimhood and that they are being bullied by the Yes side..Apart from the fact that this is incorrect and it's a matter of them actually just losing the argument..Are they seriously unaware that the arguments they use can be intrinsically hurtful and demeaning to many gay and lesbian people that are listening to it.

Even as a hardened political/gay hack like myself, sometimes the things they say do hurt - things like gays can't be parents, gays shouldn't be allowed to marry etc.. I consider these views as bully like.