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

ohnonotgmail

barneystinson wrote: »

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".

Civil partnership was not extended to heterosexual couples because they did not require. they were able to get married instead which offers them more rights. To paint civil partnership as somehow discriminatory towards heterosexuals is ridiculous.

Zubeneschamali

barneystinson wrote: »

What I was recognising was the apparent hypocrisy of extending it to same sex couples and not to heterosexual couples, which by definition discriminates

So you are saying that it is discriminatory not to allow heterosexual couples access to the same discrimination as same sex couples?

Zen65

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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

The YES campaign have yet to start on their most frightening campaign. Here's a sneak peak:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-YCdcnf_P8

Bannasidhe

Zen65 wrote: »

The YES campaign have yet to start on their most frightening campaign. Here's a sneak peak:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-YCdcnf_P8

Waiting for the dyke version.
Pick-up trucks and power tools

(OH bought a chainsaw today. Such a romantic gesture)

pl4ichjgy17zwd

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Waiting for the dyke version.
Pick-up trucks and power tools

(OH bought a chainsaw today. Such a romantic gesture)

Bannasidhe

Ricardo Jealous Mimicry wrote: »

no pick up trucks or power tools

Ah - yes... it's 'gay women'... still waiting for the dyke one so...

Cody montana

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.

Do you have any gay friends?
What about your children or their friends and family?

It is relevant to everyone.

galljga1

Ricardo Jealous Mimicry wrote: »

Sponsored by the Iona institute.

Shrap

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Waiting for the dyke version.
Pick-up trucks and power tools

(OH bought a chainsaw today. Such a romantic gesture)

Nice! Sold mine recently - regretting it already. Am not even a dyke. Perhaps women are women, no matter who they love or what power tools they use.....hmm. Controversial :eek:

G_R

haveringchick wrote: »

Single and confused?
You'll forgive me if I say im not really surprised? Your not very nice.

endacl wrote: »

Oi! Less of the 'little'. 'Abhorrent', I'll take on the chin. But I'm 6'4" and 17 stone of abhorrent.

You type like your namesake. Out of interest, do you also wear a nappy?

StewartGriffin wrote: »

My God, you are an abhorrent little man. But you are clever, I'll give you that, - you've been a member here for 5 years, so you must have joined when you were 8.

Knock it off lads, FFS. No one is going to want to join a discussion on a thread full of petty bickering.

It's childish.

floggg

S.O wrote: »

I know one doesn,t have to marry to start a family, IM nit arguing that.

On the issue of same sex adoption, read in the Irish times a legal challenge is being prepared in the case of a no vote.



http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/mothers-and-fathers-matter-launches-no-referendum-campaign-1.2179575

Coming back the to people arguing its a civil rights issue, take this case from Germany.



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/27/germany.kateconnolly

For people that see same sex marriage as a civil rights issue, is this case I refer also a civil rights issue ?

What's so dumb about your position is that you actually point to one of the major differences between the two types of relationship in your posts - potential harm to others (children of the relationship).

Also, a guy recently prepardrd a legal challenge to try and keep Kim and Kanye out of Florida. Any idiot like him can take one - doesn't mean there's any grounds to it.

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

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

I guess it depends on your definition of "relevant". It is - after all - the constitution of your country being altered. YOUR constitution. That means it is relevant to you by THAT measurement - if not by the measurement of you actually personally wanting to marry your best mate.

Relevance is - relative

Zen65

floggg wrote: »

Also, a guy recently prepardrd a legal challenge to try and keep Kim and Kanye out of Florida. Any idiot like him can take one - doesn't mean there's any grounds to it.

In fairness Kim and Kanye have become quite irritating.

floggg

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:

We agree. That's why I would prefer to have equal access to marriage and then there would be no need for anybody to enter into a CP.

skittles8710

Having many friends whose mothers passed away at a young age and who were very well raised by loving fathers for most of their lives the No campaign is irking me off rightly.!

OldNotWIse

More propaganda left in by our God bothering neighbour. I'll say one thing, she's certainly very arrogant.

frostyjacks

I think I'll vote no. I don't like the whole equality/equal rights argument being put forward by the yes camp, with the insinuation that you're a bigot if you vote no. How can man + man = man + woman? It's just nonsense to say that a same sex marriage would be equal to a normal marriage.

Sofiztikated

frostyjacks wrote: »

I think I'll vote no. I don't like the whole equality/equal rights argument being put forward by the yes camp, with the insinuation that you're a bigot if you vote no. How can man + man = man + woman? It's just nonsense to say that a same sex marriage would be equal to a normal marriage.

I'm not one for campaigning of any kind, but whats the problem with man + man getting married? Or woman and woman?

Mark Tapley

frostyjacks wrote: »

I think I'll vote no. I don't like the whole equality/equal rights argument being put forward by the yes camp, with the insinuation that you're a bigot if you vote no. How can man + man = man + woman? It's just nonsense to say that a same sex marriage would be equal to a normal marriage.

If it quacks like a duck.

frostyjacks

frostyjacks wrote: »

I think I'll vote no. I don't like the whole equality/equal rights argument being put forward by the yes camp, with the insinuation that you're a bigot if you vote no. How can man + man = man + woman? It's just nonsense to say that a same sex marriage would be equal to a normal marriage.

Then if you do not like to think of it in those terms - try a different approach. Think of the institution of marriage as being an institution that should reflect the actual requirements of the society it operates in.

If the institution goes out of step with the requirements of the people in a society - should it not be updated to reflect those requirements?

My "yes" vote is not couched in equality - or in pretending men and women are the same. It is based on recognising that the demands the people in our society have on marriage have changed and marriage should stay in step with that.

Even your use of "equal" is a nonsense in some ways. Even now one marriage is not "equal" to the next. Every marriage even today is different from the next. No one is pretending they are all equal. But there is no difference of any significance I can see - and none offered in your post - between an M/F marriage and an M/M or F/F one. "Equal" is but one phrase you could use. "Not significantly different" is another. And the light from each casts a different hue on the conversation.

frostyjacks

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I'm not one for campaigning of any kind, but whats the problem with man + man getting married? Or woman and woman?

It's the idea that something is different, but is being asked to be treated the same. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it's different.

Trudiha

frostyjacks wrote: »

I think I'll vote no. I don't like the whole equality/equal rights argument being put forward by the yes camp, with the insinuation that you're a bigot if you vote no. How can man + man = man + woman? It's just nonsense to say that a same sex marriage would be equal to a normal marriage.

To claim that the marriage of two men can't be equal to the marriage if a man and a woman is the very definition of bigotry. But fair play to you, Frostyjacks, it genuinly makes a lovely change to see someone say that out straight rather than pretending that it's about the baby Jeasus, the little children or any of the other nonsense the no side are fibbing that the referendum is about.

You might be a bigot but at least you're an honest bigot.

frostyjacks

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's the idea that something is different, but is being asked to be treated the same. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it's different.

But to repeat - every marriage is different - but the institute of marriage is essentially the same. Regardless of whether the people in it are MF FF or MM.

Forget same sex marriage entirely. The marriage of the heterosexual couple at one end of your street is likely different in many ways to the one at the other end. But the rights and effects of marriage on them is the same.

So the question to ask yourself is exactly what RELEVANT differences do you see that are not just mere differences between any marriage and any other marriage? It seems odd to harp on about "differences" without being able to say what they actually are.

Sofiztikated

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's the idea that something is different, but is being asked to be treated the same. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it's different.

Every marriage is different. Every family is different.

So if it's not wrong, then why treat it as if it's wrong?

Zen65

frostyjacks wrote: »

How can man + man = man + woman

The referendum is not seeking to make this statement.

It proposes only that a contract of marriage can be entered by two people regardless of their gender.

I have children. Some of them are sons, some are daughters. They are different, but I love them equally and the law treats them the same and gives them equal rights as my children.

Nobody has ever suggested that this means son = daughter.

NuMarvel

OldNotWIse wrote: »

More propaganda left in by our God bothering neighbour. I'll say one thing, she's certainly very arrogant.

Ask for more, then drop it in or post to Daintree's: http://shredofdecency.ie/.

frostyjacks wrote: »

I think I'll vote no. I don't like the whole equality/equal rights argument being put forward by the yes camp, with the insinuation that you're a bigot if you vote no. How can man + man = man + woman? It's just nonsense to say that a same sex marriage would be equal to a normal marriage.

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's the idea that something is different, but is being asked to be treated the same. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it's different.

Taking your two comments together, the whole concept of equality is based on the idea that people treated in the same way, even if they're not the same. We'd all say that a man is different to a woman, yet under the law, man = woman.

And extending that mathematical concept, if man = woman, then we can safely say that man + man = woman + man = woman + woman. They may not be the same, but they would be equal.

OldNotWIse

frostyjacks wrote: »

I think I'll vote no. I don't like the whole equality/equal rights argument being put forward by the yes camp, with the insinuation that you're a bigot if you vote no. How can man + man = man + woman? It's just nonsense to say that a same sex marriage would be equal to a normal marriage.

Er...it doesn't.

OldNotWIse

NuMarvel wrote: »

Ask for more, then drop it in or post to Daintree's: http://shredofdecency.ie/.

I'd prefer to drop it back to her, lest she think she has somehow "saved" me.

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's the idea that something is different, but is being asked to be treated the same. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it's different.

My marriage is different to every one else's. How on earth can every married couple be the same? I had a civil ceremony, that was different to my friends who married in churches, is it ok to treat our marriages the same even though they were conducted in different ways? What about people who have married their same sex partner in other countries, do we just cover our eyes and pretend they aren't married if they move here?

shruikan2553

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's the idea that something is different, but is being asked to be treated the same. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying it's different.

Things can be different and treated as equal by law.