SSM Referendum Spring 2015

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 04:31PM

Cydoniac wrote: »

There will though, on a number of levels. We pride ourselves as a very forward-thinking nation in this day and age, wouldn't look good if we decided to go against the grain and towards our shady past. It's hardly a lot being asked here.

What do we have to lose, Robert?

Same sex marriage is not forward thinking, it is a view.

Forward thinking in this case is doing what others are doing so not to be left out, it is like under age drinking and you don't do it and are seen as going against the grain, not in with the cool gang.

Ireland will not suffer if we vote no. We don't have to be sheep looking to bleat with other sheep, because we are told SSM is progressive, liberal and forward looking.

Voting No means we will have to vote again because the state does not respect its people, vote yes and the state gets what it wants and no referendum to over turn it.
This is how it works, a No vote will not be the end, it just means the people were wrong and the state will show its contempt for the people and make us vote again.
That is forward thinking, progressive and liberal...

Daith · 02-07-2014 04:32PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Same sex marriage is not forward thinking, it is a view.

Treating everyone as equal is forward thinking.

Treating everyone differently is backwards.

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 04:33PM

miss no stars wrote: »

No, mortified that so many people are homophobic bigots who haven't moved with the times and actively took away the opportunity for equality.

Wonder how that'd look to FDIs. "Come invest in Ireland, we'll be prejudiced against all your LGBT staff! Lovely place though!"

Namecalling does you no favours.

You are saying people are not entitled to be against it. That is where you are wrong...and one can say you are wrong without namecalling.

It is not even full equality as I stated in earlier posts.

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 04:34PM

Daith wrote: »

Treating everyone as equal is forward thinking.

Treating everyone differently is backwards.

So nature is backward for treating procreation differently?

Daith · 02-07-2014 04:35PM

RobertKK wrote: »

It is not even full equality as I stated in earlier posts.

Er what now?

Daith · 02-07-2014 04:35PM

RobertKK wrote: »

So nature is backward for treating procreation differently?

Sorry? Marriage is a man made construct. What does nature have to do with it?

Oh you are back to children again. What a surprise

miss no stars · 02-07-2014 04:36PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Namecalling does you no favours.

You are saying peole are not entitled to be against it. That is where you are wrong...and one can say you are wrong without namecalling.

It is not even full equality as I stated in earlier posts.

I think you should read my earlier post.

I'm not calling people names, I'm calling people for what they are. Think of a man in the middle east who rapes his wife every night and opposes rights for women. Does he just have a different view and he's entitled to not favour human rights for women? Or is he actually a bigoted violent misogynist?

Just because you can't see the glaringly obvious bigotry of your own standpoint doesn't mean that your stance isn't glaringly obviously bigoted.

I Heart Internet · 02-07-2014 04:39PM

miss no stars wrote: »

.....Think of a man in the middle east who rapes his wife every night and opposes rights for women. Does he just have a different view and he's entitled to not favour human rights for women? Or is he actually a bigoted violent misogynist?

Just because you can't see the glaringly obvious bigotry of your own standpoint doesn't mean that your stance isn't glaringly obviously bigoted.

In fairness, this kind of hyperbolic comparison with violent rapists doesn't help people to take the "yes side" seriously.

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 04:39PM

miss no stars wrote: »

I think you should read my earlier post.

I'm not calling people names, I'm calling people for what they are. Think of a man in the middle east who rapes his wife every night and opposes rights for women. Does he just have a different view and he's entitled to not favour human rights for women? Or is he actually a bigoted violent misogynist?

Just because you can't see the glaringly obvious bigotry of your own standpoint doesn't mean that your stance isn't glaringly obviously bigoted.

You are making presumptions based on your own opinions as to what they are.

miss no stars · 02-07-2014 04:41PM

RobertKK wrote: »

You are making presumptions based on your own opinions as to what they are.

Without reference to children or religion - neither of which will be affected by same sex marriage, explain to me why as a nation we should deny the rights of two people who love each other to marry?

Because if you can't do that - if you can't offer an objective reason as to why it's okay to discriminate - then you're just being bigoted.

_Redzer_ · 02-07-2014 04:41PM

RobertKK wrote: »

So nature is backward for treating procreation differently?

It's sad that you keep repeating the same nonsense hoping that someone will listen, or maybe that if you say it in your head enough you'll think it's true.

Everyone had pointed out to you that marriage has zero to do with kids, and it's not a requirement.

Marriage is a man made concept, so it's unnatural -ie, you can't claim the nature argument because it doesn't exist.

Now are you going to acknowledge these points, or are you going to stick your head in the sand and go around in circles trying to justify a non-argument?

Daith · 02-07-2014 04:42PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

In fairness, this kind of hyperbolic comparison with violent rapists doesn't help people to take the "yes side" seriously.

Lets tone it down. If you disagree with interracial marriage are you a racist?

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 04:43PM

Daith wrote: »

Sorry? Marriage is a man made construct. What does nature have to do with it?

Oh you are back to children again. What a surprise

I did say I would abolish civil marriage earlier, but a lot of people think the state has to have a role in their love lives.

hmmm · 02-07-2014 04:44PM

"Yes" supporters are going to have to be very careful not to become complacent. The circles you mix in might be overwhelmingly supportive, but that might not reflect the country as a whole. Instead of sitting back and assuming this is going to pass, you (yes, you) need to get out there and canvass your friends, families etc., and on the day get them to the voting booths.

Daith · 02-07-2014 04:45PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I did say I would abolish civil marriage earlier, but a lot of people think the state has to have a role in their love lives.

And you seem to think you have a role in other people's love lives.

Zubeneschamali · 02-07-2014 04:45PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

In fairness, this kind of hyperbolic comparison with violent rapists doesn't help people to take the "yes side" seriously.

The "yes side" are people.

Zubeneschamali · 02-07-2014 04:46PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I did say I would abolish civil marriage earlier

Yes, who'd want it if gays are allowed have it.

RayM · 02-07-2014 04:46PM

RobertKK wrote: »

This is how it works, a No vote will not be the end, it just means the people were wrong and the state will show its contempt for the people and make us vote again.

Probably not for a very long time. A decade passed between divorce referendums. A No vote would be a massive display of contempt for the rights of gay people. Marriage Equality won't affect your rights in any way at all. There are no valid reasons to vote against it.

Over the next six months, I fully expect the 'No' side to conjure up lots of wild and wacky new arguments in a desperate attempt to to support their existing stance. And not one of them will be honest enough to directly link that stance to their religious beliefs. I'd have a tiny bit of respect for them if they just came right out and said "It's wrong cos the Bible says so".

Daith · 02-07-2014 04:47PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The "yes side" are people.

No it's ok

The NO side can

Say Gay people shouldn't raise children
Say gay people are all promiscuous
Say Gay people should be happy with less equality
Say being gay isn't natural

but you judge a person on the No side and woah your argument is null and void.

J_E · 02-07-2014 04:47PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Ireland will not suffer if we vote no. We don't have to be sheep looking to bleat with other sheep, because we are told SSM is progressive, liberal and forward looking.

What you mean to say is you will not suffer if you vote no. You also won't suffer if you vote yes, either.

floggg · 02-07-2014 04:48PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Same sex marriage is not forward thinking, it is a view.

Forward thinking in this case is doing what others are doing so not to be left out, it is like under age drinking and you don't do it and are seen as going against the grain, not in with the cool gang.

Ireland will not suffer if we vote no. We don't have to be sheep looking to bleat with other sheep, because we are told SSM is progressive, liberal and forward looking.

Voting No means we will have to vote again because the state does not respect its people, vote yes and the state gets what it wants and no referendum to over turn it.
This is how it works, a No vote will not be the end, it just means the people were wrong and the state will show its contempt for the people and make us vote again.
That is forward thinking, progressive and liberal...

Sorry, but Ireland will not suffer if we vote no?

I'll suffer personally as my relationships will treated as second class in the eyes of the law. My future husband will equally suffer.

As will every other gay person in Ireland.

And their families and friends, who wish to see their loved ones treated with equal dignity and respect as a matter of law.

That's a lot of Irish people who will suffer, which means Ireland will suffer.

Ireland will not however suffer from a yes vote.

old hippy · 02-07-2014 04:50PM

I haven't read a single coherent argument or reason why ssm should not become law. Not one. We have a handful of naysayers here but none of them can give any valid points at to why they think it's a bad thing.

This is encouraging.

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 04:52PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, who'd want it if gays are allowed have it.

I never supported or believed in civil marriage.

I believe marriage is before God, not the state. The problem is the state controls marriage in terms of legally recognising it.

floggg · 02-07-2014 04:53PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

In fairness, this kind of hyperbolic comparison with violent rapists doesn't help people to take the "yes side" seriously.

Ok then. Think of a kettle. Is it name calling to call the kettle a kettle?

renegademaster · 02-07-2014 04:53PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why set the date so far away? Will definitely be defeated anyway imo.

the next general elections are may 2016 so in comparison tis not that far away!!

Daith · 02-07-2014 04:54PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I believe marriage is before God, not the state. The problem is the state controls marriage in terms of legally recognising it.

So don't get civilly married then? Just have the religious ceremony?

I Heart Internet · 02-07-2014 04:54PM

floggg wrote: »

Ok then. Think of a kettle. Is it name calling to call the kettle a kettle?

Yes. It's Mr Kettle to you.

_Redzer_ · 02-07-2014 04:54PM

Daith wrote: »

No it's ok

The NO side can

Say Gay people shouldn't raise children
Say gay people are all promiscuous
Say Gay people should be happy with less equality
Say being gay isn't natural

but you judge a person on the No side and woah your argument is null and void.

It's actually ridiculous how protected they are. They have free reign to say whatever they want about us but god forbid we should say anything back to them.

You can call someone a racist or sexist here without any sort of retaliation, but call them a homophobe and that's a ban. Even if it's calling a spade a spade.

It's fúcking bullshít.

miss no stars · 02-07-2014 04:56PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I never supported or believed in civil marriage.

I believe marriage is before God, not the state. The problem is the state controls marriage in terms of legally recognising it.

Should Christianity/Judaism/Islam be enforced on everyone in your view? Just because YOU believe in whichever of the above? Must we all follow all of your chosen religion's teachings?

Seriously, do you believe that because YOU have a religious stance on something the rest of us should fall into line with that? And wouldn't that be putting yourself up there as some sort of idol for how we should conduct our society? Which goes against religious teaching about false idols..

Daith · 02-07-2014 04:56PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

It's actually ridiculous how protected they are. They have free reign to say whatever they want about us but god forbid we should say anything back to them.

You can call someone a racist or sexist here without any sort of retaliation, but call them a homophobe and that's a ban. Even if it's calling a spade a spade.

It's fúcking bullshít.

Tis true. The victims of homophobia are the homophobes.

SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Comments