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

floggg

reprise wrote: »

Oh c'mon Joey, this from the Islam defending cisgender LGBTQQIAAP moderator?

Whats sad is that you seem to be taking gleeful relish in trolling on this, when it is a subject very important to an awful lot of people here.

reprise

bodice ripper wrote: »

Fyp

How does a nice girl like you even know what that means?

bodice ripper

reprise wrote: »

How does a nice girl like you even know what that means?

I actually read the bible.

walshyn93

K4t wrote: »

They already have the right to marry if incestuous marriage is already allowed..

Tell me, can you prove that anybody really loves another person? Can you read the minds of all those who marry, past, present and future?


This is about Same-Sex Marriage. This is not about love or homosexuality or incest. It is about two human beings of same sex having the same right as two other human beings of opposite sex under law. You can twist arguments to your own advantage all day long but when push comes to shove the Irish people will do what is right and humanity will move onward once more. The current status of incest under the law is completely irrelevant.

Every argument that has been used for gay marriage can be used for incestuous marriage. The only reason incest isn't allowed in the debate is because gay and straight people alike find it disgusting. Do you see any parallels here?

WoolyJumper

walshyn93 wrote: »

Every argument that has been used for gay marriage can be used for incestuous marriage. The only reason incest isn't allowed in the debate is because gay and straight people alike find it disgusting. Do you see any parallels here?

Not true.

WoolyJumper wrote: »

What has incest got to do with the ssm referendum? But since people insist on discussing....

You are talking about two completely different kettles of fish here. One is talking about opening up the definition of marriage to same sex couples. Allowing two non related people become family. This doesn't really have a big impact on society and families in general.

The other (allowing incestuous marriage) completely redefines family and what society is built on. Getting married to someone implies becoming family. Brothers and sisters, fathers and daughters etc are already family. Incest would completely redefine what bothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, children mean. It truly impacts all families (unlike ssm). Suddenly every relationship now is a potential sexual and romantic one. It impacts the stability and security of the family in a way ssm never would

reprise

floggg wrote: »

Whats sad is that you seem to be taking gleeful relish in trolling on this, when it is a subject very important to an awful lot of people here.

I'll say it again.

I started posting in this thread because there was a circle jerk going on of Yes people spoiling for a fight. The question being asked was how could anyone even dream of voting No, as if to vote no was simply unthinkable and the usual lazy stereotyping and posturing prevailed.

I have provided a few casual opposing arguments.

I am no expert. I am not in any way affiliated with Iona, in fact, I keep meaning to see what they are all about, I am an extremely casual catholic and (yawn), I have gay friends.

If you guys and gals are really that annoyed by counter arguments, then request the thread move to LGBT and have it all your own way.

If on the other hand, you want to win this referendum, then blow your noses and start coming to terms with the counter arguments.

walshyn93

WoolyJumper wrote: »

Not true.

Bull****. Marriage doesn't define sexuality. It's the other way around.

Ave Sodalis

walshyn93 wrote: »

Every argument that has been used for gay marriage can be used for incestuous marriage. The only reason incest isn't allowed in the debate is because gay and straight people alike find it disgusting. Do you see any parallels here?

It has been repeated mentioned on here that incest is illegal and therefore not on par with SSM which is legal. SSM cannot argue for incest (pro or con) in the same referendum because incest needs to be legalized before anything else. Therefore, this referendum and this discussion is not about incest.

K4t

walshyn93 wrote: »

Every argument that has been used for gay marriage can be used for incestuous marriage. The only reason incest isn't allowed in the debate is because gay and straight people alike find it disgusting. Do you see any parallels here?

If incestuous marriage was already permitted by law then it would not change the nature of this debate, which is about extending the right to marriage as it currently stands under law to people of same sex.


What you're arguing is a theory about whether something is right and should be allowed under law in the first place, in this case incest. I suggest you go and research that with your friends or family etc.

floggg

reprise wrote: »

I'll say it again.

I started posting in this thread because there was a circle jerk going on of Yes people spoiling for a fight. The question being asked was how could anyone even dream of voting No, as if to vote no was simply unthinkable and the usual lazy stereotyping and posturing prevailed.

I have provided a few casual opposing arguments.

I am no expert. I am not in any way affiliated with Iona, in fact, I keep meaning to see what they are all about, I am an extremely casual catholic and (yawn), I have gay friends.

If you guys and gals are really that annoyed by counter arguments, then request the thread move to LGBT and have it all your own way.

If on the other hand, you want to win this referendum, then start coming to terms with the counter arguments.

Its not the counter arguments.

Its that you claim to be neutral, yet have jumped from one argument to the other in opposition, some of which have been blatant trolling.

And the fact that you seem to take great joy in winding people up on the subject.

But hey, if thats what entertains you so be it.

walshyn93

sup_dude wrote: »

It has been repeated mentioned on here that incest is illegal and therefore not on par with SSM which is legal. SSM cannot argue for incest (pro or con) in the same referendum because incest needs to be legalized before anything else. Therefore, this referendum and this discussion is not about incest.

Same sex marriage isn't legal. What are you talking about?

Ave Sodalis

walshyn93 wrote: »

Same sex marriage isn't legal. What are you talking about?

Being gay is legal...

aloyisious

conorh91 wrote: »

Well lets not get ahead of ourselves. The point was made in relation to incestuous relationships between consenting adults.

It is only right and sensible that the logical consistency of the proposed amendment should be investigated by comparing it to other conjugal relationships between consenting adults.

And I have to admit, it does seem a bit arbitrary to impose our values on one set of couples (such as brothers in a conjugal relationship), whilst insisting that we have no right to impose our values on consenting adults in other forms of conjugal relationships (other homosexuals).

Umm, taking this version of debate a stage further, would reprise think it OK if I was to dig up my grandmother from her grave and marry her? in the scheme of things now being debated here now, that's as valid a point as me marrying my brother, sister, niece or nephew. Just because granny is a rotting corpse shouldn't rule her out, she's a relative.

P.S: please note that this input of mine into the "debate" is not an attempt to derail the issue on why one specific section of our society is being denied access to civil marriage by another section of the same society. It's just to point out how the input on "hand in marriage" chances are OK for some.

reprise

aloyisious wrote: »

Umm, taking this version of debate a stage further, would reprise think it OK if I was to dig up my grandmother from her grave and marry her? in the scheme of things now being debated here now, that's as valid a point as me marrying my brother, sister, niece or nephew. Just because granny is a rotting corpse shouldn't rule her out, she's a relative.

Hang on, this is a trick question, is your granny straight?

WoolyJumper

reprise wrote: »

I'll say it again.

I started posting in this thread because there was a circle jerk going on of Yes people spoiling for a fight. The question being asked was how could anyone even dream of voting No, as if to vote no was simply unthinkable and the usual lazy stereotyping and posturing prevailed.

I have provided a few casual opposing arguments.

I am no expert. I am not in any way affiliated with Iona, in fact, I keep meaning to see what they are all about, I am an extremely casual catholic and (yawn), I have gay friends.

If you guys and gals are really that annoyed by counter arguments, then request the thread move to LGBT and have it all your own way.

If on the other hand, you want to win this referendum, then blow your noses and start coming to terms with the counter arguments.

You provided causal opposing arguments on a public forum. Then you seem shocked that people respond with their own arguments. What were you expecting?

Also this might be a casual issue for you but for others is deeply personal and a matter of equality and how society values and treats them. So expect things to be a little heated.

reprise

floggg wrote: »

Its not the counter arguments.

Its that you claim to be neutral, yet have jumped from one argument to the other in opposition, some of which have been blatant trolling.

And the fact that you seem to take great joy in winding people up on the subject.

But hey, if thats what entertains you so be it.

Trolling is actionable, feel free to report any post. But just so ya know, accusing someone of trolling is also actionable, although with Joey leading the charge, you could be forgiven for ignoring that.

WoolyJumper

walshyn93 wrote: »

Bull****. Marriage doesn't define sexuality. It's the other way around.

Guess you didnt read my reply properly...

Carlos Orange

sup_dude wrote: »

It has been repeated mentioned on here that incest is illegal and therefore not on par with SSM which is legal. SSM cannot argue for incest (pro or con) in the same referendum because incest needs to be legalized before anything else. Therefore, this referendum and this discussion is not about incest.

Incest isn't actually illegal in Ireland. Only heterosexual incest is illegal.

Zaph

I think we need a summary. So if I have it right, SSM should not be permitted because the following aren't permitted either, or they should be permitted if we're being completely equal:

- Marrying your horse
- Marrying more than one person at a time
- Marrying your sibling so you can have or have already had kids
- Marrying your sibling even though you can't have kids

To date, all of the above are impossible because:

- Bestiality is never going to be legal now, is it? Somebody made a point earlier that 4 year olds can't vote because of mental capacity. I sincerely doubt that your horse would have the mental capacity to know that she's the bride in the wedding of the year, so it's never going to be a runner on that score alone.

- Polygamy. Bit of a tougher one this one, because it is permitted in some societies. However none of those societies are what could be classed as "western", and last time I checked this was very much a western society. Maybe at some stage in the future if Ireland ever becomes an Islamic country (or have a majority of any other religions that allow polygamy, I don't now what they may be though), then maybe it becomes an issue. But for now, and the foreseeable future, polygamy is not an issue in Ireland and forms no part of this debate.

- There's a very good reason why incest is illegal, and that's because of the potential genetic harm to any offspring. It's not the only reason, but there is a significantly greater risk that any children of such a union would suffer from some form of congenital defect. That's not something that's ever going to go away through legislation, although maybe in a million years when humans have evolved further it may no longer be an issue, but none of us will be around to see that.

- Have a look at any website for couples trying to conceive and you'll see stories of couples who went through all sorts of fertility treatment unsuccessfully and were told they could never have children. Then after finally abandoning all hope the couple will conceive naturally. There are no certainties when it comes to human fertility so for the reasons outlined above you can't suddenly decide that because a couple of siblings are "infertile" they should be allowed marry.

Anyway, all of the above is completely irrelevant, this referendum isn't about a complete free-for-all when it comes to marriage, it's about one thing, and one thing only - whether or not same sex couples should be allowed to marry. So all the whataboutery being bandied about on a monumental scale by some people on this thread to demonstrate their "concerns" that we're not treating everyone equally is nothing but complete and utter bullsh*t. If I told those people that tomorrow morning there would be a second referendum held which would allow people to vote on whether you could marry your horse, your sibling or a multitude of either or both, they'd be throwing up a load more reasons why any of those would be wrong and that they'd be voting no.

If people want to vote no, they're perfectly entitled to do so, that's what democracy is all about and I'd actually defend their right to do so. But at least be honest about why you're voting no - it's against your religion, you're uncomfortable with the idea of same sex couples, you're massively homophobic or whatever other reason you care to mention. But spare me your hypocrisy and lies about how you're concerned that not all of society is being treated equally in this referendum because that's not something you actually care about.

Annasopra

psinno wrote: »

Incest isn't actually illegal in Ireland. Only heterosexual incest is illegal.

Are you saying 2 brothers can get a civil partnership?

aloyisious

reprise wrote: »

Hang on, this is a trick question, is your granny straight?

The cheek of it, would you ask your granny if she was? it'd fill most of the requirements for a straight marriage, apart from the "I do" answer and signing the registry book.

Carlos Orange

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Are you saying 2 brothers can get a civil partnership?

I'm saying isn't illegal for 2 brother to have sex.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest#Republic_of_Ireland
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1908/en/act/pub/0045/print.html

Civil partnerships are covered by different laws.

walshyn93

Zaph wrote: »

I think we need a summary. So if I have it right, SSM should not be permitted because the following aren't permitted either, or they should be permitted if we're being completely equal:

- Marrying your horse
- Marrying more than one person at a time
- Marrying your sibling so you can have or have already had kids
- Marrying your sibling even though you can't have kids

To date, all of the above are impossible because:

- Bestiality is never going to be legal now, is it? Somebody made a point earlier that 4 year olds can't vote because of mental capacity. I sincerely doubt that your horse would have the mental capacity to know that she's the bride in the wedding of the year, so it's never going to be a runner on that score alone.

- Polygamy. Bit of a tougher one this one, because it is permitted in some societies. However none of those societies are what could be classed as "western", and last time I checked this was very much a western society. Maybe at some stage in the future if Ireland ever becomes an Islamic country (or have a majority of any other religions that allow polygamy, I don't now what they may be though), then maybe it becomes an issue. But for now, and the foreseeable future, polygamy is not an issue in Ireland and forms no part of this debate.

- There's a very good reason why incest is illegal, and that's because of the potential genetic harm to any offspring. It's not the only reason, but there is a significantly greater risk that any children of such a union would suffer from some form of congenital defect. That's not something that's ever going to go away through legislation, although maybe in a million years when humans have evolved further it may no longer be an issue, but none of us will be around to see that.

- Have a look at any website for couples trying to conceive and you'll see stories of couples who went through all sorts of fertility treatment unsuccessfully and were told they could never have children. Then after finally abandoning all hope the couple will conceive naturally. There are no certainties when it comes to human fertility so for the reasons outlined above you can't suddenly decide that because a couple of siblings are "infertile" they should be allowed marry.

Anyway, all of the above is completely irrelevant, this referendum isn't about a complete free-for-all when it comes to marriage, it's about one thing, and one thing only - whether or not same sex couples should be allowed to marry. So all the whataboutery being bandied about on a monumental scale by some people on this thread to demonstrate their "concerns" that we're not treating everyone equally is nothing but complete and utter bullsh*t. If I told those people that tomorrow morning there would be a second referendum held which would allow people to vote on whether you could marry your horse, your sibling or a multitude of either or both, they'd be throwing up a load more reasons why any of those would be wrong and that they'd be voting no.

If people want to vote no, they're perfectly entitled to do so, that's what democracy is all about and I'd actually defend their right to do so. But at least be honest about why you're voting no - it's against your religion, you're uncomfortable with the idea of same sex couples, you're massively homophobic or whatever other reason you care to mention. But spare me your hypocrisy and lies about how you're concerned that not all of society is being treated equally in this referendum because that's not something you actually care about.

Your premise is wrong. People aren't arguing that X shouldn't be allowed because Y isn't allowed. They're merely pointing out that equality is a subjective concept. It all depends on a person's value system. What they deem to be moral and immoral. Equality for all the people society deems to be moral and none for the outliers. Wasn't long ago that gays were outliers. Might others be welcomed into the fold in future? Who knows? The incest argument is just a logical exercise to prove the subjective nature of equality.

aloyisious

reprise wrote: »

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same thing either. Some advocates of No are merely making that distinction and asking it be respected.

I suspect that the self-safe advocates of respect would like to ensure that the difference remain in law, even if they can't get it ensured to the level within criminal law here as it was prior to 1993.

Zen65

reprise wrote: »

I'm not seeing an argument that could not be finely tuned to argue that not allowing close relatives to marry is discrimination, never mind every other permutation.

Then you have not understood anything that has been said by the 'yes' campaigners, or more likely you are attempting to distort the referendum argument completely.

This is a referendum to decide whether or not the constitution should be altered, to broaden the definition of marriage to include other legal relationships, which are currently excluded purely for reasons of gender.

There is currently no prohibition on same sex relationships.

The change, if passed by the electorate will not impact on the current prohibitions on marriage between minors, between close relatives, nor between humans and non-humans. Not in the slightest. Any attempt by the 'no' campaign to link these is purely alarmist, and intended to scare the undecided voters on the basis of 'the slippery slope' argument.

Introducing the argument of 'incest' is as relevant as introducing an argument about bestiality or necrophilia.

reprise wrote: »

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same thing either. Some advocates of No are merely making that distinction and asking it be respected.

This seems to be the very kernel of reprise's argument, and very possibly others in the 'no' camp. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not the same thing, but the courts and the government (acting for the people) have deemed them equal in exactly the same way as we deem men and women to be different but equal. Men and women are equally entitled to enter a contract, and to be appointed to positions in government or presidency, to adopt children, and to own land. Equal in all measures insofar as the law and constitution are concerned.

But when it comes to couples, the law discriminates between couples based entirely on their gender, while purporting that genders are equal. Reprise would like this discrimination to continue, just as some would have liked women to be denied the vote in 1922, despite the fact that they were alleged to be equal.

walshyn93

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Indeed. I sense that your claim to be open minded on this issue was completely untrue. The mask is slipping with the incest derailing.

Many of us are just here to test the boundaries of your arguments, potentially for the last time, as it won't be up for debate once the referendum is passed.

I'll be voting Yes, but that doesn't stop me from playing devils advocate.

Basically, anyone who's willing to argue with you on this level is unlikely to be voting No.

Zaph

walshyn93 wrote: »

Your premise is wrong. People aren't arguing that X shouldn't be allowed because Y isn't allowed. They're merely pointing out that equality is a subjective concept. It all depends on a person's value system. What they deem to be moral and immoral. Equality for all the people society deems to be moral and none for the outliers. Wasn't long ago that gays were outliers. Might others be welcomed into the fold in future? Who knows? The incest argument is just a logical exercise to prove the subjective nature of equality.

And my point is that this isn't a referendum about absolute equality, it's about one specific issue. Bringing all that other nonsense into the argument is just that, nonsense. Specifically nonsense designed to muddy the waters through massive amounts of irrelevant whataboutery.

walshyn93

Zaph wrote: »

And my point is that this isn't a referendum about absolute equality, it's about one specific issue. Bringing all that other nonsense into the argument is just that, nonsense. Specifically nonsense designed to muddy the waters through massive amounts of irrelevant whataboutery.

Well I thought this argument had gone off on a bit of a tangent, but you can hardly call it irrelevant. Defeating the incest argument with logic strengthens the case for gay marriage does it not? Dismissing it does nothing.

reprise

aloyisious wrote: »

I suspect that the self-safe advocates of respect would like to ensure that the difference remain in law, even if they can't get it ensured to the level within criminal law here as it was prior to 1993.

This is of course, the ever so discreet way of screaming homophobe.

Yawn.

reprise

walshyn93 wrote: »

Well I thought this argument had gone off on a bit of a tangent, but you can hardly call it irrelevant. Defeating the incest argument with logic strengthens the case for gay marriage does it not? Dismissing it does nothing.

Yeah, we are back to the paranoid notion that marriage was invented by homophobes who couldn't think of a more novel way to persecute gay people.