Turtyturd wrote: » I'll vote yes, fortunately not to cool to vote on stuff like this like the OP.
Tubaiste wrote: » Is the truth that people will vote no because they just don't really like gay people?
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » How about yes/no/that would be an ecumenical matter?
endacl wrote: » A yes/no/undecided poll might be an interesting addition to this thread. Mods?
smash wrote: » According to recent red c polls cited on the radio there's a strong yes vote.
Gehad_JoyRider wrote: » Im voting yes because because there no real argument not to.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » Not buying this argument in the slightest. Why would anyone vote against increased civil rights for a section of the population simply to spite someone who was mean to them on the internet? Anyone putting forward such an argument had no intention of voting yes in the first place, IMO.
Tubaiste wrote: » Why can't people just say I'm voting no because I don't like gay people? Like if there was a vote on something in the EU some people might say I'm voting against it because I don't like the EU.
Sala wrote: » There are no rational arguments against allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry. The only thing that will cause a no vote to win is apathy in my opinion - people who are no against marraige equality but aren't bothered to vote. I think there are enough gay and lesbian people, enough mothers/fathers/sisters/brother/friends/collegues of gay and lesbian people and enough people passionate about civil rights to pass it. But lets no forget the closest referendum in our history was on divorce- that seems ludicrous now, but people of the same vein will still be out voting next year.
Tubaiste wrote: » Just a quick question, nothing really to do with your point. Is there a reason you're saying gay and lesbian couples? Does gay not cover both sexes?
Eramen wrote: » I see the self-righteous social justice warriors are out in force on this one, pushing their parochial pseudo-moralities down the collectives' throat and of course spinning the usual conspiracy theories. "Holy Catholic Ireland something, something" - sure brah. It's all a counter-productive blame game. It bores me. Contrary to the fantasies of spinsters, marriage isn't primarily about love or affection between two people, that is something that is learned through the years. Instead marriage is the best social formula to raise children and transform them into productive, healthy people, by bringing out the myriad qualities of their personalities. I, unlike the ideologues who will challenge me, recognise the self-evident: that men and women radiate entirely unique emotional, physical, mental and sexual forces/traits that contribute to the sum total of the breeding and creating value in their children. This is of critical important, and to underestimate the power to both sexes is to not understand them at all. The synergy of the masculine and feminine forces the focal point for instituting a stable, harmonious collective. Never-mind that they are the very basis of it's creation in the first place. If this distinct pairing is absent, the rate of dysfunctions whether social, mental or cultural, for the whole family, especially children, increases drastically. Most of peoples problems and difficulties stem from their upbringing, one way or another. We merely have to reflect on our current problems to realise this. The skeptical person can just use google for evidence-gathering on this latter point, there is so much out there relating to this connection. Personally speaking, I'll be vouching for the demystification of the self-evident by voting no. I also think the ideological crutch of pretend 'equality' can be left at the door on this one. I don't believe in things that aren't hard evidence, and I certainly don't think in the cheapening and sacrificing of the two sexes in aid of the political mechanisations of the LGBT is warranted at all.
BarryD wrote: » I'll vote if at all possible but how is another matter? I'd regard myself as reasonably liberal on moral matters but I have certain reservations about this referendum that I suspect would be shared fairly widely. In that I'm inclined to believe that Marriage as an institution is a matter between a woman and a man or vice versa if you like. I have no problem at all with gay or lesbian people or with Civil Partnership and equal rights under the law for property, tax and inheritance etc. None whatsoever. But I'd still be inclined to think that the term marriage should be kept to it's traditional meaning. That's not to say that marriage is superior to civil partnership, just different in the way that a cat is different from a dog etc. Maybe I'll change my view when I hear more arguments from both sides, but it'll take quite a lot of persuasion.
Eramen wrote: » I see the self-righteous social justice warriors are out in force on this one, pushing their parochial pseudo-moralities down the collectives' throat and of course spinning the usual conspiracy theories. "Holy Catholic Ireland something, something" - sure brah. Tell me more of this secret cabal of bishops that control the world.. Contrary to the fantasies of spinsters, marriage isn't primarily about love or affection between two people, that is something that is learned through the years. Instead marriage is the best social formula to raise children and transform them into productive, healthy people, by bringing out the myriad qualities of their personalities. I, unlike the ideologues who will challenge me, recognise the self-evident: that men and women radiate entirely unique emotional, physical, mental and sexual forces/traits that contribute to the sum total of the breeding and creating value in their children. This is of critical important, and to underestimate the power to both sexes is to not understand them at all. The synergy of the masculine and feminine forces the focal point for instituting a stable, harmonious collective. Never-mind that they are the very basis of it's creation in the first place.If this distinct pairing is absent, the rate of dysfunctions whether social, mental or cultural, for the whole family, especially children, increases drastically. Most of peoples problems and difficulties stem from their upbringing, one way or another. We merely have to reflect on our current problems to realise this. The skeptical person can just use google for evidence-gathering on this latter point, there is so much out there relating to this connection. Personally speaking, I'll be vouching for the demystification of the self-evident by voting no. I also think the ideological crutch of pretend 'equality' can be left at the door on this one. I don't believe in things that aren't hard evidence, and I certainly don't think in the cheapening and sacrificing of the two sexes in aid of the political mechanisations of the LGBT is warranted at all.
BarryD wrote: » But I'd still be inclined to think that the term marriage should be kept to it's traditional meaning.
Eramen wrote: » I see the self-righteous social justice warriors are out in force on this one, pushing their parochial pseudo-moralities down the collectives' throat and of course spinning the usual conspiracy theories. "Holy Catholic Ireland something, something" - sure brah. It's all a counter-productive blame game. It bores me. Contrary to the fantasies of spinsters, marriage isn't primarily about love or affection between two people, as that is something that is learned through the years of being together. Instead marriage is the best social formula to raise children and transform them into productive, healthy people via the ushering out the myriad qualities of their personalities. I, unlike the ideologues who will challenge me, recognise the self-evident: that men and women radiate entirely unique emotional, physical, mental and sexual traits that contribute to the sum total of the breeding and creating value in their children. This is of critical importance, and to underestimate the power of both sexes is to not understand them at all. The synergy of the masculine and feminine forces remains the focal point for instituting a stable, harmonious collective. Never-mind that they are the very basis of it's creation in the first place, the heart of everything. If this distinct pairing is absent, the rate of dysfunctions whether social, mental or cultural, for the whole family, especially children, increases drastically. Most of peoples problems and difficulties stem from their upbringing, one way or another. We merely have to reflect on our current problems to realise this. The skeptical person can just use google for evidence-gathering on this latter point, there is so much out there relating to this connection. Personally speaking, I'll be vouching for the demystification of the self-evident by voting no. I also think the ideological crutch of pretend 'equality' can be left at the door on this one. I don't believe in things that aren't hard evidence, and I certainly don't think in the cheapening and sacrificing of the two sexes in aid of the political mechanisations of the LGBT is warranted at all.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b6b5e0fcea13f643236bc41276a76831.svg)
