Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Options
1…6791112…69

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Nodin wrote: »
    Gay couples are to be allowed adopt, regardless of the result of the referendum on gay marriage. Separate issue entirely.

    No its about marriage equality and anti-discrimination legislation and how this impacted adoption in the UK. I don't have a problem with same-sex adoption, single 'parents' are allowed to adopt here so most of the tenuous arguments against gay adoption are invalid (the arguments about role-model of the opposite sex etc).
    Muise... wrote: »
    It's the stretchiest of stretchy arguments that the possible feelings of a Catholic woman who doesn't want to give a baby up for adoption to a non-Catholic family should be in any way considered as grounds to stop the progress of same sex marriage because the church, in a fit of pique and sour grapes, will refuse to act as an adoption agency if gay people can get married.

    If I was going to empathise, I'd think "poor woman giving up her baby" not "poor woman can't give up her baby now in case some gays get it."

    Its not about stopping Gay Marriage, as I said its my ONLY issue with it. The issue could be avoided by allowing some level of discrimination by religious service providers (provided there is non religious alternatives too)

    Why do you discount a persons religious beliefs and consider that they don't have an impact?Its about making a bad situation worse for the mother.

    Don;t you think that a lot of the people in the UK a country where 1 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion its more likely that its the strongly religious than the normal population to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term (not arguing about abortion here!).
    Legs.Eleven wrote: »
    I'm not boasting

    Cos this isn't boasting about committing voter fraud what is it?
    Legs.Eleven wrote: »
    fcuk yiz :P

    Legs.Eleven wrote: »
    By the way, you're obviously not aware of how many Irish living in Europe who return home to vote as it is.

    I am aware, the same way that there is abuse of the election system in Ireland in other areas, it still doesn't make the rules undemocratic, its this attitude that its ok to throw away the rule book because the law doesn't matter or its only a minor thing that runs through Irish politics.
    The fact that you as an Irish passport holder feel that its ok to commit voter fraud to influence a referendum in a country your not going to return to is extremely undemocratic.
    Anyway if you enact the proposals you are considering your going to add about 50% of NI's population who are non resident in the ROI to the electoral rolls to.

    In short its about respect for our Democratic system and an equal playing field, your willing to break those rules for your own ends, thats both amoral and illegal.
    I have no problem with you protesting about it or chaining yourself to a voting booth or similar but thats not what your doing.


  • Options
    #243
    Rayne Wooney
    Registered Users Posts: 14,136 ✭✭✭✭Rayne Wooney


    It baffles me how anybody could be against this, it really does

    Hopefully this passes and that mindset dies out, long overdue really

    It doesn't affect me but everyone should be on equal ground and if two people of the same sex want to get married how is that going to affect anyone else?


  • Options
    #244
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users Posts: 30,354 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    Rayne Wooney wrote: »
    It baffles me how anybody could be against this, it really does

    Hopefully this passes and that mindset dies out, long overdue really

    It doesn't affect me but everyone should be on equal ground and if two people of the same sex want to get married how is that going to affect anyone else?

    How does Coleen feel?


  • Options
    #245
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    No its about marriage equality and anti-discrimination legislation and how this impacted adoption in the UK. I don't have a problem with same-sex adoption, single 'parents' are allowed to adopt here so most of the tenuous arguments against gay adoption are invalid (the arguments about role-model of the opposite sex etc).


    .

    That's rather irrelevant to here and the referendum.


  • Options
    #246
    Lou.m
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,532 ✭✭✭Lou.m


    Camron Stale Witch wrote: »
    I actually think there might be a chance it could not pass just from low turnout. The sane among us who support it generally fail to see it as a big deal, the retarded bigots who oppose it generally feel quite strongly. So those against will make a deliberate effort to vote, those supporting could just assume it's going to pass and not bother.

    We WILL need a campaign and to rally the yes vote.

    It is there ..we just need to mobilize people and remind them that yes is not a given unless they get out there.

    I think the NO campaign will be full of the types the Irish people would like to give the two fingers to like Iona etc and that it will be seen as a chance to tell them where to go.

    Maybe that will rally the yes vote.

    Hope so.

    I will be helping anyway I can for yes vote.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    mactheknife19
    Registered Users Posts: 165 ✭✭mactheknife19


    I guess I'm like a large percentage of the population in that I've paid little attention to this subject as it's something that does not impact me personally. Much like when I was younger and single I didn't really take notice or much interest in the referendums around abortion or divorce. Where now that Im married with kids I would have more of an interest and opinion. Personally I don't have any close friends who are gay . Those that I know happen to be brothers of friends. So I guess that's why this subject is something that doesn't play a part in my day to day life. However I will vote as I believe it's my duty. I assume I'm voting Yes to SSM but that's because I assume it's basically comes down to equality. Can someone just give me the short version of what I'm voting for. I assume that what I'm really voting for is equality to endure SSM have the same rights as others around tax, pensions, inheritance, adoption. Is there anything that would still be out after a Yes vote.


  • Options
    #248
    ToddyDoody
    Registered Users Posts: 4,421 ✭✭✭ToddyDoody


    The funny thing about ssm is that not having it really does de-stabilize society more as far as i can.see, now that the lgbt community doesn't hide under a veil of secrecy any more. In saying that, just because ssm exists doesn't mean every lgbt person should then get married.


  • Options
    #249
    Gannicus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,736 ✭✭✭Gannicus


    shopaholic01 wrote: »
    I think a lot of people are largely indifferent. I'd imagine the turnout will be quite low.

    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    There's a massive catholic element in Irish society even now. A lot of them will get out to vote against it. Even though I believe they're outnumbered by people in favour of SSM, it might be a struggle to motivate a lot of straight people who, while generally supportive, aren't affected by it and might not be bothered to get to the polling booth.

    I hope I'm wrong about this. Surely at this stage everyone knows at least one openly gay person whose rights they'd want to fight for.

    I agree. I reckon you are right shopaholic01, but in saying that I reckon unless the masses get up and vote the militant Christians will come out in numbers and I wouldn't be surprised if there is a no vote as a result. I'll be voting for it but I know out of my friends (who are in favour of SSM), myself and one other of my friends will vote the rest will say the agree with SSM but they'll sit on their hands, come referendum day.


  • Options
    #250
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    No its about marriage equality and anti-discrimination legislation and how this impacted adoption in the UK. I don't have a problem with same-sex adoption, single 'parents' are allowed to adopt here so most of the tenuous arguments against gay adoption are invalid (the arguments about role-model of the opposite sex etc).



    Its not about stopping Gay Marriage, as I said its my ONLY issue with it. The issue could be avoided by allowing some level of discrimination by religious service providers (provided there is non religious alternatives too)

    Why do you discount a persons religious beliefs and consider that they don't have an impact?Its about making a bad situation worse for the mother.

    Don;t you think that a lot of the people in the UK a country where 1 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion its more likely that its the strongly religious than the normal population to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term (not arguing about abortion here!).

    What the devil are you arguing? You give a baby up, you give it up. I'm sure it tears a great big hole in the heart, but I don't see how that entitles the giver-up to dictate to whom it should be given, once its basic rights and needs are ensured.


  • Options
    #251
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    What will defeat the referendum will be the Yes side saying no voters are bigots and homophobes. It is an incentive for No voters to vote who will feel they are not allowed to be entitled to their views.

    There are a lot of counter cultural people in Ireland, who don't feel the need to support or do what media and others promote as being the norm or what they view as a right. They don't feel the need to be in agreement with what they are told they must support. They are strong in their views.

    I expect it will be a tight referendum with a few percentage points in it - either way.
    Remember the children's referendum had support over 80% according to the polls, the real result was much closer.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,945 ✭✭✭Daith


    RobertKK wrote: »
    What will defeat the referendum will be the Yes side saying no voters are bigots and homophobes. It is an incentive for No voters to vote who will feel they are not allowed to be entitled to their views.

    But other people aren't entitled to their views if they think someone could be a homophobe?

    I doubt very much the yes side are going to be calling everyone who votes no a homophobe btw. Just as I doubt the No side are all going to call de gays "intrinsically disordered"


  • Options
    #253
    iwantmydinner
    Registered Users Posts: 3,246 ✭✭✭iwantmydinner


    RobertKK wrote: »
    What will defeat the referendum will be the Yes side saying no voters are bigots and homophobes. It is an incentive for No voters to vote who will feel they are not allowed to be entitled to their views.

    There are a lot of counter cultural people in Ireland, who don't feel the need to support or do what media and others promote as being the norm or what they view as a right. They don't feel the need to be in agreement with what they are told they must support. They are strong in their views.

    I expect it will be a tight referendum with a few percentage points in it - either way.
    Remember the children's referendum had support over 80% according to the polls, the real result was much closer.

    Denying. Equal. Rights. To. Other. Humans. Is. Bigoted.


  • Options
    #254
    comongethappy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,753 ✭✭✭comongethappy


    iwantmydinner wrote: »
    Denying. Equal. Rights. To. Other. Humans. Is. Bigoted.

    Its really that simple.

    With zero rational argument for a 'No', it's all that is left.


  • Options
    #255
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    I find it strange that the people worried about the sanctity of marriage don't care about divorce.


  • Options
    #256
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    RobertKK wrote: »
    It is an incentive for No voters to vote who will feel they are not allowed to be entitled to their views.
    "You must tolerate my intolerance".

    No voters are perfectly entitled to their views. That's why we're having a referendum.

    Don't confuse the right to hold an opinion with the right to hold an opinion free of criticism. Because the latter doesn't exist. Respecting someone's right to hold an opinion doesn't mean you have to respect their opinion.

    If someone is incapable or unwilling to defend their viewpoint, then don't get involved in debates on the matter.


  • Options
    #257
    c_man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭c_man


    RayM wrote: »
    I'd sort of prefer that too. As a heterosexual, I don't feel very comfortable about being given the chance to decide what rights other people should have. It's a bit like being told I can vote in another country's general election.

    Well you can :) (assuming you're an Irish citizen)


    Oh god, the referendum is another year away? I wish they'd get it over with, lessen the amount of bollocks we'll have to hear from both sides.


  • Options
    #258
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,945 ✭✭✭Daith


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    I find it strange that the people worried about the sanctity of marriage don't care about divorce.

    Oh they did. I think it was the Iona's crowd "Hello Divorce, Goodbye Daddy"

    Then they had a divorced dad who was a psychiatrist on RTE last year saying that gay people can't marry because of children.

    Funny world
    c_man wrote: »
    Oh god, the referendum is another year away? I wish they'd get it over with, lessen the amount of bollocks we'll have to hear from both sides.

    The thing is they need to get the bill which allows joint gay adoption to pass first. This is really more important (in my view) than the referendum itself.

    It would eliminate the entire "Well I don't mind gay people marrying but not sure about adoption or them raising kids" line.


  • Options
    #259
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    c_man wrote: »
    Well you can :) (assuming you're an Irish citizen)


    Oh god, the referendum is another year away? I wish they'd get it over with, lessen the amount of bollocks we'll have to hear from both sides.

    On the plus side a gay couple will be able to adopt by then causing Iona to have to come up with something that might be slightly related to SSM.

    But what about the children?
    They are already being turned gay by their adoptive parents and SSM will have no affect on it.


  • Options
    #260
    P_1
    Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    RobertKK wrote: »
    What will defeat the referendum will be the Yes side saying no voters are bigots and homophobes. It is an incentive for No voters to vote who will feel they are not allowed to be entitled to their views.

    There are a lot of counter cultural people in Ireland, who don't feel the need to support or do what media and others promote as being the norm or what they view as a right. They don't feel the need to be in agreement with what they are told they must support. They are strong in their views.

    I expect it will be a tight referendum with a few percentage points in it - either way.
    Remember the children's referendum had support over 80% according to the polls, the real result was much closer.

    True but you must understand the context of how the members of the no side have painted LBGT people for years. When you're constantly being told by people that your way of life isn't normal nor should you be given certain rights because of it you are going to get some kind of a backlash.

    I agree that turning the other cheek (not an easy feat by any measure) to some of the more colourful remarks that are sure to come out from the no side will be the best option for the yes side. So rather than calling conservative commentator x a homophobe for their remarks a better way would be to say "conservative commentator x, you said this, I think that's a rather homophobic thing to be saying, could you clarify it".

    Basically give them enough rope to hang themselves with


  • Options
    #261
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    iwantmydinner wrote: »
    Denying. Equal. Rights. To. Other. Humans. Is. Bigoted.

    That is a poor argument. Look to reproduction, and apply your argument.
    Nature denies biological children to two people of the same sex. Producing biological children naturally is confined to opposite sexes.
    So nature denies equality in humans. Nature has the relationship between man and woman differently than to that of the same sex.
    Using the arguments some use, nature is bigoted and homophobic for denying same sex couples the "right" to produce biological children together.

    In real life same sex marriage will not give equality, that is why the government has to fiddle around with adoption rights to give a perception it is equal, due to nature denying same sex couples a biological child.
    Nature has children with a mother and father. If nature wanted same sex adoption and equality as some argue they are fighting for it would have allowed biological children for same sex couples.

    The fact is same sex marriage will never be truly equal as people of child bearing age in a marriage will only have the possibility of a biological child in an opposite sex marriage.

    We can vote yes for perception reasons.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,856 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    P_1 wrote: »
    True but you must understand the context of how the members of the no side have painted LBGT people for years.

    Hey, maybe using terms like "homophobe" might get the anti- side to grow a tiny bit of empathy for those they've labelled "deviants"/"queers"/"******s"/"dykes" etc.


  • Options
    #263
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    RobertKK wrote: »
    That is a poor argument. Look to reproduction, and apply your argument.
    Nature denies biological children to two people of the same sex. Producing biological children naturally is confined to opposite sexes.
    So nature denies equality in humans. Nature has the relationship between man and woman differently than to that of the same sex.
    Using the arguments some use, nature is bigoted and homophobic for denying same sex couples the "right" to produce biological children together.

    In real life same sex marriage will not give equality, that is why the government has to fiddle around with adoption rights to give a perception it is equal, due to nature denying same sex couples a biological child.
    Nature has children with a mother and father. If nature wanted same sex adoption and equality as some argue they are fighting for it would have allowed biological children for same sex couples.

    The fact is same sex marriage will never be truly equal as people of child bearing age in a marriage will only have the possibility of a biological child in an opposite sex marriage.

    We can vote yes for perception reasons.

    What about people who are in a hetrosexual marriage who can't have children?

    Engines don't grow on trees. Should we use them? If you want to live as nature intended feel free, I'm quite happy with advancing as a species.


  • Options
    #264
    comongethappy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,753 ✭✭✭comongethappy


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Look to reproduction, and apply your argument.

    Why?

    The question is about marrying someone, not about procreation.

    Logic transference doesn't need to apply.... Might as well say "look to vehicle maintenance and apply your argument".


  • Options
    #265
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    RobertKK wrote: »
    That is a poor argument. Look to reproduction, and apply your argument.
    Nature denies biological children to two people of the same sex. Producing biological children naturally is confined to opposite sexes.
    So nature denies equality in humans. Nature has the relationship between man and woman differently than to that of the same sex.
    Using the arguments some use, nature is bigoted and homophobic for denying same sex couples the "right" to produce biological children together.

    In real life same sex marriage will not give equality, that is why the government has to fiddle around with adoption rights to give a perception it is equal, due to nature denying same sex couples a biological child.
    Nature has children with a mother and father. If nature wanted same sex adoption and equality as some argue they are fighting for it would have allowed biological children for same sex couples.

    The fact is same sex marriage will never be truly equal as people of child bearing age in a marriage will only have the possibility of a biological child in an opposite sex marriage.

    We can vote yes for perception reasons.

    We're not having a referendum to change nature. Because that would be retarded.

    We're having a referendum on the equal right to marriage; marriage being a human construct based on a commitment between two people who love each other to share their lives.


  • Options
    #266
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    What about people who are in a hetrosexual marriage who can't have children?

    That is why I used the word the possibility of a child, as well as child bearing age.


  • Options
    #267
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Nature denies biological children to two people of the same sex. Producing biological children naturally is confined to opposite sexes.
    So nature denies equality in humans. Nature has the relationship between man and woman differently than to that of the same sex.
    Using the arguments some use, nature is bigoted and homophobic for denying same sex couples the "right" to produce biological children together.
    Nature is not an intelligent agent. It's a series of processes.

    This argument is pretty pointless, it's like saying that nature denies disabled people the right to walk therefore giving them equal rights is all for show.


  • Options
    #268
    GalwayGuy2
    Registered Users Posts: 2,269 ✭✭✭GalwayGuy2


    I saw the title and thought it was a bill for S and M :o


  • Options
    #269
    SEPT 23 1989
    Registered Users Posts: 43,028 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    RobertKK wrote: »
    What will defeat the referendum will be the Yes side saying no voters are bigots and homophobes. It is an incentive for No voters to vote who will feel they are not allowed to be entitled to their views.

    There are a lot of counter cultural people in Ireland, who don't feel the need to support or do what media and others promote as being the norm or what they view as a right. They don't feel the need to be in agreement with what they are told they must support. They are strong in their views.

    I expect it will be a tight referendum with a few percentage points in it - either way.
    Remember the children's referendum had support over 80% according to the polls, the real result was much closer.

    So the Iona Institute are counter cultural now?

    upside down world


  • Options
    #270
    P_1
    Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    Hey, maybe using terms like "homophobe" might get the anti- side to grow a tiny bit of empathy for those they've labelled "deviants"/"queers"/"******s"/"dykes" etc.

    In an ideal word that would be the way to do it alright but sadly they've managed to Orwell that away into another argument.

    Plus it is more civilised to eviscerate somebody through logical argument than by what they'd construe as name-calling.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    Duggy747
    Registered Users Posts: 13,295 ✭✭✭✭Duggy747


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Nature has children with a mother and father. If nature wanted same sex adoption and equality as some argue they are fighting for it would have allowed biological children for same sex couples.

    Using nature for this argument is a strange and poor one at that, nature isn't exclusive to male and females and is in-discriminant, it's not some form that dictates the rules.

    But since you mentioned nature / reproduction only for mothers and fathers, there is the whole thing of asexual reproduction..... :pac:


Advertisement