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

Penny Tration

I genuinely wish a 'no' voter who is voting no because of their religious beliefs would just have the balls to come out and say that that's the reason. I'd have more respect for them than for the people throwing out 'polygamy' arguments.

SpaceSasqwatch

I really hope it gets voted in.Its a civil right.End of.


There's some seriously retarded reasons being bandied about to vote no....

looking_around

Zaph wrote: »

So why not vote to show your support? Unfortunately that sort of indifference could ultimately be the cause of the no side winning, as they will be mobilising their supporters like it was D-Day all over again.

it involves leaving my house......

__
idk....I'm not excusing it..I've just never voted on anything, I probably never will.

I often forget..or don't even know the day to vote anyway, I'm fecking awful with dates. I get my partner to remember my hospital appointments, I'm that bad.

Slot Machine

tayto lover wrote: »

Can't understand the need for one and not the other tbh.
I would have thought that marriage equality would breeze through and the adoption question would need a referendum.

Well it all comes down to whether the consitution is being changed. Constitutional changes require referenda, legislative changes don't. The matter of gay adoption is just a legislative change.

Penny Tration

tayto lover wrote: »

Can't understand the need for one and not the other tbh.
I would have thought that marriage equality would breeze through and the adoption question would need a referendum.

Probably because a gay person adopting is already legal. It just needs to be tweaked so that in a gay partnership, BOTH partners have adoptive rights over the child. Iirc, currently only one of the partnership can have the rights.

Pwindedd

I ticked won't vote, purely because I can't vote not being an irish citizen (there should be an option in the poll for this btw)

I would urge anyone who can, to vote in this referendum. It's hardly an inconvenience. I'd love to be able to vote YES.

I would also urge anyone considering voting no as some kind of "protest" to reconsider. This is not the time for getting one over on extremists or the government or any other unrelated reason. People's rights are at stake here. Don't fcuk with people's rights. I totally respect your right to hold an opinion and if you truly mean NO that's fine. But don't do it for blinkered reasons. You may have to stand over your decision one day. What if one of your kids or grandkids is gay.

I do believe we are the first country in the world where the populous are voting on same sex marriage - and whilst the world may not be watching with bated breath, we are dangerously close to taking a step backwards as a nation IMO.

Delirium

tayto lover wrote: »

Can't understand the need for one and not the other tbh.
I would have thought that marriage equality would breeze through and the adoption question would need a referendum.

homosexual people can already adopt, just not as a couple. The government plans to allow same-sex couples to adopt before the referendum. This is a good thing as there are same-sex couples raising children and one of them has no legal recognition as a parent/guardian of the children.

Zaph

looking_around wrote: »

it involves leaving my house......

__
idk....I'm not excusing it..I've just never voted on anything, I probably never will.

I often forget..or don't even know the day to vote anyway, I'm fecking awful with dates. I get my partner to remember my hospital appointments, I'm that bad.

That's fair enough, a lot of people are bad with dates. But it'll probably be hard to miss this one when voting day comes around, so all you need to do in advance is get yourself on the voting register. You can check whether or not you're registered here.

I understand that a lot of people have no interest in politics and don't vote as a result, but this is a bit different and I'd urge those people to make an exception just this once and use their vote. Preferably to vote yes obviously.

Jester252

Depends how my day goes, might be to tired to vote.

Ave Sodalis

SW wrote: »

homosexual people can already adopt, just not as a couple. The government plans to allow same-sex couples to adopt before the referendum. This is a good thing as there are same-sex couples raising children and one of them has no legal recognition as a parent/guardian of the children.

I think this needs to be better known too. A lot of the arguments for no recently are the "won't someone please think of the children". Yet, whether the referendum passes or not, gay couples will still adopt.

jimboblep

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

As opposed to the no campaign whcih tells us it's because of sodomy being too loud?

Why are you bringing the no campaign in I have voiced no support for that
as I have said previously my belief is that the yes campaign holds the ethical and moral highground but they are damaging their cause with a sometimes condescending attitude
a previous poster( EVILTWIN) showed how this should be argued by presenting a positive reason to vote yes
in college a couple of weeks back the LGBT rep came in and and asked are you all registered to vote and made no mention of why we should vote yes its this presumptive attitude that doesnt sit right with me

K4t

jimboblep wrote: »

The question I have raised is should the yes campaign highlight the positive reasons for voting yes such as codifying inheritance laws

It's strange how you would mention inheritance laws when I think the vast majority of people would simply say equal rights. There shouldn't have to be any more reasons than that.

telling people to vote yes just because we say so and accusing people who ask why of being homophobic and a neanderthal

I agree with you here, but why let that affect your own vote? There are always going to be extreme views on both sides of a debate but you should be able to use your own judgement and power of free will to do what is right, whether that is vote yes or no. Stop letting the 'argument' have such power over your thought process as it is a simple yes no vote for equal rights at the end of the day.

Ave Sodalis

jimboblep wrote: »

Why are you bringing the no campaign in I have voiced no support for that

Of course you did. You said you'd vote no. How is that not supporting the no campaign?

looking_around

jimboblep wrote: »

Why are you bringing the no campaign in I have voiced no support for that
as I have said previously my belief is that the yes campaign holds the ethical and moral highground but they are damaging their cause with a sometimes condescending attitude
a previous poster( EVILTWIN) showed how this should be argued by presenting a positive reason to vote yes
in college a couple of weeks back the LGBT rep came in and and asked are you all registered to vote and made no mention of why we should vote yes its this presumptive attitude that doesnt sit right with me

is it not obvious why people should vote yes?

being gay doesn't make you less than a straight couple. the law shouldn't allow discrimination to be ok.
currently it's legal to discriminate against gays.

I think it's mad anyone would even consider voting no.

chupacabra

This thread is depressing. I'll be flying back home to vote yes. I respect your opposition if its reasonable but most of the "no" responses in this thread are so far from reasonable I need a telescope to see them.

Penny Tration

jimboblep wrote: »

Why are you bringing the no campaign in I have voiced no support for that
as I have said previously my belief is that the yes campaign holds the ethical and moral highground but they are damaging their cause with a sometimes condescending attitude
a previous poster( EVILTWIN) showed how this should be argued by presenting a positive reason to vote yes
in college a couple of weeks back the LGBT rep came in and and asked are you all registered to vote and made no mention of why we should vote yes its this presumptive attitude that doesnt sit right with me

Not to be rude, but you said in previous posts that you want the yes advocates to explain their reasons, and now you say that the yes vote holds the ethical and moral high ground. Surely that means that you know the basics of why people are advocating for a yes vote?

As to why people should vote yes - every single, solitary, law abiding person on this planet deserves equal rights. We are all people with feelings, hopes, dreams.

We love the same way, whether we love a member of the opposite or same sex.

I could marry my boyfriend because I love him, and that's fine with people because we're a hetero couple. But my gay friend, who is in a longer term, committed relationship with a man he's head over heels in love with, can't. How is that fair? He should have the same rights as I have.

As for the people who use their Christian beliefs as their reasoning for opposing the yes vote - my mam and sisters are all practising Catholics. They're voting yes. Their reasoning is very simple - god and the Bible tells them to love everyone, sinner or no.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jimboblep wrote: »

Why are you bringing the no campaign in I have voiced no support for that
as I have said previously my belief is that the yes campaign holds the ethical and moral highground but they are damaging their cause with a sometimes condescending attitude
a previous poster( EVILTWIN) showed how this should be argued by presenting a positive reason to vote yes
in college a couple of weeks back the LGBT rep came in and and asked are you all registered to vote and made no mention of why we should vote yes its this presumptive attitude that doesnt sit right with me

To highlight the inconsistancy in your argument.

As far as I can see, the no campaing comes from three different viewpoints:
- homophobia
- religion (why shuold I accept YOUR interpretation of "God's word"?)(What if I'm an atheist/agnostic/other faith?)
- moral (why are your morals more important than mine?)

The homophobic argument it the only one that doesn't actully reek of condescention or the idea that someone else claims to know more about social morality than I do, and I shoud really just accept their word without question.

If there is another argument, then I've yet to hear it.

jimboblep

K4t wrote: »

It's strange how you would mention inheritance laws when I think the vast majority of people would simply say equal rights. There shouldn't have to be any more reasons than that.


I agree with you here, but why let that affect your own vote? There are always going to be extreme views on both sides of a debate but you should be able to use your own judgement and power of free will to do what is right, whether that is vote yes or no. Stop letting the 'argument' have such power over your thought process as it is a simple yes no vote for equal rights at the end of the day.

The only reason I mentioned inheritance law was as example of how it would along with numerous other legal protections allow gay people to order there lives the same as everyone else.
these are the things that should be talked about not the vote yes or your an asshole attitude I guess my attitude boils down to I want to be shown why I should vote rather than simply being told I should vote and how

jimboblep

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

To highlight the inconsistancy in your argument.

As far as I can see, the no campaing comes from three different viewpoints:
- homophobia
- religion (why shuold I accept YOUR interpretation of "God's word"?)(What if I'm an atheist/agnostic/other faith?)
- moral (why are your morals more important than mine?)

The homophobic argument it the only one that doesn't actully reek of condescention or the idea that someone else claims to know more about social morality than I do, and I shoud really just accept their word without question.

If there is another argument, then I've yet to hear it.

I have argued on none of those grounds I have merely voiced an opinion that I would consider using my vote as a protest
and this is coming from someone who initially was 100% yes and still is in regards the actual issue
its based soley as I have stated on people just assuming I should vote yes
I do understand the basics of the argument but that does not mean people should presume everyone does
the same in any vote both sides should present their arguments and not assume which could prove costly at the ballot box

Venus In Furs

Itzayana Shallow Smartness wrote: »

How someone can say they're a practicing Catholic just after saying they support gay marriage is beyond me. Way to contradict yourself..

How can they say they have sex before marriage/use contraception?

RayM wrote: »

You're quite religious, right? Rather than trying to muddy the debate with the whole "what about polygamy?" nonsense, would it not be easier to just admit that your opposition to equality for gay people stems from the fact that you believe homosexuality is a sin?

And I'd respect it more.

reprise wrote: »

It's arguments like this that are pushing me to the no camp.

What's wrong with that particular point of view? And why on earth would people making comments in ways that annoy you be enough to make you change your view on a significant issue? What about the actual issue at hand rather than the ways in which people express views on it? That should go for both the yes and no voters - how come your beef is just with the yes voters?

jimboblep wrote: »

Had been thinking of voting yes but Im starting to think about voting no for the same reason some of the attitudes and comments from the yes side are really quite grating

Same questions above. "I think such and such a way about something but I'm thinking of voting the opposite to spite people who have the same view as I but are making comments that annoy me; I'm ok with the comments that are annoying from the other side though" is what it boils down to.

RobertKK wrote: »

What if the man or woman had a lover of both sexes and wanted to marry both. I know it is polygamy.
So why are we talking about equality but not allowing polygamy?
Because we have to follow what others do?

No? If you think marriage should just be between a man and a woman, that's what you think - don't think anyone is gonna be convinced by your polygamy stuff though.

K4t

jimboblep wrote: »

I guess my attitude boils down to I want to be shown why I should vote rather than simply being told I should vote and how

I agree that nobody wants to be told they should vote and how. Nobody wants to be told they can't have equal rights and it's because they're gay either.

This is a referendum where you don't really need to look at the arguments of either side but instead take a long hard look at yourself and decide what kind of person you are and what kind of society you want to live in.

eviltwin

jimboblep wrote: »

I have argued on none of those grounds I have merely voiced an opinion that I would consider using my vote as a protest
and this is coming from someone who initially was 100% yes and still is in regards the actual issue
its based soley as I have stated on people just assuming I should vote yes
I do understand the basics of the argument but that does not mean people should presume everyone does
the same in any vote both sides should present their arguments and not assume which could prove costly at the ballot box

Well, sorry for stating the obvious here, but if you agree with gay marriage then yes you should vote yes.

Blahblah2012

It will be interesting to hear how well gay fathers are treated in the courts if the deal with the mother goes belly up.

Currently single fathers are treated like shïte in the courts and I'd imagine nothing will change there.

To be talking about the rights of 2 fathers...when there's fûck all rights for one...is nothing short of ludicrous. Cart before the horse. Typical looney country we live in.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jimboblep wrote: »

I have argued on none of those grounds I have merely voiced an opinion that I would consider using my vote as a protest
and this is coming from someone who initially was 100% yes and still is in regards the actual issue
its based soley as I have stated on people just assuming I should vote yes
I do understand the basics of the argument but that does not mean people should presume everyone does
the same in any vote both sides should present their arguments and not assume which could prove costly at the ballot box

So you're voting out of moral spite then?

RobertKK

Jingle_Balls wrote: »

I genuinely wish a 'no' voter who is voting no because of their religious beliefs would just have the balls to come out and say that that's the reason. I'd have more respect for them than for the people throwing out 'polygamy' arguments.

That is one of the reasons I don't support heterosexual civil marriage. To me a church marriage is marriage, not the piece of paper you have to sign for the state to say you are married.
I don't believe the state has a right to define marriage.
Why should polygamists be not allowed to marry as many as they want at the same time.
Because the state says so?
It was only 22 years ago that the state laws said it was illegal to be homosexual.

eviltwin

RobertKK wrote: »

That is one of the reasons I don't support heterosexual civil marriage. To me a church marriage is marriage, not the piece of paper you have to sign for the state to say you are married.
I don't believe the state has a right to define marriage.
Why should polygamists be not allowed to marry as many as they want at the same time.
Because the state says so?
It was only 22 years ago that the state laws said it was illegal to be homosexual.

I had my wedding in a registry office. Is my marriage not a marriage then?

Venus In Furs

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So you're voting out of moral spite then?

Yeh, voting the opposite to what they actually feel - as a protest.
Totally bizarre.

Penny Tration

RobertKK wrote: »

That is one of the reasons I don't support heterosexual civil marriage. To me a church marriage is marriage, not the piece of paper you have to sign for the state to say you are married.
I don't believe the state has a right to define marriage.
Why should polygamists be not allowed to marry as many as they want at the same time.
Because the state says so?
It was only 22 years ago that the state laws said it was illegal to be homosexual.

So, you don't believe in a marriage with state involvement, but it's cool for the church to do it and define it? What about people of different religions? Does that exclude them?

I do appreciate your honesty in admitting the religious belief behind your choices

Doctor Jimbob

RobertKK wrote: »

That is one of the reasons I don't support heterosexual civil marriage. To me a church marriage is marriage, not the piece of paper you have to sign for the state to say you are married.
I don't believe the state has a right to define marriage.
Why should polygamists be not allowed to marry as many as they want at the same time.
Because the state says so?
It was only 22 years ago that the state laws said it was illegal to be homosexual.

There's nothing stopping you from having a church marriage and not personally recognising any other marriages. I don't understand why you think this definition of marriage should be forced upon the entire state, however.

jimboblep

K4t wrote: »

I agree that nobody wants to be told they should vote and how. Nobody wants to be told they can't have equal rights and it's because they're gay either.

This is a referendum where you don't really need to look at the arguments of either side but instead take a long hard look at yourself and decide what kind of person you are and what kind of society you want to live in.

I disagree any vote and especially a referendum to change the constitution should be argued from both sides and let it stand or fall on its own merits

I feel I need to clarify my position on this as regards extending civil rights to gay people thts the correct and moral thing to do
I am not argueing on any MORAL RELIGOUS OR HOMOPHOBIC GROUNDS