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

Ave Sodalis

RedPaddyX wrote: »

Ok let me rephrase my point: please explain to me why marriage (regardless of this ref) should be limited to 2 people? Is this not discrimination?

Again, we are not talking about polygamy! That's a seperate referendum.

jobbridge4life

RedPaddyX wrote: »

Ok let me rephrase my point: please explain to me why marriage (regardless of this ref) should be limited to 2 people? Is this not discrimination?

Explain to me why marriage shouldn't be permissible between humans and angels? By the way when we 'redefined' marriage to introduce divorce did you wonder whether it would lead to marital decapitation?

Lollipops23

Just reading the comments section on an article about Enda visiting BLongTo and a young woman breaking down in tears discussing the ref.

It's worrying the amount of people who appear to want to simply go against Kenny. They're apparently prepared to vote No simply because Enda is supporting the Yes side.

Thoughts?

BoatMad

RedPaddyX wrote: »

Ok let me rephrase my point: please explain to me why marriage (regardless of this ref) should be limited to 2 people? Is this not discrimination?

Simply , because at this point in the state evolution , there is no demand to support polygamy.

Nor has there been representation from the RSPCA that cats should be allowed to marry

but you right the constitution does discriminate against cats in that regard

Yours is a classic straw man argument

kunst nugget

We're nearly at 10,000. It should really end dramatically like having Pam wake up and go into the bathroom to fin Bobby in the shower except now he's turned gay and he's filling the house with the sounds of sodomy.

222233

Just heard a guy from the Iona institute on the radio, there really is absolutely no reason to vote no, is there? Its all a play on words with the no side but no valid argument that I could hear?

Zen65

RedPaddyX wrote: »

. . . I know many shoot down the argument that if you redefine for 2 of same sex you cannot possibly argue against increasing number of people in a marriage also - but I've yet to hear a coherent argument on this.

Perhaps you could have taken the trouble to read the proposed amendment? Even that simple task would have cleared up your misunderstanding.

Of course some day we may see a referendum proposal to increase the limit on the number of people in a marriage, and if that day ever comes along the Irish people will have the right to vote on such a change. They may also have to vote on removing constitutional neutrality at some stage in the future, but scaremongering about such possible future proposals now is a pretty weak tactic.

Motley Crue

It is offensive to either partner to introduce a third person into a marriage, be it a same sex marriage or otherwise...unless such a situation is agreed upon by both parties beforehand for some reason. That is my firm belief.

gravehold

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Just reading the comments section on an article about Enda visiting BLongTo and a young woman breaking down in tears discussing the ref.

It's worrying the amount of people who appear to want to simply go against Kenny. They're apparently prepared to vote No simply because Enda is supporting the Yes side.

Thoughts?

I don't think anyone is going to vote no to screw with enda. I doubt enda really even cares about gays

jobbridge4life

222233 wrote: »

Just heard a guy from the Iona institute on the radio, there really is absolutely no reason to vote no, is there? Its all a play on words with the no side but no valid argument that I could hear?

No have you not heard? RedPaddy has just discovered that if we legalise gay marriage we will soon find ourselves with robot-feline marriage equality.

222233

jobbridge4life wrote: »

No have you not heard? RedPaddy has just discovered that if we legalise gay marriage we will soon find ourselves with robot-feline marriage equality.

Oh really, thats fascinating!

smash

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Just reading the comments section on an article about Enda visiting BLongTo and a young woman breaking down in tears discussing the ref.

It's worrying the amount of people who appear to want to simply go against Kenny. They're apparently prepared to vote No simply because Enda is supporting the Yes side.

Thoughts?

It's quite sad actually. Donegal is well known for the protest vote and if the surveys and reports are to be believed, for this referendum it will happen again.

Zen65

kunst nugget wrote: »

We're nearly at 10,000. It should really end dramatically like having Pam wake up and go into the bathroom to fin Bobby in the shower except now he's turned gay and he's filling the house with the sounds of sodomy.

Funny and offensive at the same time. So this is Frankie Boyle's username is it?

Lollipops23

gravehold wrote: »

I doubt enda really even cares about gays

Oh I've no doubt- he knows it's popular and progressive to leaglise gay marriage. I just find it sickening that anyone could want to vote against it purely because they don't like the current government.

RedPaddyX

BoatMad wrote: »

I have asked you to explain your point of view , you have consistently refused to do that

My friend I am genuinely trying to engage your points/questions.

Question

(a) How is " equality " a twist on words.
As above because clearly this ref is only as you say seeking to extend marriage to 2 same sex, but no further. Hence a form of inequality (to say polygamists). My point is there is always a form of inequality - that is inherent to defining a relationship.

(b) How will a specific amendment , lead to allowing more then 2 people to marry , when the text is specific
It removes any logical reason for objection to further redefinition - the only argument I've heard so far is: nobody wants it yet.


(c) Are you actually saying you are voting No because you would prefer an amendment that support you marrying 8 women !

No mate, I'm simply flagging the inconsistency of argument.

Ave Sodalis

smash wrote: »

It's quite sad actually. Donegal is well known for the protest vote and if the surveys and reports are to be believed, for this referendum it will happen again.

I've a little bit more faith in my county still As with a lot of the country, it'll be down to the younger generation to go vote though so hopefully.

gravehold

Motley Crue wrote: »

It is offensive to either partner to introduce a third person into a marriage, be it a same sex marriage or otherwise...unless such a situation is agreed upon by both parties beforehand for some reason. That is my firm belief.

Polygamous relationships all agree to be together it woule be the same in their marriage. Not sure how you could have a surprise polygamy marriage

Zubeneschamali

RedPaddyX wrote: »

Ok let me rephrase my point: please explain to me why marriage (regardless of this ref) should be limited to 2 people?

Marriage is between two people now. Marriage will be between two people whether this referendum passes or fails. So voting Yes or No this time has nothing to do with polygamy.

If you want to marry several women and a gay penguin, go ahead and start a campaign to have a referendum on that issue.

Meanwhile, why would you deny your gay fellow citizens the right to marry by voting No this time?

smash

gravehold wrote: »

Polygamous relationships all agree to be together it woule be the same in their marriage. Not sure how you could have a surprise polygamy marriage

Give over

frostyjacks

This thread is a flat circle. Everything we've ever done or will do, we're gonna do over and over and over again.

jobbridge4life

RedPaddyX wrote: »

No mate, I'm simply flagging the inconsistency of argument.

No you are not. You haven't pointed out one inconsistency. Not a single one. You've made what you think is a 'point' but it isn't and you've been embarrassingly shown up in the last few pages.

smash

frostyjacks wrote: »

This thread is a flat circle. Everything we've ever done or will do, we're gonna do over and over and over again.

groundhog thread

gravehold

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Meanwhile, why would you deny your gay fellw citizens the right to marry by voting No this time?

Maybe cause they make fun of their relationship and say things like this

'If you want to marry several women and a gay penguin, go ahead'

tigger123

(I should follow my own advice, but...)

Don't feed the troll.

BoatMad

it'll be down to the younger generation to go vote though so hopefully.

Yes but these are not voters, middle Ireland is where the people that vote are.

Personally I think it will be carried by a simple Dublin majority

Hyzepher

Surely those interested in a polygamous marriage would support the ssm as apart from anything else it gets them a step closer. There is no polygamous relationship that doesn't involve same sex interaction.

ixoy

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I just find it sickening that anyone could want to vote against it purely because they don't like the current government.

Agreed. Voting no to spite the government is, to me, worse than voting no for Iona's reasons. It's petty and selfish and an insult to others.

There were a couple of posters near me advocating a no vote over Irish Water. Angered me no end and, given the fact they didn't last long, angered others too.

Zubeneschamali

gravehold wrote: »

Maybe cause they make fun of their relationship and say things like this

'If you want to marry several women and a gay penguin, go ahead'

No, I said that, and I'm straight and already married.

kunst nugget

Thread roundup:

Blah, blah, babies, blah, blah, polygamy, blah, blah, I'm not a homophobe, blah, blah, women, blah, blah, bullying, blah, blah, posters, blah, blah, not equality, blah, blah…

Ave Sodalis

BoatMad wrote: »

Yes but these are not voters, middle Ireland is where the people that vote are.

Personally I think it will be carried by a simple Dublin majority

I'm not so sure for this one. I know in my home town that people tend to get stubborn headed about things but it just so happens that the majority of people I've seen/talked to are voting Yes. It's just about making sure they actually go out and vote.