Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

TwoShedsJackson · 18-12-2014 04:04PM

Don't forget about 'it's always been this way, therefore that's the best way and it should stay that way. Coincidentally, that's the way I think' and 'The Bible says it's wrong'.

endacl · 18-12-2014 04:06PM

Turtyturd wrote: »

I'll vote yes, fortunately not to cool to vote on stuff like this like the OP.

Or to participate in your own thread...

TwoShedsJackson · 18-12-2014 04:07PM

Tubaiste wrote: »

Is the truth that people will vote no because they just don't really like gay people?

That will certainly be the case for some.

Going Strong · 18-12-2014 04:10PM

Tubaiste wrote: »

Is the truth that people will vote no because they just don't really like gay people?

No. They like gay people only it's that the proponents of SSM are a bunch of hectoring bullies so that they feel they must vote 'No' in order to put said bullies in their place. Nothing to do with gay people at all.

endacl · 18-12-2014 04:15PM

A yes/no/undecided poll might be an interesting addition to this thread.

Mods?

endacl · 18-12-2014 04:17PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

How about yes/no/that would be an ecumenical matter?

Married gay Atari jaguar?

smash · 18-12-2014 04:18PM

endacl wrote: »

A yes/no/undecided poll might be an interesting addition to this thread.

Mods?

According to recent red c polls cited on the radio there's a strong yes vote.

kunst nugget · 18-12-2014 04:21PM

smash wrote: »

According to recent red c polls cited on the radio there's a strong yes vote.

A firm yes at the moment but I think they're afraid it will go soft closer to the referendum.

PopePalpatine · 18-12-2014 04:23PM

Gehad_JoyRider wrote: »

Im voting yes because because there no real argument not to.

Watch as the "No" side ignores this post and continues going down the "THE QUARES ARE OPPRESSING ME!1!" road.

vicwatson · 18-12-2014 04:30PM

I cannot understand why someone would not vote yes and give this optin to gay people, I would hate to think that gay people dictated to me about heterosexual marriage. Crazy stuff. Catholic Church clinging on for dear life..

Sam Mac · 18-12-2014 04:32PM

I will be turning 18 at the start of 2015, and will be delighted to vote YES in this one. Equality is important and everyone deserves the right to get married, no matter what their sexual orientation is.

And to those saying 'it doesn't affect me' and not bothering to vote, remember that the outcome of this affects many people, and you have your vote, so use it!

kylith · 18-12-2014 04:33PM

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.

Well, yeah, but they think that saying that they would have voted yes except that people were mean on the internet means that they can pretend to themselves that they're not bigots, they were totally going to vote for gay people to have more civil rights and it's not their fault that they voted no - the bullies made them.

shruikan2553 · 18-12-2014 04:39PM

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.

They can say that but then complain when people say they are bigoted or homophobic. If they atleast said they just don't like gay people it is an opinion and can't be disproved.

Ash.J.Williams · 18-12-2014 04:40PM

IONA are very silent on other matters that actually destroy families, such as; drug abuse, alcoholism, violence etc.

kunst nugget · 18-12-2014 04:41PM

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.

Well, if you come right out and say 'I'm voting against it because I don't like gay people', you're letting everyone know the special type of arsehole you are. Much better to go with 'Think of the Children!' or 'Tradition of Marriage!' to show that, actually, you're just a person concerned with upholding family values!

18-12-2014 04:43PM

No doubt that I would vote yes but as I am a British citizen in ireland, I am not entitled to vote in Referendum.

Flem31 · 18-12-2014 04:44PM

Bigot .......a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions

Is the word bigot just relevant to one side of this future possible referendum ?

magma69 · 18-12-2014 04:44PM

Should be a landslide yes vote. I'd imagine the ignorant 'bloody fagots' bigots won't be voting so really the only demographic that will turn out for a no vote are the conservative religious right which are a small minority at this point. I'd imagine it will be over 80% Yes vote.

Sala · 18-12-2014 04:45PM

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 not against marriage equality but aren't bothered to vote.

I think there are enough gay and lesbian people, enough mothers/fathers/sisters/brother/friends/colleagues of gay and lesbian people and enough people passionate about civil rights to pass it. But lets not 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.

Kermit.de.frog · 18-12-2014 04:45PM

endacl wrote: »

A yes/no/undecided poll might be an interesting addition to this thread.

Mods?

I agree. I should have put one in.

shruikan2553 · 18-12-2014 04:48PM

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.

Misinformation too. There's a lot of people who think that this somehow involves adoption. Also ignoring that people who know what they are doing say that marriage would actually be slightly better for children.

Sala · 18-12-2014 04:58PM

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?

I take my lead from Marriage Equality. I'm sure gay can cover both but they use the phrase civil marriage for gay and lesbian people, presumably to cover how people identify themselves. They also use the term marriage equality - although they do say same sex marriage I thought I read a point that they are called marriage equality because they are not looking for "gay marriage" as that distinguishes between different types of marriage, they just want "marriage"

Eramen · 18-12-2014 04:59PM

I see that 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/talents.

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 value creation in their children. This differentiation is of critical importance, and to underestimate the power of both sexes is to not understand them at all. This 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 its 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 (as do the positive aspects). 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. The power of the male-female unity is the most basic tenet of our human existence. 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 grounded in hard evidence, and I certainly don't think the cheapening and sacrificing the capabilities of the two sexes in aid of the politically-charged mechanisations of the LGBT is warranted at all.

BarryD · 18-12-2014 05:02PM

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.

efb · 18-12-2014 05:02PM

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.

How does it cheapen the two sexes? With or without the thesaurus

efb · 18-12-2014 05:03PM

Also all peer reviewed independent studies contradict your argument re raising of children

efb · 18-12-2014 05:04PM

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.

So the word belongs to opposing sex couples???

PopePalpatine · 18-12-2014 05:04PM

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.

I've seen less waffle in the frozen foods section of Tesco than in this post.

Also, don't rely on others to find your "evidence" for you. A few research papers would be nice (unless the scientists are ALSO part of the *gasp* LIBRUL 'BORTIONISTS QUARE PC AJINDA!!!1111!!)

AnonoBoy · 18-12-2014 05:05PM

BarryD wrote: »

But I'd still be inclined to think that the term marriage should be kept to it's traditional meaning.

But what's traditional?
Traditionally men could take more than one wife.
Traditionally women were sold as wives to men.

At what point during the evolution of marriage do you call a halt and say 'this is traditional marriage'?

efb · 18-12-2014 05:05PM

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.

M
Posts like this always remind me of Matt Damon'd retort in Good Will Hunting

Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

Comments