SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Nemeses · 03-07-2014 10:11PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Is that "yes"?

Of course it is a yes.

What's your angle here?

shruikan2553 · 03-07-2014 10:12PM

I dont understand how you can be against equal rights for woman and non white people and be called a sexist and racist but if you are against rights for gay people you merely have a different opinion that should be respected.

Annasopra · 03-07-2014 10:18PM

Nemeses wrote: »

Of course it is a yes.

What's your angle here?

I was looking for an answer!

Nemeses · 03-07-2014 10:22PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I was looking for an answer!

Fair enough so.

If you saw my previous posts you would have seen that I am indeed going out to vote yes

fran17 · 03-07-2014 10:27PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Is that "yes"?

I feel you are being quite aggressive in your postings towards this person and in general in this thread.including the use of profanities in #652 and #664 amoung others.can I ask you then for a yes or no answer to the lingering question I asked in post #705?

Nemeses · 03-07-2014 10:30PM

fran17 wrote: »

I feel you are being quite aggressive in your postings towards this person and in general in this thread.including the use of profanities in #652 and #664 amoung others.can I ask you then for a yes or no answer to the lingering question I asked in post #705?

I would imagine its probably an important subject for the user.

However politeness goes a long way.

Kiwi in IE · 03-07-2014 10:44PM

fran17 wrote: »

the word "homophobic" has been beaten to death already in this thread,including twice by your good self in this post.tell me,in your opinion is it possible for somebody to disapprove of gay marriage and not be "homophobic" also? if so then how?

I know it is not me whom you wanted an answer from, but personally I yet to hear an 'against' argument that is not homophobic. There are numerous different smokescreens for the homophobia and some may not be aware that they are even being homophobic ('protecting the traditional family' from what exactly?). I am yet to hear a logical argument against equal marriage. Those who are indoctrinated by a homophobic religion are not exempt from being personally responsible for their homophobia in my opinion. They have the ability to question, think and reason the same as any other person.

Ave Sodalis · 03-07-2014 10:48PM

fran17 wrote: »

sometimes you just cannot get a direct answer from people.i find it very frustrating also

fran17 wrote: »

I feel you are being quite aggressive in your postings towards this person and in general in this thread.including the use of profanities in #652 and #664 amoung others.can I ask you then for a yes or no answer to the lingering question I asked in post #705?

fran17 wrote: »

the word "homophobic" has been beaten to death already in this thread,including twice by your good self in this post.tell me,in your opinion is it possible for somebody to disapprove of gay marriage and not be "homophobic" also? if so then how?

How about I answer it for you? It may very well be possible. However, I have never seen an argument formed against gay marriage that did not have some sort of homophobic under meaning.
As for the referendum, I really hope it passes. It's about time the country pulled its head out of its own arse at least a little bit, and moved forward in the world. I'm straight so it doesn't really affect me, but as a previous poster said, this will be the one time I bother going out to vote.
As for the insults flying back and forth, it's a highly emotive topic for many people on both sides, whether it's justified or not. A certain degree of passion is going to be expected, it doesn't take away from the facts being laid out. This goes for both sides of the argument. However, in saying that, I can honestly say that I have not come across one genuine reason that gives the No side basis. Yeah, I've heard a lot of reasons but none genuine enough to give strength to any argument.

mickydoomsux · 03-07-2014 10:51PM

I simply don't understand how anyone could be against this.

What difference does it make to you what other people do in their lives? Have you really got that little going on yourself?

Are you afraid you'll end up getting stealth married to someone of the same sex?

As someone else already posted, there shouldn't be a referendum. It should just be legal already.

tomwaterford · 03-07-2014 10:56PM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

I simply don't understand how anyone could be against this.

What difference does it make to you what other people do in their lives? Have you really got that little going on yourself?

Are you afraid you'll end up getting stealth married to someone of the same sex?

As someone else already posted, there shouldn't be a referendum. It should just be legal already.

AFAIK its not illegal...its just getting it 100% above board...I wouldn't worry about the bigots and there slightly pointless arguments (like how petty would you have to be to actively vote against something that wont affect you and wont do any harm to anyone

)
it will pass with a record margin

Kiwi in IE · 03-07-2014 10:59PM

The fact there is going to be a referendum is homophobic in itself. And I'm not talking about just Ireland here but every country where it has or will be voted on. Citizens should not be asked to vote for or against whether a particular group of people should be granted equal rights to everyone else.

Ave Sodalis · 03-07-2014 11:05PM

tomwaterford wrote: »

like how petty would you have to be to actively vote against something that wont affect you and wont do any harm to anyone

Extremely... but that's not going to stop them

Muise... · 03-07-2014 11:07PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

The fact there is going to be a referendum is homophobic in itself. And I'm not talking about just Ireland here but every country where it has or will be voted on. Citizens should not be asked to vote for or against whether a particular group of people should be granted equal rights to everyone else.

I agree - it infuriates me that personal choices such as this are put to the electorate and not the individuals affected. But that's because
1. we have a Constitution (New Zealand is Commonwealth, right?) and
2. that Constitution is full of none of its business.
:mad:

peekachoo · 03-07-2014 11:12PM

Not currently registered to vote as tbh I've no interest in voting for the numerous shambles of referendums that happen here.
However will be registering to vote for this. Looking forward to seeing Ireland take a big step forward with the introduction of SSM.

Iwasfrozen · 03-07-2014 11:37PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

The fact there is going to be a referendum is homophobic in itself. And I'm not talking about just Ireland here but every country where it has or will be voted on. Citizens should not be asked to vote for or against whether a particular group of people should be granted equal rights to everyone else.

The law is neither homophobic nor homophilic. The law is emotionless, soulless and deaf to one's pleas.

Muise... · 03-07-2014 11:43PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The law is neither homophobic nor homophilic. The law is emotionless, soulless and deaf to one's pleas.

The law is written by humans.

floggg · 03-07-2014 11:51PM

Jester252 wrote: »

Not really on the fence per se. I am not a fan of pushy people. I have changed my vote because of a pushy campaigner.

Seriously? You'd deny me the right to marry my bf just because of pushy campaigners?

Iwasfrozen · 03-07-2014 11:52PM

Muise... wrote: »

The law is written by humans.

Indeed it is. Hence our referendum.

Jester252 · 04-07-2014 12:30AM

floggg wrote: »

Seriously? You'd deny me the right to marry my bf just because of pushy campaigners?

Don't try to predicted the future

P_1 · 04-07-2014 12:36AM

Jester252 wrote: »

Don't try to predicted the future

I'm not quite sure what prophesies were made in that post

NuMarvel · 04-07-2014 09:02AM

floggg wrote: »

Seriously? You'd deny me the right to marry my bf just because of pushy campaigners?

Many people make decisions in referendums based on the behaviour of campaigners or similar factors. Most of us don't have the time or inclination to logically weigh up the pros and cons, especially if the consequence doesn't directly impact on our lives. I know that my vote in the Seanad referendum was influenced in part by the behaviour of some people, and I say that as someone who researched the issue.

There are many people like Jester around the country, for whom this isn't a big issue, and who don't have a strong opinion on this either way. These are the people we need to be talking to, not to the people who have already made up their minds. We need to engage with them, make sure they understand the benefits of voting yes, and ask them for their vote. If it turns out that they're not really on the fence, but just masking their opposition, then so be it. I'd rather that than missing the chance to convince someone genuinely uncertain to vote yes.

To that end, Jester, I would ask that you vote yes. Allowing gay couples to marry will mean they have the opportunity to be officially recognised as a family unit, and they will enjoy the same benefits, responsibilities and protections as a married heterosexual couple. This may not affect you directly, but odds are you know, or will know, at least one gay person, and voting yes will make sure their family is treated as equal under the law.

Daith · 04-07-2014 09:27AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Indeed it is. Hence our referendum.

Which we wouldn't need but we know a tiny yet well funded minority would mount legal challenge after legal challenge if this was just legislated.

Equal marriage will come into Ireland. Maybe not next year but like divorce it will come at some stage.

floggg · 04-07-2014 09:40AM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Many people make decisions in referendums based on the behaviour of campaigners or similar factors. Most of us don't have the time or inclination to logically weigh up the pros and cons, especially if the consequence doesn't directly impact on our lives. I know that my vote in the Seanad referendum was influenced in part by the behaviour of some people, and I say that as someone who researched the issue.

There are many people like Jester around the country, for whom this isn't a big issue, and who don't have a strong opinion on this either way. These are the people we need to be talking to, not to the people who have already made up their minds. We need to engage with them, make sure they understand the benefits of voting yes, and ask them for their vote. If it turns out that they're not really on the fence, but just masking their opposition, then so be it. I'd rather that than missing the chance to convince someone genuinely uncertain to vote yes.

To that end, Jester, I would ask that you vote yes. Allowing gay couples to marry will mean they have the opportunity to be officially recognised as a family unit, and they will enjoy the same benefits, responsibilities and protections as a married heterosexual couple. This may not affect you directly, but odds are you know, or will know, at least one gay person, and voting yes will make sure their family is treated as equal under the law.

I understand that, and I had previously offered to explain any concerns and queries that he may have had.

It's just the phrasing of that post that I think got peoples backs up - this referendum is very different from others in that there will be an immediate, measurable and significant direct impact on the lives of so many, myself included.

Apart from the marriage rights this is also a form of referendum on gay people ourselves, on the validity and equality of our relationships. A yes vote tells us that Irish people see as the equals of our straight brothers and sisters. A no vote tells us we are less than, unworthy, undeserving.

So a post saying that the merits of the referendum doesn't matter, and that it's up to us to have to sell out equality to him is kinda trivialising the matter and our desire to be seen as equal. It's kind of insulting to be honest - that he would vote to deny me equality just because he didn't find the yes side to be as personable.

While he is fully in his rights to do so, it's not nice realising that my equality is being treated so lightly, and that LGBT are effectively being asked to plead for the same rights everybody else has.

It's why I find the idea of a referendum on this so unsettling. I really dread how I will feel if this is lost, having to wake up and realise that a majority of the electorate got up and voted to discriminate against me.

So I hope people who are on the fence or are considering voting no think about that angle - the very clear harm you do to real people like me. And I would beg you not to do that.

floggg · 04-07-2014 09:41AM

Jester252 wrote: »

Don't try to predicted the future

I wasn't saying you will, I was saying you (potentially) would.

floggg · 04-07-2014 09:45AM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The law is neither homophobic nor homophilic. The law is emotionless, soulless and deaf to one's pleas.

That's not what the US federal and supreme courts have said about the US Defence of Marriage Act and numerous state marriage bans (it's more often than not been conservative judges hearing the cases funnily enough).

StudentDad · 04-07-2014 10:19AM

Absolute separation of church and state please!

Why religious views of marriage are being dragged into a civil matter is extremely irritating.

This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with basic humanity and fairness. Marriage defined in law has nothing to do with any religious view of marriage and the two need be kept separate.

To my mind, an individuals religious outlook on marriage is irrelevant in the face of the duty owed by the State to ALL citizens to legislate impartially and recognise the inherent right of every citizen to marry as they see fit.

SD

I Heart Internet · 04-07-2014 11:09AM

StudentDad wrote: »

Why religious views of marriage are being dragged into a civil matter is extremely irritating.

The concept of religious marriage (christian in this case) has nothing, strictly speaking, to do with the cincept of civil marriage and how it is defined. You are quite right.

But everyone gets a say in how society chooses to define civil marriage - and it is a choice, we choose to say that you must be over 16, we choose to say that you may, under certain conditions break the contract, we choose to say that it must be registered and we choose (at the moment) to say it must be a contract between one man and one woman.

How everyone arrives at their position on civil marriage is their own business (if they have a position at all). Some will, undoubtedly, be influenced by their own notions of what a marriage is and what a religious marriage is in particular.

So the model of a christian wedding does shape what many people suggest as a definition for civil marriage, for better or worse (pun intended).

Akrasia · 04-07-2014 11:20AM

Anyone who opposes this referendum on some bullsh1t 'child protection' platform is essentially walking up to every gay couple in Ireland and saying "I don't want you to get married because I don't trust you to not adopt a child for the purposes of abusing him/her"

It is ridiculously homophobic

Anyone who opposes the referendum on the basis that "it damages the institution of 'the family'" Is essentially saying to every gay couple in Ireland. You don't deserve to call yourselves a family.

There are no arguments against this referendum that aren't seeded in homophobia and/or religious intolerance.

_Redzer_ · 04-07-2014 11:24AM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The concept of religious marriage (christian in this case) has nothing, strictly speaking, to do with the cincept of civil marriage and how it is defined. You are quite right.

But everyone gets a say in how society chooses to define civil marriage - and it is a choice, we choose to say that you must be over 16, we choose to say that you may, under certain conditions break the contract, we choose to say that it must be registered and we choose (at the moment) to say it must be a contract between one man and one woman.

How everyone arrives at their position on civil marriage is their own business (if they have a position at all). Some will, undoubtedly, be influenced by their own notions of what a marriage is and what a religious marriage is in particular.

So the model of a christian wedding does shape what many people suggest as a definition for civil marriage, for better or worse (pun intended).

I'm sorry but no, you have no right at all to force for religious views over someone else when it comes to a state/civil matter.

Religious views belong in a church. This has nothing at all to do with the church, and nobody is forcing them to hold gay weddings or anything like that that contradicts their teaching.

But, if they won't keep their noses out of a purely secular and civil issue and vote against SSM because it's against their religion, and drag their religion into this argument when it's neither welcome nor relevant, then I don't see the issue of forcing gay marriages in the Catholic Church.

Fair is fair. If you can't mind your own business and keep your nose out of things that have nothing to do with you, you can't have it both ways. You see it as fit to hold your views over the entire population, it's perfectly fair it work in reverse and the state get involved in forcing your organisation into accommodating SSM. After all, everyone has "notions of what a marriage is and what a religious marriage is in particular".

floggg · 04-07-2014 11:28AM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

I'm sorry but no, you have no right at all to force for religious views over someone else when it comes to a state/civil matter.

Religious views belong in a church. This has nothing at all to do wit the church and nobody is forcing them to hold gay weddings or anything like that that contradicts their teaching.

But, if they won't keep their noses out of a purely secular and civil issue and vote against SSM because it's against their religion, and drag their religion into this argument when it's neither welcome nor relevant, then I don't see the issue of forcing gay marriages in the Catholic Church.

Fair is fair. If you can't mind your own business and keep your nose out of things that have nothing to do with you, you can't have it both ways, and you see it as fit to hold your views over the entire population, it's perfectly fair it work in reverse and the state get involved in forcing your organisation into accommodating SSM. After all, everyone has notions of what a marriage is and what a religious marriage is in particular.

That's not how to works in a referendum.

Unfortunately they have a vote on this and can vote on whatever basis they want, including their religious beliefs.

We can't stop them, and even though it's forcing your beliefs on others is a ****ty thing to do, they are free to do so.

The state can't however force churches to perform same sex marriages as it would violate their freedom of religion.

SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Comments