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

Zen65

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Things can be different and treated as equal by law.

If I may be pedantic, the law does not treat them as equal, but as having equal entitlement. In the case of the constitutional change, all that is being proposed is that marriages should have equal protection afforded by the state regardless of the gender of those being married.

FunLover18

Ozymandius2011 wrote:

- The issue of children is separate because the new Family and Relationships Bill will legalise adoption by gay couples.

Why is it that the 'No' campaign posters(the first of which I was sad to see today) are allowed use this issue when it's irrelevant? For the record I'm voting yes and fully agree that the issue of adoption is not relevant to the referendum, and although we can't stop people posting or commenting otherwise on here , but surely there are some sort of regulations that would ensure referendum posters actually relate the issue. Are official campaign posters allowed to mislead in such a way?

Lollipops23

I can’t vote, as I’m currently living abroad. But I’d be voting Yes (with big feckin bells on) if I was home. I have yet to see a No argument that makes an ounce of sense.

Back in the mid-90s the exact same arguments were used by those opposed to divorce. My parents separated in the early 90s, and married their partners after the divorce came through. I hate to think where my wonderful, crazy blended family would be if people had listened that time around. It’s immensely hurtful to see posters implying that only families with a mother and father count. There are so many single parents out there (male and female), as well as people raised by their grandparents/foster families etc. We all count. I was lucky enough to be raised by 4 amazing parents, and haven’t yet turned into an axe murderer.

Madame_Diem

I'm voting No. When did gay become so boring. This whole marriage 'equality' thing has bourgeois middle class written all over it. Christ if I wanted that lifestyle I would have married a woman years ago. Instead now the next time I hook up with someone I have to worry about them popping out a ring. Given that I had a conversations with my mother years ago to why I couldn't marry its will be fun going over that old chestnut with her again. Who knows maybe they'll come up with a gay conversion therapy that actually works and I be able to avoid this suburban gay dystopyan nightmare.

ohnonotgmail

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I can’t vote, as I’m currently living abroad. But I’d be voting Yes (with big feckin bells on) if I was home. I have yet to see a No argument that makes an ounce of sense.

Back in the mid-90s the exact same arguments were used by those opposed to divorce. My parents separated in the early 90s, and married their partners after the divorce came through. I hate to think where my wonderful, crazy blended family would be if people had listened that time around. It’s immensely hurtful to see posters implying that only families with a mother and father count. There are so many single parents out there (male and female), as well as people raised by their grandparents/foster families etc. We all count. I was lucky enough to be raised by 4 amazing parents, and haven’t yet turned into an axe murderer.

Yet? *backs away slowly*

ohnonotgmail

Madame_Diem wrote: »

I'm voting No. When did gay become so boring. This whole marriage 'equality' thing has bourgeois middle class written all over it. Christ if I wanted that lifestyle I would have married a woman years ago. Instead now the next time I hook up with someone I have to worry about them popping out a ring. Given that I had a conversations with my mother years ago to why I couldn't marry its will be fun going over that old chestnut with her again. Who knows maybe they'll come up with a gay conversion therapy that actually works and I be able to avoid this suburban gay dystopyan nightmare.

so because you dont want to get married you want to prevent other people who do want to get married from doing so? I just want to be clear on what you are saying before i comment further.

PopePalpatine

Madame_Diem wrote: »

I'm voting No. When did gay become so boring. This whole marriage 'equality' thing has bourgeois middle class written all over it. Christ if I wanted that lifestyle I would have married a woman years ago. Instead now the next time I hook up with someone I have to worry about them popping out a ring. Given that I had a conversations with my mother years ago to why I couldn't marry its will be fun going over that old chestnut with her again. Who knows maybe they'll come up with a gay conversion therapy that actually works and I be able to avoid this suburban gay dystopyan nightmare.

Paddy Manning, is that you?

Madame_Diem

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so because you dont want to get married you want to prevent other people who do want to get married from doing so? I just want to be clear on what you are saying before i comment further.

I resent the move of being gay to one of rebellion to what it is becoming one of boredom. Thats fine for some people but not me.

lazygal

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Paddy Manning, is that you?

Or Keith Mills, the Other Gay Person Who Speaks for All the Gays. ALL THE GAYS.

I met a straight person once who was really boring and married, so from this I knew I'd be boring if I got married. But I got married anyway. The end.

PopePalpatine

Since when was being gay an act of rebellion?

Madame_Diem

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Paddy Manning, is that you?

I think you'll find Messer Mills and Manning are rather conservative in their approach. I don't believe in antiqued religious institutions such as marriage. If the breeders want it, let them have it, but its not for me thanks.

OldNotWIse

Madame_Diem wrote: »

I'm voting No. When did gay become so boring. This whole marriage 'equality' thing has bourgeois middle class written all over it. Christ if I wanted that lifestyle I would have married a woman years ago. Instead now the next time I hook up with someone I have to worry about them popping out a ring. Given that I had a conversations with my mother years ago to why I couldn't marry its will be fun going over that old chestnut with her again. Who knows maybe they'll come up with a gay conversion therapy that actually works and I be able to avoid this suburban gay dystopyan nightmare.

DeVore

That doesn't answer his question tho... do you want to stop everyone having the option because you don't want to avail of it?

pl4ichjgy17zwd

Madame_Diem wrote: »

I think you'll find Messer Mills and Manning are rather conservative in their approach. I don't believe in antiqued religious institutions such as marriage. If the breeders want it, let them have it, but its not for me thanks.

Then don't get married? Why vote against everyone else being able to?

OldNotWIse

Madame_Diem wrote: »

I think you'll find Messer Mills and Manning are rather conservative in their approach. I don't believe in antiqued religious institutions such as marriage. If the breeders want it, let them have it, but its not for me thanks.

But it might be for others??

DeVore

Madame_Diem wrote: »

I think you'll find Messer Mills and Manning are rather conservative in their approach. I don't believe in antiqued religious institutions such as marriage. If the breeders want it, let them have it, but its not for me thanks.

What if other gay people want it?

shruikan2553

FunLover18 wrote: »

Why is it that the 'No' campaign posters(the first of which I was sad to see today) are allowed use this issue when it's irrelevant? For the record I'm voting yes and fully agree that the issue of adoption is not relevant to the referendum, and although we can't stop people posting or commenting otherwise on here , but surely there are some sort of regulations that would ensure referendum posters actually relate the issue. Are official campaign posters allowed to mislead in such a way?

The referendum commission said that they can't control or punish any side from saying anything but they can make a statement if they believe information being given is false.

Although by making a statement iona and friends will be quickly complaining about being silenced and bias. Pretty much make everything into them being the victim.

lazygal

Madame_Diem wrote: »

I think you'll find Messer Mills and Manning are rather conservative in their approach. I don't believe in antiqued religious institutions such as marriage. If the breeders want it, let them have it, but its not for me thanks.

I'm not religious and I didn't have a religious marriage ceremony, I had a civil ceremony. I'm cool and rebellious that way. I am a breeder though. Maybe that's why I'm not cool. :cool:

PopePalpatine

Could you imagine 50 years ago a black person saying they shouldn't be allowed to vote, because it's a "white institution", or 100 years ago, a woman saying the same because voting is a "male institution"?

keeponhurling

As a random question -
We are voting on re-defining the "traditional" marriage (and it is very likely to be passed by the people),
Is the issue of extending marriage to other non-traditional beliefs, i.e. those who believe in multiple spouses, co-dependent family members, culture where people get married at younger ages etc. on the table?

My own take is that given Irish society is getting more liberal, and more international/diverse, perhaps now is the time to be discussed.
The argument that gay people aren't bothering anyone, and are entitled to be treated equally, is one of the cornerstones of the campaign, from setting up civil partnerships right through to the current referendum.
Even the idea that children growing up in a non-traditional family are better off seems to have been somewhat dismissed as not valid.

Thanks

efb

Madame_Diem wrote: »

I resent the move of being gay to one of rebellion to what it is becoming one of boredom. Thats fine for some people but not me.

being gay as rebellion??? Some of us don't have a choice! Gay by birth, probably dull.

Lipstick lesbians are so passé... The real ones are much better

ohnonotgmail

keeponhurling wrote: »

As a random question -
We are voting on re-defining the "traditional" marriage (and it is very likely to be passed by the people),
Is the issue of extending marriage to other non-traditional beliefs, i.e. those who believe in multiple spouses, co-dependent family members, culture where people get married at younger ages etc. on the table?

My own take is that given Irish society is getting more liberal, and more international/diverse, perhaps now is the time to be discussed.
The argument that gay people aren't bothering anyone, and are entitled to be treated equally, is one of the cornerstones of the campaign, from setting up civil partnerships right through to the current referendum.
Even the idea that children growing up in a non-traditional family are better off seems to have been somewhat dismissed as not valid.

Thanks

we have discussed this to the point of tedium on this thread already. many many times.

ohnonotgmail

lazygal wrote: »

I'm not religious and I didn't have a religious marriage ceremony, I had a civil ceremony. I'm cool and rebellious that way. I am a breeder though. Maybe that's why I'm not cool. :cool:

how terribly middle class of you

lazygal

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

how terribly middle class of you

We all know no one in the lower socio economic categories ever has children.

efb

keeponhurling wrote: »

As a random question -
We are voting on re-defining the "traditional" marriage (and it is very likely to be passed by the people),
Is the issue of extending marriage to other non-traditional beliefs, i.e. those who believe in multiple spouses, co-dependent family members, culture where people get married at younger ages etc. on the table?

My own take is that given Irish society is getting more liberal, and more international/diverse, perhaps now is the time to be discussed.
The argument that gay people aren't bothering anyone, and are entitled to be treated equally, is one of the cornerstones of the campaign, from setting up civil partnerships right through to the current referendum.
Even the idea that children growing up in a non-traditional family are better off seems to have been somewhat dismissed as not valid.

Thanks

no not on the table at this referendum, those that want that will have to bring forward their cases and society can review them then.

No one is saying kids of non-traditional families are better off, but rather there is no difference in outcome. (SSC v MSC)

ohnonotgmail

lazygal wrote: »

We all know no one in the lower socio economic categories ever has children.

well, would you really call them 'children'?

One eyed Jack

Madame_Diem wrote: »

I'm voting No. When did gay become so boring. This whole marriage 'equality' thing has bourgeois middle class written all over it. Christ if I wanted that lifestyle I would have married a woman years ago. Instead now the next time I hook up with someone I have to worry about them popping out a ring. Given that I had a conversations with my mother years ago to why I couldn't marry its will be fun going over that old chestnut with her again. Who knows maybe they'll come up with a gay conversion therapy that actually works and I be able to avoid this suburban gay dystopyan nightmare.

Yeah, yeah, I get it you want to remain on the flanges... fringes! :eek:

Jesus :pac:

Seriously though, if you actually wanted to be really rebellious, you'd give up the old Queen's rhetoric about how you don't want to be equal to everyone else, you want to be respected for your individuality and all the rest of it.

I'll still respect you the morning after the referendum, and we won't even have to engage in any dystopian conformist nightmare. People will just go about their business as before, and we can still set ourselves apart from... ugh, "society", roysh? :rolleyes:

All so square, I don't want to be a round peg either, I want to be a special triangle - an equalateral triangle

valoren

Was on facebook today and one of my friends posted this beauty.

"a child that has gay parents will more than likely turn out to be gay and if that keeps happening many years down the line there won't be one straight person around"

Needless to say I tried to 'debate' this point with him but he deleted the post and thread. He's 19.

keeponhurling

efb wrote: »

no not on the table at this referendum, those that want that will have to bring forward their cases and society can review them then.

No one is saying kids of non-traditional families are better off, but rather there is no difference in outcome. (SSC v MSC)

Thanks. I guess that's the thing with referenda, it has to be Yes or No, and not a box for "Something different - please provide suggestions" !
Perhaps it's a case of the Yes campaign not wanting to muddy the waters and let this slip, or perhaps a sense of their own situation being more legitimate than others.

Indeed, that's what I meant on the second point.
We can't say as a rule that kids are better off in any particular type of arrangement anymore, it's more a case by case basis, rule nothing out. If it works, it works.

keeponhurling

valoren wrote: »

Was on facebook today and one of my friends posted this beauty.

"a child that has gay parents will more than likely turn out to be gay and if that keeps happening many years down the line there won't be one straight person around"

Needless to say I tried to 'debate' this point with him but he deleted the post and thread. He's 19.

possibly winding you up ?