Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

S.R. wrote: »

Are you construction worker?

Are you ready to have 2 dads? Yes or no?

Your question is ridiculous. You now appear ridiculous yourself. Keep it up. Good man.

Flem31 wrote: »

posts over the past two hours are indicative of how the Yes campaign will conduct their campaign, I believe it will not be popular with the large number of undecided voters like me.

Does this include my posts? And if so can you quote the parts of my posts that you think fit the description you offer here?

Or.... when you fail to do so......... might it be that you are more decided than you think, and so you are (maybe without even realizing it) contriving to mentally cherry pick the posts that are distasteful to you.... while ignoring the ones that do not fit that mould......... to essentially confirm the position you already hold.

Male, straight, married, 2 wee kids.

Voting Yes.

If, in some hypothetical situation, we had to have our kids adopted and had a say in the potential adopters, I wouldn't exclude gay couples. The main concern would be love and stability.

S.R. wrote: »

Try to think now WHY ARE THEY IGNORING IT?

I was talking about you. Why are you ignoring the plethora of posts saying yes, they would be fine with two dads.

its always the gay men. its never the women you are worried about. its sexist.

S.R. wrote: »

If you were 15 yo orphan and had a chance to live either with two gay men or with woman and man what would be your choice?

Not enough information because the sex of the parents offered to me would not be a factor that would mediate my choice.

When selecting who I would want my parents to be, I would list out my requirements for being parented...... and I would select my parental choice based on the candidates MOST capable of fulfilling what is on that list.

And whether that was one man, one woman, one of each, two men, two women, or a group of men and women arbitrarily mixed up in whatever combination you want to throw out........... would simply by 100% entirely and totally irrelevant to my decision process. It simply would not factor into the decision resolution process in even the smallest way.

S.R. wrote: »

Try to think now WHY ARE THEY IGNORING IT?

Likely because it is a red herring non-argument designed solely to cover up the fact you have dodged the rebuttals that have so far been sent your way. In fact ignoring rebuttals in this thread is becomming something of the MO of your side of this discussion. Simply go back and look at all the posts I have made in rebuttal to others and count how many of those people then replied to me. Thus far the score is ZERO replies.

However given I have now directly answered you, you can not longer pretend it is being ignored.

I am against state involvement in marriage. I would vote no to heterosexual civil marriage just as equally to how I will vote no to same sex marriage.

Marriage should be privatised and removed from state control, that is what we should be voting on and not for more nanny state where people believe the state has to recognise a private relationship.

It should be upto couples to arrange legal agreements that suit the couple rather than what the state imposes.

It is pretty sad that people believe the state must state sanction something that is private and which should have nothing to do with the state.

In lots of countries we had the privatisation of religion with links between a state and a specific religion removed. Most would agree this was a good thing for everyone involved. It allowed more freedom of religion or none for all.
Privatising marriage allows the same freedom and takes the power from the state and gives it to the people.

State control of what individuals do from a relationship point of view irrespective of sexual orientation is just wrong.
People are saying they need a license from the state to define their relationship.
Instead we should be looking for the state to get itself out of private relationships and let people themselves draw up their own marriage contracts whether that is in a religious or secular context, and allow couples put what they want into their marriage contracts.
Then there would be no need for a referendum on something the state should not be involved in which is regulating private relationships.

Flem31 wrote: »

I know that the word Bigot has become the buzzword here over the last hour......did you look it up before posting

"a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions"




As a more general comment and as I have said before, I am undecided.......but if the posts over the past two hours are indicative of how the Yes campaign will conduct their campaign, I believe it will not be popular with the large number of undecided voters like me.
Trying to win a campaign by repeated name calling is unlikely to succeed......stick to the rational arguments about fairness and equality and the chances of success are far greater.

The thing is, this won't be a debate about the merits of same sex marriage or equality - those should be self evident to most.

It will be a debate based on refuting the arguments of the no side and countering their lies and misrepresentations.

They are rooted in hate and ignorance.

I didn't propose to go around calling everybody a bigot or homophobe but I dislike the notion that we shouldn't be allowed name the root basis for their arguments.

And I am very tolerant of their right to hold their opinions. I just fundamentally disagree with them.

Remember, they are the ones trying to keep their intolerance of other people's relationships enshrined in law.