Doctor Jimbob wrote: » You act as if that automatically means you're for gay marriage, or somehow gives credibility to your views. It doesn't. That might be partially due to the fact that in many places it is the only legal option, no? Anyway, apologies if I got your intent wrong on that one, people often use 'normal' to describe the right or 'proper' way of things. If that wasn't your intent then fair enough.
tayto lover wrote: » Anytime I hear of an upcoming wedding I automatically think of one between a man and a woman. I am Irish so other places have no relevance to me. I knew what Barry meant.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » Can you explain why tradition is inherently a good thing?
AnonoBoy wrote: » Well given that polls at the moment show the majority of people in the country are in favour of same sex marriage I'm not sure that you're as liberal as you like to think you are.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » Here we go again with the traditional. Its a meaningless term.
tayto lover wrote: » As the proposed Referendum is in IRELAND "many places" didn't even enter my head. Traditional and normal wedding here are between men and women. My nephew was married abroad.
PopePalpatine wrote: » Oh look, another argument against marriage equality based on spite. It seems to be a recurring theme. How much of a dent do you think gay marriage will make in the tax revenues of the State? I'd hazard a guess that it will be somewhere in the region of under €10 million - given that there's ~2 million people in Ireland paying PAYE, that's about €5 per PAYE taxpayer per year, or 10c per week.
BarryD wrote: » Where is the evidence that marriage (in Ireland) is constantly evolving?? Practices around marriage may have changed, the expectations and duties of the couple may have changed but the concept behind the basic 'legal contract' is essentially the same - I see no difference over my lifetime anyway and none looking back over recent generations.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » Absolutely, but another important point to consider is the fact that by voting no one would be depriving a section of the population of a right afforded to the rest - hardly seems fair, does it? That doesn't make it a valid defence of his position though.
Sala wrote: » I don't believe that marriage is some sacred union that exists independently of the people involved in it.
Beano wrote: » and isnt it a terrible shame that he didnt have the option to get married in ireland surrounded by all of his family and friends.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » Would it not be best to vote according to what is best for society though? I knew what he meant as well. I was simply questioning his implication that something is better purely because it is traditional, and asking why one person or groups specific view of tradition would be considered relevant.
tayto lover wrote: » A. He is voting according to how he feels. He will live with the consequences of his vote as will we all. If he thinks it out and comes to a conclusion which he believes is the best for how he feels then that's ok for him.
tayto lover wrote: » He never intended to get married here as his partner is not Irish and they live abroad. ...
smash wrote: » That's bollox though. How he fells on a personal level about something which will never actually affect him in a negative way (how could it?), could reduce the rights of others. He needs to not be selfish about it, because really there's no need to be. It's just cruel and obnoxious to vote no just because he doesn't like it because it really will not affect his life!
Beano wrote: » but he didnt have the option. that is the point.
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.
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...
BarryD wrote: » Many aspects of tradition have served us well, others less so. I happen to think that the concept of marriage as it stands is one that has broadly served well.
mrsbyrne wrote: » This is why we'll all be back here next June having a row about why the turnout was only 26% and the referendum was defeated. The LGBT leaders need to look at this thread to see the style of "yes" campaigning that's going on Boards at least. Nasty juvenile derogatory namecalling, on both sides, but remember it is the gay community and supporters who want to make changes so why are they not putting a positive spin on it? What do you hope to achieve with this slanging match? Do you think you can shout and berate someone into changing their mind? All your doing is putting fence sitters and undecided off. Seriously, stop.
shruikan2553 wrote: » When I get married I won't be doing it in a church. This isn't a traditional wedding so why aren't people against it?
Eramen wrote: » 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 the breeding and value creation in their children. This 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 of the two sexes in aid of the politically-charged mechanisations of the LGBT is warranted at all.
