Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

tayto lover · 18-12-2014 05:43PM

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.

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.

Billy86 · 18-12-2014 05:43PM

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.

That has nothing to do with same sex marriage being very much a human tradition, which it indisputably is.

BarryD · 18-12-2014 05:45PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Can you explain why tradition is inherently a good thing?

No I won't - because I have more sense than to be dragged into a debate about good and bad aspects of tradition. 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.

tayto lover · 18-12-2014 05:45PM

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.

I think he has the right to think about how he will vote and the right to express his opinion.
Not doing so would be wrong in my view.
Hope he reaches the right decision for his conscience.

BarryD · 18-12-2014 05:46PM

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.

Maybe, maybe not - we'll see

tayto lover · 18-12-2014 05:46PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Here we go again with the traditional. Its a meaningless term.

No it's not.
To me it meant a marriage between a man and a woman.
I knew what he meant straight away.

Beano · 18-12-2014 05:47PM

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.

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.

ScumLord · 18-12-2014 05:52PM

I don't give a flying fig about gay marriage so I'll be voting yes, if it doesn't affect me why wouldn't I let them get married? Voting yes means the end of this debate. Voting no means we'll be listening to the gay marriage debate for another decade or however long it takes to go through this vote again.

The only downside I see to this is more weddings to avoid.

floggg · 18-12-2014 05:54PM

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.

Actually, marriage is generally recognised as contributing positively to the economy, even with the tax breaks.

Married people are generally happier, healthier, more productively, have a bigger safety net and pension resources through combined incomes/shared costs etc. so they produce more, pay more tax, costs less in terms of dole/benefits/medical costs etc.

Not to mention the boost to economy from weddings etc (which has been in the millions for many US States).

In any event, most if not all of the tax benefits afforded to marriage are already available to civil partnership.

Any change will therefore have minimal fiscal impact.

It will only equalise whatever disadvantages which remain compared to marriage (169 - most of which aren't tax related AFAIK) and put an end to the current separate but (not quite) equal arrangement.

Sala · 18-12-2014 05:55PM

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.

Regarding marriage in Ireland (which is what this is about) in the past a few examples are:

1) Divorce was not permitted
2) Catholics were not allowed marry Protestants
3) people under 18 were allowed marry
4) Marriage meant some women had to quit their jobs
5) Contraception was not allowed
6) Dowries
7) Rape with in marriage was not a criminal offence.
8) something to do with cabbages

I am sure there are more. I don't believe that marriage is some sacred union that exists independently of the people involved in it. Even if some do, religion can deal with religious marriage - it has no place in secular civil unions. Marriage is simply a social and legal contract and as such the customs and legal requirements can change depending on the will of the people.

tayto lover · 18-12-2014 05:55PM

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.

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.

B. His position is his position.
I just said that I knew what he meant.

ScumLord · 18-12-2014 05:58PM

Sala wrote: »

I don't believe that marriage is some sacred union that exists independently of the people involved in it.

It's not even like the catholic church invented marriage. If you want a real traditional wedding there should probably be some sort of animal sacrifice involved.

tayto lover · 18-12-2014 05:58PM

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.

He never intended to get married here as his partner is not Irish and they live abroad.
His family and friends all attended and had a great time.
Again, i'm for gay marriage but everyone has a right to their opinion as has Barry.

tayto lover · 18-12-2014 05:59PM

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.

Nobody can make his mind up for him though and it's always best if he reaches the right decision himself.

smash · 18-12-2014 06:01PM

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.

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!

eviltwin · 18-12-2014 06:04PM

I think its really selfish to deny to others the opportunity to do something you are legally allowed to do. More so if you are actually married or planning to marry. We're talking about a happy event here people! Marriage is great, there is no downside to society in having legal SSM. You can dress it up as your faith, tradition or anything else but its just pure meanness and selfishness to actively vote against improving our civil rights.

Beano · 18-12-2014 06:04PM

tayto lover wrote: »

He never intended to get married here as his partner is not Irish and they live abroad.
...

but he didnt have the option. that is the point.

tayto lover · 18-12-2014 06:06PM

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!

I don't know how he feels apart from what he said about having concerns.
I am accepting his right to think things out and to make his own decisions.
Otherwise we will soon have people being punished for voting against the will of the politicians, judiciary etc. and a vote/Referendum as we know them will be irrelevant.
A vote is a personal thing.
I respect his rights.

tayto lover · 18-12-2014 06:07PM

Beano wrote: »

but he didnt have the option. that is the point.

You seem to be preaching to the converted Beano.
I am for gay marriage.
I am also for people rights and personal opinions.

snowstorm445 · 18-12-2014 06:10PM

I will be voting yes. As a gay person I wouldn't mind being afforded the right to marry a person who shares my sexual orientation. As long as we are both consenting adults I fail to see why we shouldn't be able to make such a decision.

However, I don't believe that fence-sitting types will be won over to voting yes by cries of "imbecile" or "bible-thumper". Although for most pro-SSM people this issue hardly needs debating, you will never win support for an idea by automatically insulting the opposition's intelligence. Coherent and considered arguments, rather than spittle-flecked abuse, will make any appeal for support far more successful.

floggg · 18-12-2014 06:11PM

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.

That is a deeply flawed and dangerous proposition.

There are innumerable reasons why the State needs to recognise marriages - including in order to make proper provision for spouses on divorce as just one obvious and important example.

And as long as the state needs to recognise marriage, it should set the rules on exactly what marriage is - or else it has to recognise and any arrangement.

And if it's setting rules, the have to be objective and applied equally.

floggg · 18-12-2014 06:14PM

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...

A lawyer would never come up with such a flawed and unworkable proposal.

somefeen · 18-12-2014 06:17PM

I'm actually planning on flying home to vote yes.

But I'll be doing it out if love and positivity rather than any kind of anger towards anyone else.

AlteredStates · 18-12-2014 06:21PM

absolutely will be voting!! About time Ireland came out of the dark ages...

shruikan2553 · 18-12-2014 06:23PM

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?

Shrap · 18-12-2014 06:31PM

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.

Sala gave you a long list of the ways "traditional" marriage has changed recently, and I've nothing to add to it. However, I wonder how you think the concept of marriage as it stands will serve us less well if it includes same sex couples? To my mind, it will serve us better and actually, the concept of marriage will not be changing at all.

floggg · 18-12-2014 06:34PM

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.

While the practicalities of the situation leave us with little choice, this post illustrates exactly why I am opposed to this issue being decided by referendum.

The fact that I have to beg, pleasd and sweet talk people, even in the face of some pretty offensive nonsense being said about me and my relationship, just to afforded the same rights that you have (seeing as your a Mrs) is pretty sickening.

It's so a bit rich when people for whom that right is a given remind me of the fact that I have to beg to be afforded it.

That's not a criticism or name calling. I'm just telling you how I feel. Put yourself in my shoes and see how you would feel been told to beg for equal treatment - or being criticised for your attitude when you call out attacks against you.

VinLieger · 18-12-2014 06:48PM

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?

Cus it's the right type of non traditional wedding, you see it's very complicated issue that they manage to make up in their heads.

Sala · 18-12-2014 06:57PM

Boards is a small area, and the name callers are a small part of the yes side. Go to marriage equality website and see the arguments and videos and literature there. Watch Moninne Griffith on prime time arguing against some woman whose name escapes me but IMO showed she'd couldn't put forward a logical argument against same sex marriage. The yes side in the media are doing great work.

floggg · 18-12-2014 06:57PM

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.

That's all well and could, but why is there no actual evidence of the supposed increased rate of disfunctions for those raised in stable same sex households?

And why does research so that same sex parents are just as good as opposite sex parents, and that children of same sex parents do just as well as those of opposite sex parents?

Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

Comments