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

JaseBelleVie

Some of my best friends are gay and in long-term relationships. I'd love to see them be able to get married.

Not only will I be voting "Yes", I'll actually be looking to get involved in a campaign in my local area (if there is one) to help the cause.

Human rights are human rights. It's just a shame that it has to be voted on and that the government couldn't just pass it through without the need for a referendum. But a referendum makes it way more secure and less likely to suffer legal challenges.

Fingers crossed this passes.

humanji

MOD: S.R. Banned for continued trolling.

Skullface McGubbin

(Disclaimer: post may contain traces of generalisation and simplistic analysis)

How I see it, this referendum will be another battle between liberals and conservatives. The social justice Sallys on the yes side versus the holy Joes on the no side.

The yes side will have younger generation Irish, mainstream media (including RTE) and popular websites on their side.

The no side will have older generation Irish, the catholic church and a few conservative writers on their side.

If the yes side get's their way, then boards.ie would look like a fairly accurate representation of Irish society. If the no side manages to win, then it would show a gap of difference between the media and the general public. Going by the internet and MSM, the yes side looks most likely to win. As for the no side, the odds are stacked against them.

I won't be voting at all either way.

Shenshen

RobertKK wrote: »

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.

I would guess you're a lawyer.
Obliging every couple who want to obtain the same rights and obligations currently summary available under the label "marriage" through a private contract that is acutally legally correct and binding would be every lawyers wet dream...

Billy86

bodice ripper wrote: »

what is the point of continuing to ask, when you are just ignoring the posts that answered in the affirmative?

bodice ripper wrote: »

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.

Probably because they read it in the Daily Mail or something similar (hence all the sensationalist CAPITALISATION!) and since they can't see past the fear it elicits in their own prejudices, they figure nobody else could either (since there's a tendency to be quite small minded and insular), and despite all evidence to the contrary are still convinced they've got a perfect "gotcha!" type question; happens all the time on any immigration thread also.

Basically, what you are witnessing is essentially a mental block.

NuMarvel

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

It is a fiscal issue. People's ability to have a relationship is not at issue, this has nothing whatsoever to do with people having relationships. What is at issue is whether that issue should have the legal privileges of marriage. I do not wish to pay more tax for single sex relationships.

Good news!! You won't. The Revenue Commissioners treat civil partnerships and marriages in the same way.

AboutaWeekAgo

I'm quite surprised how some of the older members of my family will be voting. Both my grandparents are deeply religious, church everyday and all that. But both will be voting Yes purely because a second cousin in the family is gay and that trumps whatever the church want them to vote. Hopefully there are many other people in the same situation.

Ken.

A simple way to get this referendum passed would be to get the government to come out as wholly against gay marriage. If the government back gay marriage people will vote against it purely to get one over on them.

JaseBelleVie

ken wrote: »

A simple way to get this referendum passed would be to get the government to come out as wholly against gay marriage. If the government back gay marriage people will vote against it purely to get one over on them.

Every political party (from what I can see anyway) supports civil marriage. FG, Labour, FF, Sinn Féin and all the rest. Even the anti-government people can't beat this one down too much, as even the opposition support it.

Sala

MonkeyTennis wrote: »

Sorry? Can you explain how your taxes support same sex marriages?

Agree please elaborate. Civil partners already have the same tax credits as marriage couples. Even if they didn't, are you forgetting that with marriage rights come obligations as well. Civil partners similar to separating married couples may be obliged to financially support their ex.

If we extend marriage rights to same sex couples and they will have rights and obligations to the children of the partnership. This means they will be obliged to maintain the children, not the taxpayer.

Ken.

JaseHeath wrote: »

Every political party (from what I can see anyway) supports civil marriage. FG, Labour, FF, Sinn Féin and all the rest. Even the anti-government people can't beat this one down too much, as even the opposition support it.

Oh I know that but people will vote against the government for the stupidest reasons.
"The government didn't fill the pothole outside my house, I'll show them" types.

[Deleted User]

S.R. wrote: »

Stop your fantasies about Putin. Well if you are a gay then you can keep going.

Wow. Just wow.

Just seen the ban notice...

RobertKK

Shenshen wrote: »

I would guess you're a lawyer.
Obliging every couple who want to obtain the same rights and obligations currently summary available under the label "marriage" through a private contract that is acutally legally correct and binding would be every lawyers wet dream...

No, not a lawyer or in law. I just always found it strange how the state has to sanction marriage, define what a marriage is and it is the involvement of the state in a private relationship.

I am not going to vote for more of something that I want abolished. I think a yes vote strengthens the grip of the state on marriage.
The constitutional convention should have been about privatising marriage, not more state control of what private people do in their private lives.

It would be great if we had a political party who would campaign for the privatisation of marriage, rather than herd mentality that exists when it comes to marriage, which puts the private lives of people in the hands of the state.
It is the state decides, it is not a life and death issue, it is simply a personal relationship. People should be campaigning for the state to get itself out of private relationships.

Flem31

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Wow....me making a general comment and referring it as so.....and you turning it around as review of everything you have posted to see how my comment relates....kinda childish.

Not decided......and no amount of badgering is going to change that until much much closer to any referendum.

Other posters have also referred to this name calling and how counter productive they are in the general attempt to force people to vote Yes

Don't force people to vote Yes......use logical argument to win the day.

And btw.......if a load of No voters had been on calling you immoral, a bigot and a bad person etc .....I would have posted against them too. Labels polarises viewpoints and achieves little else

[Deleted User]

To vote No is to suppress your sexuality!
Stop fighting it you guys, Let It Go!!!!!!!

OldNotWIse

I love when a thread degenerates so much that you can't even tell which one it is any more by reading the posts...

nozzferrahhtoo

Flem31 wrote: »

Wow....me making a general comment and referring it as so.....and you turning it around as review of everything you have posted to see how my comment relates....kinda childish.

Not at all. You made a generalization of the posts over the last 2 hours, which includes mine, and I am merely pointing out how the generalization simply does not hold. And in fact the "no" side (in which I am not including you do so not take this personally) have actually been systematically contriving in this thread to specifically only acknowledge the emotive posts, and entirely ignore the reasoned argument posts.

Note for example how not ONE "no" poster I have rebutted on the thread thus far has actually replied to a single one of those posts I have made. How telling is this??

Flem31 wrote: »

Not decided......and no amount of badgering is going to change that until much much closer to any referendum.

There is at least some wisdom in this. As it was pointed out earlier in the thread, there is some comedy to be found in the fact that we, most of us, essentially already picking a side without having actually read the text of the proposed amendment.

In that light we should ALL be _essentially_ undecided as I could at least, with the right application of imagination, envision some creative wordings possible for the amendment that would in fact make me vote "no".

Flem31 wrote: »

Don't force people to vote Yes......use logical argument to win the day.

Interestingly I was operating under the impression that that is what I have been doing. But I sense a second request to have you review the contents of my posting in the thread might be somewhat lead balloonish

PopePalpatine

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I love when a thread degenerates so much that you can't even tell which one it is any more by reading the posts...

Blame it on S.R., Dear Leader Vladimir obviously needed to protect Ireland from decadent western culture!

Kermit.de.frog

At the end of the day I think everything would be much better if I ran the country.

All agreed?

Shenshen

RobertKK wrote: »

No, not a lawyer or in law. I just always found it strange how the state has to sanction marriage, define what a marriage is and it is the involvement of the state in a private relationship.

I am not going to vote for more of something that I want abolished. I think a yes vote strengthens the grip of the state on marriage.
The constitutional convention should have been about privatising marriage, not more state control of what private people do in their private lives.

It would be great if we had a political party who would campaign for the privatisation of marriage, rather than herd mentality that exists when it comes to marriage, which puts the private lives of people in the hands of the state.
It is the state decides, it is not a life and death issue, it is simply a personal relationship. People should be campaigning for the state to get itself out of private relationships.

A bit like the state "sanctions" the relationship between parents and children, and the resulting rights and obligations? And by extension has to define what constitutes a relationship like that and what doesn't?
Would you say the state should stop regulating things like adoptions as well, then?

To put it simply, it's in the states interest to establish what the individual's rights and obligations towards other people are. Every individual has rights and obligations to others, and rather than drawing up a plethora of private contracts to document them (which would certainly make the dollar signs pop into every lawyer's eyes), we call these "marriage" and "family".
We standardise them to make things simpler, and to make sure everybody is informed on what's expected of them in any one of these legal relationships.

On a side note, how would you guarantee and enforce the rights resulting from a "privatised" marriage without the states appartus of the court system?

shruikan2553

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

At the end of the day I think everything would be much better if I ran the country.

All agreed?

If the country is North Korea, maybe.

conorhal

ken wrote: »

Depends on a lot of things. What if the gay couple was Elton John and David Furnish and the happily married couple were Fred and Rose West?

I'm in favour of gay marriage, but I loath that oft repeated strawman argument. People are vetted for adoption, so that choice is bollox. The option would always be between a perfectly nice well adjusted gay couple with the financial means to support the child and a perfectly nice well adjusted straight couple with the financial means to support the child. Such questions should be considered on those merits.

mrolaf

yes definitely voting for gay marriage. Why should they be treated as second class

osarusan

If I could I would vote yes (not living in Ireland now), and I have nothing but contempt for people who use the 'if you're nasty to me, that might make me change how I vote' line.

Ken.

conorhal wrote: »

I'm in favour of gay marriage, but I loath that oft repeated strawman argument. People are vetted for adoption, so that choice is bollox. The option would always be between a perfectly nice well adjusted gay couple with the financial means to support the child and a perfectly nice well adjusted straight couple with the financial means to support the child. Such questions should be considered on those merits.

I was replying like for like with S.R. I probably shouldn't have lowered myself to his level. I forgot the old adage, never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Flem31

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

At the end of the day I think everything would be much better if I ran the country.

All agreed?

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh Enda.............the secret is out

conorhal

ken wrote: »

I was replying like for like with S.R. I probably shouldn't have lowered myself to his level. I forgot the old adage, never argue with an idiot, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I think it's one of the strong arguments for gay marriage, children should be offered the same stability as the children of straight couples. In that regard i'm unfashionably 'pro-family' I guess.

fran17

floggg wrote: »

Oh Fran (do you have a Google alert set up for new threads with the word "gay" in them BTW?).

I assume you are aware that marriage was originally not seen as an religious matter by the Christian church, and was a private civil matter.

So it's a bit rich for Christianity to claim ownership of it.
Uh
Marriage has been a state regulated matter for centuries. Civil marriage is the only recognised form of marriage in this state (from a legal and policy perspective).

Oh floggg if i do then it must be the same alert that you have.You really are the perfect poster boy for the no campaign,attempts to undermine people through insults and snide comments.You have some misguided view of tolerance for all but only as long as the person agrees with your view.I'll stick with the traditional and recognised definition of marriage and you have your "redefined"version of it.Now everybody is happy la la la

RobertKK

Shenshen wrote: »

A bit like the state "sanctions" the relationship between parents and children, and the resulting rights and obligations? And by extension has to define what constitutes a relationship like that and what doesn't?
Would you say the state should stop regulating things like adoptions as well, then?

To put it simply, it's in the states interest to establish what the individual's rights and obligations towards other people are. Every individual has rights and obligations to others, and rather than drawing up a plethora of private contracts to document them (which would certainly make the dollar signs pop into every lawyer's eyes), we call these "marriage" and "family".
We standardise them to make things simpler, and to make sure everybody is informed on what's expected of them in any one of these legal relationships.

On a side note, how would you guarantee and enforce the rights resulting from a "privatised" marriage without the states appartus of the court system?

The state didn't sanction the sex that brought the children into being in the first place.
I am simply posting about marriage, not the rights and obligations of parents and children in their relationship.

You say to make things simpler, yet if we had what I advocate from the start of the creation of this state, we wouldn't be voting on who can marry who.

Daith

fran17 wrote: »

I'll stick with the traditional and recognised definition of marriage and you have your "redefined"version of it.Now everybody is happy la la la

No we will both have the same marriage.