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

barneystinson

Ricardo Jealous Mimicry wrote: »

Honestly do you not think it's a bit petty to not want people to have equal rights because of a few a-holes on the internet?

I don't really, see where I said ALMOST.

Then I said seeing this level of shyte makes me feel pretty apathetic about the whole thing.

Anyway, at the moment heterosexual people are being discriminated against because we have civil partnership legislation which only allows civil partnership between people of the same gender... what's that if not discrimination?! :cool:

pauliebdub

kevin12345 wrote: »

Think No voters should take a look at this. Lot's of deindividuation going on whereby they are spouting hurtful and nasty things online and can't see the emotional impact their words are having on people. Maybe seeing real emotion from a person and how much a Yes vote means to some people, it might just open their eyes a bit.

Just out of interest, but who gets to see these videos? Are they only on YouTube? The people who need to see these videos are the undecided voters of middle Ireland who not likely to be a YouTube viewer.

I think personally there is a lot of preaching to the converted as far as the yes campaign is concerned so I fear for it passing.

shruikan2553

If I made all my decisions based on assholes on the internet I would end up just sitting in the corner crying as I wouldnt even be able to make a sandwich as I'll be too busy not making a sandwich as a **** you to anonymous people who have no idea nor care about my life.

haveringchick

endacl wrote: »

OK. One more. *ahem* I'm, and you're.

Oh, single as in unmarried, not unattached. Very happily unmarried to the same lovely lady for eight years now.

G'night all!

....and a grammar Nazi too! Ouch! You really do have problems!

marienbad

barneystinson wrote: »

I don't really, see where I said ALMOST.

Then I said seeing this level of shyte makes me feel pretty apathetic about the whole thing.

Anyway, at the moment heterosexual people are being discriminated against because we have civil partnership legislation which only allows civil partnership between people of the same gender... what's that if not discrimination?! :cool:

lets campaign for that then , and try and improve fathers rights as well. But all progress is incremental and the issue on the table right now is ssm . Lets get that done and dusted and it can only help the cause of further progress in other areas

barneystinson

shruikan2553 wrote: »

If I made all my decisions based on assholes on the internet I would end up just sitting in the corner crying as I wouldnt even be able to make a sandwich as I'll be too busy not making a sandwich as a **** you to anonymous people who have no idea nor care about my life.

Well I was about to have a bowl of corn flakes, but now...













I want a sandwich

K4t

haveringchick wrote: »

....and a grammar Nazi too! Ouch! You really do have problems!

Don't we all. At least he's honest and fighting for what is right. That is to be commended. Not sure what you're doing or trying to achieve.

pl4ichjgy17zwd

barneystinson wrote: »

I don't really, see where I said ALMOST.

Yeah I made a ninja edit addressing that - just that the argument itself is petty.

Anyway, at the moment heterosexual people are being discriminated against because we have civil partnership legislation which only allows civil partnership between people of the same gender... what's that if not discrimination?! :cool:

I'm not sure why heterosexual people would want to enter a contract that infers them less rights than the other one available, but I'm all for it being opened up to anyone. Go ahead and start a campaign and I'll support it. It's not really the issue of this referendum though, is it?

Kermit.de.frog

I don't think I will vote because I don't see it as relevant to me. I certainly don't think a majority will vote for the same reason. I detect a lot of apathy about the referendum.

Bannasidhe

K4t wrote: »

Don't we all. At least he's honest and fighting for what is right. That is to be commended. Not sure what you're doing or trying to achieve.

Best I can work out is ripen cheese... but I am very tired so I might have missed something.

Ave Sodalis

Ricardo Jealous Mimicry wrote: »

I'm not sure why heterosexual people would want to enter a contract that infers them less rights than the other one available, but I'm all for it being opened up to anyone. Go ahead and start a campaign and I'll support it. It's not really the issue of this referendum though, is it?

I do wonder though, if the referendum was turned on its head like that and appealed to the majority, would that make a difference to the success rate.

barneystinson

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I don't think I will vote because I don't see it as relevant to me. I certainly don't think a majority will vote for the same reason. I detect a lot of apathy about the referendum.

Seeing so many people get so *ahem* bent out of shape over it is becoming very tiresome already, and there's still a full month to go. Jaysus wept

haveringchick

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

His not very nice what?

I find it difficult to believe your a real doctor

JacquesDeLad

There is a major downside to this gay marriage business which I haven't heard anyone brave enough to speak of.

More f*cking weddings!!

Bannasidhe

JacquesDeLad wrote: »

There is a major downside to this gay marriage business which I haven't heard anyone brave enough to speak of.

More f*cking weddings!!

That's nothing - my 8 year old granddaughter wants to know when I'm getting married to my OH... thought I'd escaped all that crap when I came out back in the dinosaur age ffs.

Bannasidhe

barneystinson wrote: »

Seeing so many people get so *ahem* bent out of shape over it is becoming very tiresome already, and there's still a full month to go. Jaysus wept

The No posters have only just started going up. You ain't seen nothin yet!

K4t

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I don't think I will vote because I don't see it as relevant to me.

Equal rights is relevant to everyone. You didn't choose to be born (I presume heterosexual?) just as your neighbour didn't choose to be born homosexual. But that's the way it happened. And he's the one being discriminated against. Heck before 1993 he was deemed a criminal. Why not help him out at no expense to yourself except the tick of a box?

Cold War Kid

If a person votes no because they wholeheartedly don't agree with same-sex marriage, I may disagree with them, but at least they strongly believe this.

But if a person has decided to vote no purely because some "yes" campaigners have pissed them off, so they want to get "revenge" on them... come on... actually think about this mindset. Yes it is 12-year-oldish. Yes they are adults and should grow up.

Zubeneschamali

barneystinson wrote: »

Anyway, at the moment heterosexual people are being discriminated against because we have civil partnership legislation which only allows civil partnership between people of the same gender... what's that if not discrimination?! :cool:

I'm heterosexual, and I demand the right to be a second-class citizen too!

barneystinson

Cold War Kid wrote: »

If a person votes no because they wholeheartedly don't agree with same-sex marriage, I may disagree with them, but at least they strongly believe this.

But if a person has decided to vote no purely because some "yes" campaigners have pissed them off, so they want to get "revenge" on them... come on... actually think about this mindset. Yes it is 12-year-oldish. Yes they are adults and should grow up.

Never underestimate people's ability to be vindictive!

If you're referring to my post, again note the word ALMOST spelt out in caps... Really I suppose I was trying to convey the point that yes campaigners playing the smug intellectually superior card are definitely going to have a detrimental effect on the undecided voters, if they can make a fellow definite yes voter annoyed enough to be thinking "I'd love if that smug prick was on the losing side".

barneystinson

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'm heterosexual, and I demand the right to be a second-class citizen too!

Irrelevant. Inequality is inequality.

There's been feckin pages & pages of the exact same point being made vis à vis the irrelevance of whether gay people are being less discriminated against than black Americans in the 60's...!

If SSM is passed will the civil partnership legislation be immediately revoked? Or will it remain, and if so will it be extended to include heterosexual couples...

Zubeneschamali

barneystinson wrote: »

If SSM is passed will the civil partnership legislation be immediately revoked? Or will it remain, and if so will it be extended to include heterosexual couples...

It will remain, since people with civil partnerships will not be automatically upgraded to married, so their relationships will stay at Civil Partnership unless they choose to marry.

As for the possibility of heterosexual inclusion in the second class citizenship previously restricted to homos, I would imagine that the number of people who care could be written on the back of a stamp. A very small stamp.

There are all kinds of nonsense on the books in our legal system, but if no-one is disadvantaged, there is no pressure to change. And the legislature has more than enough work to do changing stuff which does matter.

jimmycrackcorm

I'm going to vote no because based on this poll it'll pass anyway so it's an opportunity to vote where my vote doesn't actually matter

barneystinson

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It will remain, since people with civil partnerships will not be automatically upgraded to married, so their relationships will stay at Civil Partnership unless they choose to marry.

As for the possibility of heterosexual inclusion in the second class citizenship previously restricted to homos, I would imagine that the number of people who care could be written on the back of a stamp. A very small stamp.

There are all kinds of nonsense on the books in our legal system, but if no-one is disadvantaged, there is no pressure to change. And the legislature has more than enough work to do changing stuff which does matter.

So in short, that particular piece of discrimination is acceptable.

Interesting.

NuMarvel

barneystinson wrote: »

So in short, that particular piece of discrimination is acceptable.

Interesting.

To be completely clear, it will remain for those that are already in a civil partnership at the time the new laws come into force, but there will be no new civil partnerships.

Zen65

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I'm going to vote no because based on this poll it'll pass anyway so it's an opportunity to vote where my vote doesn't actually matter

Is that a humorous reference to the conundrum posed by the song from which your name derives? If you REALLY want your vote to not matter could simply go to the polling station, complete the form and walk out with it. When you have it at home you can frame it and hang it on the wall of your bedroom.

aloyisious

barneystinson wrote: »

I

Anyway, at the moment heterosexual people are being discriminated against because we have civil partnership legislation which only allows civil partnership between people of the same gender... what's that if not discrimination?! :cool:

Yes, and as plain an example as possible on how it is possible to discriminate against a minority whilst making it seem you are advancing their rights, equal but separate in law. I like your recognition of it.

seamus

barneystinson wrote: »

So in short, that particular piece of discrimination is acceptable.

Well no it's not, but it also doesn't require a referendum to change it.

If they did decide to continue to provide new civil partnerships, opening it up to hetero couples could be done at the stroke of a pen.

But they won't.

Anita Blow

This thread has descended into complete tripe. All it is now is yes voters being continuously baited into silly arguments by (what I hope are) trolls. In the past few pages we have had:
1) Voting no because it's part of a communist agenda
2) Voting a certain way because the other side was mean to me
3) Voting no because of some dreamed up argument that birth certs will change.

barneystinson wrote: »

So in short, that particular piece of discrimination is acceptable.

Interesting.

The reason Civil Partnership is not offered to heterosexual couples currently is because it is unconstitutional. Attorney General advised the government that the constitution doesn't permit them to extend marriage-like benefits to non-married couples who can already avail of marriage. I'd imagine the same would apply to same-sex couples should SSM be approved, and no new civil partnerships granted.

Alan Shatter at the time of the CP Bill:

[T]he legal advice available to the Government is that making a relationship with many of the rights and obligations of marriage available to opposite sex couples, who have the option of marriage, would violate the constitutional protection for the institution of marriage.

http://www.thejournal.ie/civil-partnership-opposite-sex-couples-827630-Mar2013/

barneystinson

aloyisious wrote: »

Yes, and as plain an example as possible on how it is possible to discriminate against a minority whilst making it seem you are advancing their rights, equal but separate in law. I like your recognition of it.

I don't get what you mean by "seem", do you think Civil Partnership didn't advance the rights of gay couples? I'd have thought it clearly did, just not far enough.

What I was recognising was the apparent hypocrisy of extending it to same sex couples and not to heterosexual couples, which by definition discriminates - but that's now been explained by a subsequent poster, that it would infringe the constitutional protection of the institution of marriage if an alternative to marriage was made available to couples who already have the right to marry.

Just to be clear I fully support SSM, and will be voting yes, so you needn't get prickly at me on the basis of assuming I'm on the "other side".