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

ebbsy

Pherekydes wrote: »

Well, of course there's something wrong with denying people a right based on their sexuality. That's called discrimination, and is always wrong.

What the Yes camp would need to be careful of is accusing people of discrimination just because they have a different opinion.

They might get a nasty shock next year.

eyescreamcone

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't think name calling is going to help tbh. I know people who will be voting NO. They are not bad people, mostly just uneducated and listening to the wrong groups. I hope to convince them to vote Yes by showing them that gay marriage is nothing to be afraid of.

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!!!

Daith

ebbsy wrote: »

What the Yes camp would need to be careful of is accusing people of discrimination just because they have a different opinion.

They might get a nasty shock next year.

What's your opinion then? I think it's discrimination based on sexuality.

I actually think (and alot of other LGBT people) think it's going to fail next year. It won't come as a nasty shock.

floggg

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.

Blowfish

Manach wrote: »

Both in defence of the traditional norms of marriage and to show there are some cultural legacies that cannot be changed, especially if this spikes this government moves to appease the PC brigade.

The 'traditional norms' of marriage in Ireland was arranged marriage organised by the parents. Also, up until the law changed in 1972 the legal marriage age was 12 for girls and 14 for boys. Do you defend those 'traditional norms' and believe we should return to that?

Mesrine65

I will definately vote, I don't see why members of a modern democratic society should not be accorded equal status just because of their sexuality.

eviltwin

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 think there are a lot of on the fence voters, people waiting for the wording of the referendum and waiting to hear the arguments. I understand you're pissed off, I'm pissed off and I'm not even gay. I seriously am worried about how the next few months are going to impact on gay people especially my daughter who takes things to heart a lot. I sometimes want to rage and scream at people who say gay people don't deserve the right to marry but you catch more flies with honey.

Jester252

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.

eyescreamcone

eviltwin wrote: »

I think there are a lot of on the fence voters, people waiting for the wording of the referendum and waiting to hear the arguments. I understand you're pissed off, I'm pissed off and I'm not even gay. I seriously am worried about how the next few months are going to impact on gay people especially my daughter who takes things to heart a lot. I sometimes want to rage and scream at people who say gay people don't deserve the right to marry but you catch more flies with honey.

You can be the good cop...

Grayson

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

Daith wrote: »

What's your opinion then? I think it's discrimination based on sexuality.

I actually think (and alot of other LGBT people) think it's going to fail next year. It won't come as a nasty shock.

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

Daith

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?

1123heavy

I love the way anyone with a differing view to the majority here are being spoken of in such a derogatory manner, freedom of opinion and speech ? At a price it would seem.

nozzferrahhtoo

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.

Daith

1123heavy wrote: »

I love the way anyone with a differing view to the majority here are being spoken of in such a derogatory manner, freedom of opinion and speech ? At a price it would seem.

1123heavy wrote: »

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

Oh yeah, freedom of speech

Damn gay majority.

Sheldons Brain

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.

Sala

I will be voting yes. Gay and lesbian people are equal citizens and they should have equal rights and I want equal rights for my loved ones and support their right to love each other and want to spend their lives together.

Marriage is not about religion. I am a straight married woman and got married in a secular ceremony and believe this should be open to everyone regardless of sexuality. If gay and lesbian people want to get married in a church that's a totally different issue and a different battle.

The definition of marriage is not fixed - it is fluid and constantly evolving. In fact, gay and lesbian couples don't want to change marriage at all, they just want access to the same rights (and obligations) as others. There are 169 legal differences between civil partnerships and marriage. This to me is like saying we will tolerate your love, but want to make a point it's different and not as important as heterosexual love.

Legislating for same sex marriage in no way affects other people's marriages or diminishes the importance of marriage - that's all in some people's heads. Plenty of people have bad marriages with violence, unfaithfulness etc in them - they don't diminish the importance of my own marriage as my own marriage is my own business

We are not "protecting" children by refusing gay and lesbian couples to marry. Quite the opposite in fact, we are denying them very important rights. There are and will continue to be loads of children raised by lesbian and gay parents and we are denying them very important legal rights, such as succession rights.

shruikan2553

1123heavy wrote: »

I love the way anyone with a differing view to the majority here are being spoken of in such a derogatory manner, freedom of opinion and speech ? At a price it would seem.

Giving out about majority being derogatory to a minority :pac:

Nobody is stopping you having any opinion you want. Freedom of speech and opinion work both ways though.

Daith

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

The government does not ask what your sexual orientation is when you wish to marry.

You simply can not marry someone of the same sexuality.

It does not need to be written down or asked for to be discriminatory.

endacl

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.

1123heavy

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.

Daith

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.

rainbow kirby

1123heavy wrote: »

I should not have to answer to anyone

Why bother posting on a discussion forum so?

Daith

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.

ZiabR

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? Please explain the "Child Abuse" comment. As it stands 99% of Child abuse comes from within a Father/Mother home environment.

I myself will be voting to allow people to marry who they like. There has been same sex relationships since the dawn of time, and they have never "broken" a society. I have never had a problem with people being allowed to be happy.

No book will make me think otherwise...

endacl

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:

floggg

Flem31 wrote: »

Not getting upset at all.....just find it strange that labelling others in the negative is seen as a only way to win the debate.

Was it not the negative labelling of SSC in the past that delayed the progression of attitudes to a point where this referendum has a great chance of passing.

Attitudes have changed....but the labelling of people in the negative continues....sad really

It's not an attempt to win a debate. It's just a response to words and actions.

This isn't a political or fiscal issue being debated, it's people's rights and relationships. Many of us find arguments in favour of continued discrimination morally reprehensible.

We don't call out people or their arguments as bigoted just to be mean or bully them. It's because we feel that advocating discrimination is bigotry - especially when there appears to be no basis for it other than contempt and dislike.

It's not name calling for the sake of it - it's a challenge to that bigotry. You can't challenge it unless you acknowledge it.

Pretending that their arguments and attitudes are deserving of equal respect or are simply a difference opinion old give them undue weight and falsely imply that they are a reasonable position to hold.

Believing that somebody is less equal than others or less deserving of legal protection and privileges granted to others is never a reasonable position to hold - and you cannot hold such believes without there being a black mark on your character.

kunst nugget

My main concern is that when gay marriage comes in and it radically alters the traditional definition of marriage, I will be forced to marry a man. In a church. By a straight priest. In front of all my friends. Even though I am not gay and I am already married. I'll be mortified.

S.R.

I will vote. Of course against.

Daith

S.R. wrote: »

I will vote. Of course against.

Any particular reason?