nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

Kermit.de.frog

I think it is in May.

I won't because it does not affect me. If they get it passed fair play but I doubt i'm in a minority when I say I have little interest in it.

I think this apathy might be the biggest risk to the referendum and also the appeal of giving the government a harmless (in my view) kicking.

Anyone feel the same way about it? I just could not be bothered. I think it will be like the children's referendum. Very low turnout.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

cletus van damme

Daith wrote: »

It's about defining who can marry in our constitution for the first time.

Did they not do that back in the 1930s cos without that definition then why can't gay people get married already?

Do you really me , it's the first time the people get to define it ?

Daith

cletus van damme wrote: »

Did they not do that back in the 1930s cos without that definition then why can't gay people get married already?

Do you really me , it's the first time the people get to define it ?

Show me the definition of marriage in our constitution.

1123heavy

This will only open the floodgates for all sorts of problems down the line. What next ? SSC being allowed to adopt ? As my old Irish teacher used to say, "Little by little they build the castle" ...

golfball37

There's no chance of people voting No in this to give the govt a bloody nose as the main opposition parties in the Dail, SF, Socialists and the Technical Group will all be calling loudly for a yes vote.

Me personally- I will be voting no as I just don't believe its natural. Civil partnership, inheritence rights and equal rights all fine by me but marriage is a step too far as adoption will inevitably be the next item on the agenda.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I won't because it does not affect me.

Probably the worst reason I can think of for not voting on an issue.

A few users have discussed reasons how it might actually affect you, so I will not repeat them.

But in a more general sense I see too often people who do not vote on issues that do not affect them. But then when society somehow does negatively affect them they bemoan the state of the modern nation, wonder why no one ever does anything about things like this, and then engage in all kinds of arm chair political moaning about how politics and the like achieve nothing.

EVERY vote on the rights of people is a chance to put a brick in the wall of the society you would like to build, even if the direct implications of the issue being voted on do not appear to have a direct impact on you. No issue is an island in the same was as no human is an island. It is part of a greater picture that maybe you are not seeing.

The right decision on human rights affects us all, regardless of how indirect that effect might be. And it always seems to me the people who have expressed apathy on many issues, who are the first to complain about a society where nothing ever seems to get done or improved. The very use of your democratic voice affects you, regardless of the issue you use that voice on.

Akrasia wrote: »

(I'm only presuming that you're not black because you are a frog)

;-)

wexandproud wrote: »

but this sort of attitude from one side of the debate really pi..e. me off and would help me make my mind up very quickly

Understandable in a way, but in actuality it says more about you than about the person you are talking about. You have pretty much openly said that your would vote on an issue based on your personal distaste for people espousing one side of it.

A stronger person will see past the characters of the people campaigning (and I strongly expect ugliness on BOTH sides of this campaign in the coming months) and see the actual issues involved. A vote of "This person on this side P'ed me off so I will vote against them" is as petty as it is shallow. Regardless of which direction it would make you vote.

Let us address the issues and the merits and demerits of a yes vote. Thus far I have seen none of the "no" side arguments at all yet so I guess we have to withold judgement for the present until they come up with some.

endacl wrote: »

That was clever. Almost looked like a valid point! Well played, sir. Well played indeed!

It is an argument you are going to see a LOT in the coming months. Aside from off topic comments about Adoption, it will be one of the most oft repeated argument you are going to get sick of hearing.

And it is not the first time essentially the same argument was tried (and failed). When one looks back at things like "Loving V. Virginia" where a couple were put before the courts for the "crime" of an inter-racial marriage.... the exact same argument was presented by people in that era. They claimed that everyone had the right to marry someone of the same race, therefore everyone had equality and equal rights.

It was not a good argument then. It is not a good argument now. But it is one you will hear a lot, to the muttered approval and head nodding of those who already agree with it's sentiment.

1123heavy wrote: »

I shall be voting NO. They can do whatever they like but 'marriage' itself was made to be a sign of a bonding between a man and a woman

This is a poor line of argumentation for two strong reasons. The first being that it is wrong anyway, but the second being that the kind of thinking it demonstrates is also fallacious.

Either one torpedoes your point alone but I will present both.

The first is that the history of marriage, how and why it was founded, and what it has historically entailed is not actually as clear cut as you just pretended it to be. In many eras and many places it has been exactly the opposite of what you describe.

The second is that not only is your historical revisionism frankly inaccurate, but even if it WAS accurate, so what? You are making an "appeal to tradition" fallacy here by pretending that something should remain the way it always was, simply because that is the way it always was. That kind of thinking is dangerous. Our institutions, laws and ethics and not set in stone for all time. They need to grow, adapt and evolve to match the requirements of the society in which they actually exist.

cletus van damme wrote: »

Simply put - this is about re-defining marriage in Ireland. I'm not in favour of that - I'll be voting no

Perhaps the paragraph just above this might also be of interest to you? And maybe even the one before that. Marriage has been defined and re-defined many times. Why not again now?

Further, an extension of marriage is not a redefinition of it. For the "traditional" marriages what exactly do you think is being redefined or affected in any way?

1123heavy wrote: »

SSC being allowed to adopt ?

This referendum has NOTHING to do with that for a start. Further however, SSC can already adopt. They just have to apply as a single person to do it. If anything being considered as a married couple will make it HARDER for them to adopt because more data will then be included in the selection and evaluation processes.

golfball37 wrote: »

Me personally- I will be voting no as I just don't believe its natural.

Yeah because "marriage" is natural in the first place

eviltwin

1123heavy wrote: »

This will only open the floodgates for all sorts of problems down the line. What next ? SSC being allowed to adopt ? As my old Irish teacher used to say, "Little by little they build the castle" ...

This old chestnut :rolleyes:

Gay people can already adopt.

Daith

golfball37 wrote: »

marriage is a step too far as adoption will inevitably be the next item on the agenda.

Gay people can already adopt.

Voting yes or no on the referendum won't change this.

Timberrrrrrrr

1123heavy wrote: »

This will only open the floodgates for all sorts of problems down the line. What next ? SSC being allowed to adopt ? As my old Irish teacher used to say, "Little by little they build the castle" ...

What's wrong with same sec couples being allowed to adopt?

1123heavy

Eviltwin- not as freely as other nations.

Daith

1123heavy wrote: »

Eviltwin- not as freely as other nations.

The referendum won't change anything though. Even if the referendum were to faily, gay people will still be able to adopt.

minidazzler

Gay rights are the civil rights fight of my generation and I fully plan to be on the front line. I'll be voting, possibly campaigning a bit time willing, but certainly disowning and de friending anyone in real life who votes against it. I don't care how long I know them, I don't think any of my friends would vote against it, but if they did, I'd immediately let them know we can no longer be friends and delete them entirely from my life.

eviltwin

1123heavy wrote: »

Eviltwin- not as freely as other nations.

Yes they can. The only reason its not that common is because as a country we have so few children placed for adoption in the first place. But it does happen. Gay people are not treated any differently to a straight person in the adoption process. They have to go through the exact same checks and meet the same criteria. I don't know where you are getting your misinformation from but you really should make a point of learning more about the issue before you make up your mind one way or another.

Hoop66

1123heavy wrote: »

This will only open the floodgates for all sorts of problems down the line. What next ? SSC being allowed to adopt ? As my old Irish teacher used to say, "Little by little they build the castle" ...

I won't be able to vote as I'm not an Irish citizen.

Please, if you are able to vote do.

Because you can be sure that those spouting the the sort of ignorant, bigoted tripe above will be.

golfball37

minidazzler wrote: »

Gay rights are the civil rights fight of my generation and I fully plan to be on the front line. I'll be voting, possibly campaigning a bit time willing, but certainly disowning and de friending anyone in real life who votes against it. I don't care how long I know them, I don't think any of my friends would vote against it, but if they did, I'd immediately let them know we can no longer be friends and delete them entirely from my life.

Bang goes the theory that only liberal minded people are in favour of this.

1123heavy

What's wrong with same sec couples being allowed to adopt?

I don't know about you, but I would NOT have liked to have had 2 dads, 2 mums etc. Child abuse !!!

efb

1123heavy wrote: »

I don't know about you, but I would NOT have liked to have had 2 dads, 2 mums etc. Child abuse !!!

How is it child abuse?

Timberrrrrrrr

1123heavy wrote: »

I don't know about you, but I would NOT have liked to have had 2 dads, 2 mums etc. Child abuse !!!

What is abusive about it? Please oh please explain your thinking behind that sentence.

PopePalpatine

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't get the whole "redefining marriage" argument and I say that as someone married. What will a YES vote mean for my marriage? Nothing so where is the issue?

The "No" side's predecessors had no qualms with re-defining "f****t".

uck51js9zml2yt

Shiraz 4.99 wrote: »

If Jesus were alive today he would definitely be voting yes.
Look at the facts of a 33 year old man in the middle east at that time with no wife, family or children.
Not only would he be voting yes he'd be doing it wearing flashing neon pom poms.

If it's alright for Jesus then it's alright for me.
Everybody dance now.

What's your basis for that misconception?

It's documented that he referred to the last days of the earth's existence as being akin to sodom and gomorrah. Everything was acceptable. There was no rule, no morality. It was destroyed.

nozzferrahhtoo

1123heavy wrote: »

I don't know about you, but I would NOT have liked to have had 2 dads, 2 mums etc. Child abuse !!!

Two failures in your reasoning here.

The first is the more obvious. What you personally would have wanted to be parented by is irrelevant. Most people would not change the parents they DID have for the world. So they too would not have wanted anyone else doing it, regardless of the sex of the people. I would not even have liked a DIFFERENT straight couple doing it than the ones I had.

The second however is that there is nothing abusive about it. I can only assume that you have a highly dilute definition of "abuse" which you are operating under but I would be happy to see you define it and how you have applied it if you care to expand.

eviltwin

1123heavy wrote: »

I don't know about you, but I would NOT have liked to have had 2 dads, 2 mums etc. Child abuse !!!

And what has that got to do with marriage? There are many gay couples out there who want to marry have no interest at all in having children.

PopePalpatine

Crew Gentle Income wrote: »

What's your basis for that misconception?

It's documented that he referred to the last days of the earth's existence as being akin to sodom and gomorrah. Everything was acceptable. There was no rule, no morality. It was destroyed.

I wouldn't know about that, the irreligious peoples of the Scandinavian countries (who constitute the vast majority of their populations) aren't suffering from atrociously high crime rates.

marcus2000

I'd love to marry my partner of 12 years, and help protect my family, so I'll be voting Yes.

Akrasia

1123heavy wrote: »

What is all this 'I want to be an equal citizen' nonsense. We don't live in 1950's USA, EVERYONE here is equal. Equal in that everyone is currently afforded the same rights of only being able to formally marry a member of the opposite gender, it isn't a case of gay marriage only allowed for some for people to be crying inequality !?!?!

What a stupid argument

The point of marriage (as it is in the 21st century) is that you marry the person you love.

There is not equality if heterosexual people can marry the person they love, but a homosexual person has an 'equal right to marriage' as long as they pretend to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex.

MakeEmLaugh

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I won't because it does not affect me.

You don't think that equality for minorities within your own country affects you? Have you no friends or relatives who are gay? Wouldn't an improvement in their happiness have positive consequences for you?

1123heavy

They have to go through the exact same checks and meet the same criteria. I don't know where you are getting your misinformation from but you really should make a point of learning more about the issue before you make up your mind one way or another.

Some crap there my friend, firstly I know exactly what I'm talking about thank you very much, it doesn't look like the same can be said for you though.

Taking the UK as an example, when putting the child up for adoption the biological parents have no say whatsoever in where/ to whom their child goes, there was recently a case where a girl was sent to a SSC and despite the parents actions and protest, they couldn't stop it. Over here, that is not the case, I know of many cases where the biological parents got to have some say in who eventually took the child, ensuring it wasn't a SSC was one of them !

Daith

1123heavy wrote: »

I don't know about you, but I would NOT have liked to have had 2 dads, 2 mums etc. Child abuse !!!

I love the fact the Yes side have to be so careful with words because "I'm def going to vote no now" but throwing around words like child abuse is like yeah ok.

Daith

1123heavy wrote: »

I know of many cases where the biological parents got to have some say in who eventually took the child, ensuring it wasn't a SSC was one of them !

Well as SSC can't adopt here yet I'd say you knew of no cases.

Shiraz 4.99

Crew Gentle Income wrote: »

What's your basis for that misconception?

It's documented that he referred to the last days of the earth's existence as being akin to sodom and gomorrah. Everything was acceptable. There was no rule, no morality. It was destroyed.

Right, when that happens you can come right up to my face & say "I told you".
Until then I reserve the right to roll my eyes & tune out when people speak about religion being a real thing.

eviltwin

1123heavy wrote: »

Some crap there my friend, firstly I know exactly what I'm talking about thank you very much, it doesn't look like the same can be said for you though.

Taking the UK as an example, when putting the child up for adoption the biological parents have no say whatsoever in where/ to whom their child goes, there was recently a case where a girl was sent to a SSC and despite the parents actions and protest, they couldn't stop it. Over here, that is not the case, I know of many cases where the biological parents got to have some say in who eventually took the child, ensuring it wasn't a SSC was one of them !

You obviously don't know much about adoption in Ireland if you think gay people have it easier than the rest of the population when it comes to adopting a child. Most adoptions here are people adopting family members, a child being adopted by his or her granny, uncle etc. Do you really think its best for a child to be placed with a complete stranger rather than a known family member just because that family member is gay?