Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

Going Strong wrote: »

Me. The fecker can't decide whether he's Father, Son or Holy Ghost. Imagine asking him what he wants for his tea?

Probably firstborn Egyptians.

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Most people who will vote NO have their minds made up already.

The reasons for voting NO are bigoted bull****.

I believe that anyone who votes no is morally wrong and on a little power trip.

This is my opinion and I won't be changing anytime soon I'd imagine.

If the bigots feelings get a little hurt then boo hoo!!!

I hope you don't plan on campaigning for the YES side.

Demosthenese wrote: »

Don't mind same sex couples having the same tax breaks and rights as everyone else in the country ... but ... i wonder why they would want to be married under the eyes of GOD - the bible doesn't condone same sex in any regard ... i agree they should be able to make a declaration of their love etc ... but marriage. Probably not. That said if they are like alot of us and are more traditional and do not really delve too much into the whole religion thing and get married cos its the norm/way we were brought up ... i've no problem with it. The vote would be yes, but the reasoning needs a little more thought in my mind.

but god doesn't come into it. Unless you also feel that we should ban registry office marriages for straight people.

No-one is saying the church should be forced to marry gay people. I personally think that it's outdated and stupid that they don't, but it's their club so their rules. they can grant membership and privileges based on nearly any arbitrary rules.

likewise if there's a particular religious denomination that wants to perform a religious ceremony theta's grand. Their club, their rules.


the state is different though. It shouldn't make up rules that only affect one group of people and not another.

But the state is different. It's not a club. think of it this way. the catholic church can stop women being priests. We accept it because despite the fact that many disagree, the church is a private religious organisation. However in the public sphere we don't place any restrictions on what a woman can do. We certainly couldn't imagine a woman being allowed to be a lawyer but banned from being a judge.

The church can have it's own rules but the state shouldn't discriminate.

ebbsy wrote: »

That is interesting. I think the turnout will be low.

Yes probably (Irish people are terrible at voting) but again what's your difference of opinion or the reason you'd be voting No?

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Most people who will vote NO have their minds made up already. The reasons for voting NO are bigoted bull****. I believe that anyone who votes no is morally wrong and on a little power trip.

I am not so sure I share your pessimism in it's entirety. There are indeed many who will vote no for nothing more than bigoted and/or religious reasons. And in many cases it will be impossible to tell which of two categories their reason actually falls into.

But there is also a large contingent of people who will vote no who will do so in a well meaning fashion. These will be the people who will be misled by scare mongering tactics and arguments from emotion.

When, for example, the "no" campaign starts to bring children into this (and they will, oh how they will) there are people who are going to be successfully scare mongered by this canard. And they will go into the voting booth and vote "no" for genuine motivations with their heart in the right place. They will simply have been misled and misinformed.

The best we can do is calmly deflect those arguments and explain to as many people as it is possible to do why the arguments are invalid, irrelevant, entirely incorrect, or some combination of the three. And all the while attempt to curtail and curb the emotive aggression.... some of which you display...... that those fabricated canards naturally cause in our gut. And what will be worse is that some of their arguments will be constructed with this in mind, with the express intent of trolling spittle flinging emotive angry reactions out of us, so they can hold us up as being this angry and abusive campaign of hate.

Your spleen, like my own, likely does not have the capacity to contain the seething pools of bile such transparently fabricated dishonesty illicit within it, but we do have control over from which end of our body that bile erupts.

It will be a long and arduous and trying tight rope walk across a chasm of tautology for a few months but, as you say, I choose to be the good cop too

And look where it has gotten so far. The emotive and aggressive posts on this thread get emotive and aggressive responses on this thread BACK from the no side. (EDIT: Look at the post directly above mine for example, we can already see the no side constructing arguments that consist SOLELY of holding up angry people on the yes side as effigies).

My own carefully constructed arguments without any bile in them have met with a stunned silence from them. They simply have failed at EVERY one of my posts so far on the thread to form and post a rebuttal to anything I have written.

Imagine if we collectively had that affect on the entire discourse of the "no" side in the coming months.

Grayson wrote: »

the state is different though. It shouldn't make up rules that only affect one group of people and not another.

The state always makes rules that affect one group of people rather than another. It makes rich people pay more tax, which discriminates against the talented and hard working in favour of the useless and idle, it doesn't allow people under 18 vote and gives free travel to the over 65s, which is clear age discrimination , it gives funding for IT courses but not for drama courses, which is clear discrimination in favour of nerds. It goes on and on.

There is no individual discrimination in the present situation, the government does not ask what your sexual orientation is when you wish to marry.

Daith wrote: »

You simply can not marry someone of the same sexuality.

Gender, dude! Although I'd assume the same sexuality would be a given.

endacl wrote: »

Gender, dude! Although I'd assume the same sexuality would be a given.

Yes sexuality does not need to be specificity mentioned in order to be discriminatory.

A hotel which only allows a man and woman to share a room can be seen to discriminate against same sex couples without them being asked their sexuality.

1123heavy wrote: »

Daith I expressed my opinion on family life, what is the issue ? It appears you and those of a similar mentality aren't happy and feel the need to demonise those who aren't of the "Teletubby happy" mindset. I want what's best for the future of Ireland and its children, I do not feel voting yes will serve Ireland's best interests and therefore will not be doing so. I should not have to answer to anyone or accept abuse.
Take your hate filled intimidating posts (that only seek to make those of different opinions outcasts) elsewhere.

Yeah I was just pointing out you only seem to be in favour of free speech when it applies to you.

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Why bother posting on a discussion forum so?

What? This isn't a crowd-authored blog?!?

I want my money back.

:mad:

S.R. wrote: »

I will vote. Of course against.

Any particular reason?