Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

mrsbyrne · 18-12-2014 07:01PM

floggg wrote: »

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. It's 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.

I don't get it. Do you want gay marriage to be lawful or do you want to be right and have all the awful people stop saying nasty things to you and about you?you do realise you can't have both?
The recent Scottish referendum is a case in point. The most vile poison was unleashed on both sides but it was the protagonists spinning the positive aspects of staying in the UK that won the day not the shrill shrieking butchers flag waving ninnies. Im sure they didn't like being called treasonable traitors either but they ploughed on and wJo's laughing now?

fran17 · 18-12-2014 07:10PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Using big words doesn't make your viewpoint any less bigoted or intolerant.

There there.

This old chestnut has been doing the rounds since these threads began.Let me ask you then.Is it,in your opinion,possible for somebody to oppose same sex unions and not be a bigoted,intolerant "homophobe"? And if so then how?

B.A._Baracus · 18-12-2014 07:14PM

I won't be voting.
Not because of what the vote is about or anything. Just that I don't vote.

fran17 · 18-12-2014 07:16PM

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I won't be voting.
Not because of what the vote is about or anything. Just that I don't vote.

You really should exercise your right to vote.

kunst nugget · 18-12-2014 07:21PM

mrsbyrne wrote: »

The recent Scottish referendum is a case in point. The most vile poison was unleashed on both sides but it was the protagonists spinning the positive aspects of staying in the UK that won the day not the shrill shrieking butchers flag waving ninnies. Im sure they didn't like being called treasonable traitors either but they ploughed on and wJo's laughing now?

I'd suggest it was nothing to do with the people spinning the positive aspects and more to do with playing on people's fear of the unknown - a case of 'better the devil you know'. Fears like that are very easy to manipulate - something that the 'No' side are bound to exploit in the upcoming referendum with 'thin end of the wedge' and 'slippery slope' arguments.

fran17 · 18-12-2014 07:22PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I don't believe so, unless you have something against marriage in general.

I thank you for a straight answer.I have long held the view that this is the lgbt position on the public.

kunst nugget · 18-12-2014 07:24PM

fran17 wrote: »

I thank you for a straight answer.I have long held the view that this is the lgbt position on the public.

So, you've taken one person's opinion and extrapolated it so that it represents an entire movement? Fair play!

floggg · 18-12-2014 07:27PM

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.

What differences are there in your opinion between same sex and opposite sex relationships, and why don't you think same sex relationships fit the traditional definition?

Is just the use of the word "marriage" you don't agree with or do you think there should RB any substantive differences?

VinLieger · 18-12-2014 07:34PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Can I ask what possible reason anyone would have for being against it that isn't rooted in bigotry? Also, I'm neither L,G,B or T, at least not last time I checked. Will keep you updated if it interests you.

I have never come across a single argument against it that wasn't rooted in bigotry, broken logic, unquestioning illogical adherence to an outdated book of fiction or simple out and out lying

floggg · 18-12-2014 07:34PM

BarryD wrote: »

Careful now, don't be trying to put words into my mouth.. by traditional, I mean what has been accepted as the norm for marriage in Ireland for let's say about the last five hundred years. That is an agreement between a man and a woman or a woman and a man to be husband and wife or vice versa. I don't believe that men have had multiple wives in legal marriages in Ireland since probably the Brehon laws were in use.

You might not like this view and you don't have to like it but I daresay it's close to the first instinct of most Irish voters.

That said, I voted against the 'Childrens Rights' referendum, not because of any religious quibbles but because I thought it was a bad idea to give our already incompetent and under resourced state officials even more powers than they already had. I thought that might be lost as well but in the event, it was carried by a gullible public.

Our current incantation of marriage is less than 100 years old.

Marriage as we know it know is an equal partnership and mutual commitment based on love and affection. Both parties agree to the relationships and have equality within it.

That's rather novel.

Up until recently, marriages weren't based on romance or love. They were often arranged by parents, and often were based on the payment of a dowry in consideration of the marriage.

Women essentially became the property of their husband, were absolutely subservient to them, and could be beaten and raped at will.

Much of that is now illegal in Ireland, and the marriage most people now enter bear little resemblance to those entered into even 200 years ago.

BarryD · 18-12-2014 07:43PM

Sala wrote: »

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

1) Divorce was not legally recognised by the State until recently - however differing Churches viewed it differently. I think I'm correct in saying that most of the Anglican churches here recognised divorce from other states and were happy to remarry divorced people, give them communion etc.

2) Just wrong. Catholics were most certainly allowed to marry Protestants and vice versa - go look up the Ne Temere decree and inform yourself.

as for the rest of your points, they have little to do with marriage as a civil and legal contract - just aspects of society.

You shouldn't keep conflating marriage and religion anyway - they are separate even if related in peoples minds. In our case, we married 22 years ago in a registry office in Wicklow - nothing to do with church at all. We had been living together happily for several years and only decided to get married when we thought to start a family. Why? To put our relationship and that of our children on a firmer legal footing with associated duties and responsibilities for all. This is why the idea of marriage primarily exists in the first place.

I haven't made up my mind fully yet, I'll listen to the debate with interest but instinctively I'd be inclined to vote No. In particular I'll be keen to learn more about the benefits and drawbacks of civil partnerships etc. If they are identical to marriage which I think they broadly are, then it's hard to see a reason for change other than for the sake of it.

fran17 · 18-12-2014 07:45PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

So, you've taken one person's opinion and extrapolated it so that it represents an entire movement? Fair play!

Ah no,thats not true.I merely stated my opinion on an issue,i don't remember speaking for anyone else.Did I?

shruikan2553 · 18-12-2014 07:47PM

BarryD wrote: »

1) Divorce was not legally recognised by the State until recently - however differing Churches viewed it differently. I think I'm correct in saying that most of the Anglican churches here recognised divorce from other states and were happy to remarry divorced people, give them communion etc.

2) Just wrong. Catholics were most certainly allowed to marry Protestants and vice versa - go look up the Ne Temere decree and inform yourself.

as for the rest of your points, they have little to do with marriage as a civil and legal contract - just aspects of society.

You shouldn't keep conflating marriage and religion anyway - they are separate even if related in peoples minds. In our case, we married 22 years ago in a registry office in Wicklow - nothing to do with church at all. We had been living together happily for several years and only decided to get married when we thought to start a family. Why? To put our relationship and that of our children on a firmer legal footing with associated duties and responsibilities for all. This is why the idea of marriage primarily exists in the first place.

I haven't made up my mind fully yet, I'll listen to the debate with interest but instinctively I'd be inclined to vote No. In particular I'll be keen to learn more about the benefits and drawbacks of civil partnerships etc. If they are identical to marriage which I think they broadly are, then it's hard to see a reason for change other than for the sake of it.

You got married for those reasons and no other couples should get them? A SSC will be able to have children regardless of how you vote, when it comes to children voting no will only put the children at a disadvantage.

Eramen · 18-12-2014 07:59PM

fran17 wrote: »

This old chestnut has been doing the rounds since these threads began.Let me ask you then.Is it,in your opinion,possible for somebody to oppose same sex unions and not be a bigoted,intolerant "homophobe"? And if so then how?

Fran, that's an excellent point, but you will never get a straight answer from a political partisan. Their personality and intellectual faculties have been overtaken by their ideology, and thus this rigid set of ideas has become their new 'identity'. They belong to 'the party' - their own subcultural group - and will say anything to continue this sense of belonging they find there, because inwardly they feel a belonging to nothing else. That's why the rest of the society, institutions, traditions, other ideas are fair game to them.

Such is the empty worldview of the modern 'false-left' - LGBT included. They can't associate or relate with anyone/thing in any way, except for their own. Notice how people who disagree with them are immediately slandered and attacked in the most vile manner; all because of a mere difference in opinion. This behavior is a learned one, and they couldn't possibly imagine the origin of the things in which they 'believe'.

Most worryingly, they have allowed themselves to mystify the most basic facts of the world in which we live - because they can't actually differentiate fact from fiction at this point. Human/Western civilisation has existed upon the family as it's central sun for tens of thousands of years, a social formula that is conclusively based on male-female pairings. The powerful and unique forces that the two sexes exhibit through their children is what helps society thrive and progress. It's through these distinct masculine/feminine traits that allows for the extraction of the best qualities from the personality of the child. Both sexes, not just one, are essential for social and familial harmony. This state of affairs has been an outstanding achievement and benefit for the vast majority of mankind.

Yet these self-hating ideologues don't recognise this because they are ostracised from other people around them in society and haven't acquired any belonging outside of their narrow subcultural/political pursuits.

Mocking others for their opinions is a sign of weakness, not strength, because one lacks the ability to relate with others on an intellectual way. It's a real handicap. Yet LGBT & 'false-left progressivism' has never been about employing rationale, but rather has always concerned the most base type of conformism of people who are wholly estranged from what they are. This state of affairs and ignorant pseudo-morality is something that suits the mafia that currently runs the Western world, and a big part of the reason our world is so inverted. That they sideline others for 'intolerance' is a cruel joke at this point..

fran17 · 18-12-2014 08:02PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Can I ask what possible reason anyone would have for being against it that isn't rooted in bigotry? Also, I'm neither L,G,B or T, at least not last time I checked. Will keep you updated if it interests you.

Lots of reasons,the most basic being that it erodes the whole sacrament of marriage because put simply,its not marriage.It is an attempt to redefine the word marriage,as one pro poster put it earlier,and this is not the view of marriage held by the majority of the public.Also it should be remembered that if this is enacted into law it will be promoted by the state in society and in our schools.Unless im very mistaken the only difference between a straight person and a gay person is sex.Personally speaking I for one don't want this introduced into our educational system,and if its law it will be.

fran17 · 18-12-2014 08:07PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Looks that way to me.

Any chance of an answer to this?

It may look that way to you and that's fine but you may be slightly blinkered on this issue.

fran17 · 18-12-2014 08:10PM

Eramen wrote: »

Fran, that's an excellent point, but you will never get a straight answer from a political partisan. Their personality and intellectual faculties have been overtaken by their ideology, and thus this rigid set of ideas has become their new 'identity'. They belong to 'the party' - their own subcultural group - and will say anything to continue this sense of belonging they find there, because inwardly they feel a belonging to nothing else. That's why the rest of the society, institutions, traditions, other ideas are fair game to them.

Such is the empty worldview of the modern 'false-left' - LGBT included. They can't associate or relate with anyone/thing in any way, except for their own. Notice how people who disagree with them are immediately slandered and attacked in the most vile manner; all because of a mere difference in opinion. This behavior is a learned one, and they couldn't possibly imagine the origin of the things in which they 'believe'.

Most worryingly, they have allowed themselves to mystify the most basic facts of the world in which we live - because they can't actually differentiate fact from fiction at this point. Human/Western civilisation has existed upon the family as it's central sun for tens of thousands of years, a social formula that is conclusively based on male-female pairings. The powerful and unique forces that the two sexes that exhibit themselves through their children is what helps society thrive and progress. It's through these distinct masculine/feminine traits that bring out the best qualities of children personalities. Both sexes, not just one, are essential for social and familial harmony. This state of affairs has been an outstanding achievement and benefit for the vast majority of mankind.

Yet these self-hating ideologues don't recognise this because they are ostracised from other people around them in society and haven't acquired any belonging outside of their narrow subcultural pursuits.

Mocking others for their opinions is a sign of weakness, not strength, because one lacks the ability to relate with others on an intellectual way. It's a real handicap. Yet LGBT & 'false-left progressivism' has never been about employing rationale, but rather has always concerned the most base type of conformism of people who are wholly estranged from what they are. This state of affairs and ignorant pseudo-morality is something suits the mafia that currently runs the Western world, and a big part of the reason our world is so inverted. That they sideline other for 'intolerance' is a cruel joke at this point..

Eramen that is one of the most insightful posts I have ever had the pleasure of reading.Excellent.

Dont call me Shirley · 18-12-2014 08:14PM

What's a good word or expression to summarise when a once contentious issue becomes so widely accepted you get all these weak willed, spineless, ray d'arcy listening mofo's jumping on board the bandwagon proclaiming loudly and smugly to anyone who will listen how they've always supported said issue and displaying at every opportunity their recently acquired brave contempt of the ignorant minority of cretin's on the opposing side.

Well whatever term describes this phenomena, in spite of it I'll still be voting yes, tempting as it to go against these moral majority crusaders.

Paramite Pie · 18-12-2014 08:18PM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I won't because it does not affect me.

This is why I feel it should never have gone to a vote in the first place... Rights should be intrinsic & decided in the Court Room not by Popular Opinion which is ever-changing.

Eramen wrote: »

Yet these self-hating ideologues don't recognise this because they are ostracised from other people around them in society and haven't acquired any belonging outside of their narrow subcultural pursuits.

I'm gay and I'm not part of any sub-culture, gay or otherwise. I'm also surrounded by friends & family, not ostracised. Really not sure what to make of your post, it's very generalizing.

Dont call me Shirley · 18-12-2014 08:22PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Or maybe they just always supported it

Are you ok?

Fine thank you, maybe a little grumpy today.

Surely they didn't always support it? Half the crowd shouting about how wonderful gay marriage is now would have been at the forefront of homophobia in the 70's and 80's. It's a bandwagon.

Aside from this I think it's great that it's coming in.

kunst nugget · 18-12-2014 08:26PM

Paramite Pie wrote: »

I'm gay and I'm not part of any sub-culture, gay or otherwise. I'm also surrounded by friends & family, not ostracised. Really not sure what to make of your post, it's very generalizing.

Your mind has most obviously been discombobulated, brutalised and deviated by the cunning machinations of the 'false left' proclamations of equality and progressiveness.

You're totally ostracised. You just don't know it. Everyone's totally talking about you behind your back.

Billy86 · 18-12-2014 08:26PM

fran17 wrote: »

This old chestnut has been doing the rounds since these threads began.Let me ask you then.Is it,in your opinion,possible for somebody to oppose same sex unions and not be a bigoted,intolerant "homophobe"? And if so then how?

I'm just still waiting for a valid reason why a group of people should be discriminated against on the grounds of their sexuality, because I can not recall a single one in the multiple threads there have been on this issue. "It's tradition/has always been this way" is blatantly untrue, and "it's just how I feel" is indeed no more than an admission of bigotry, and there's no ifs or buts about that - replace "same sex" with "interracial" in your question above and try to answer it.

kunst nugget · 18-12-2014 08:27PM

Dont call me Shirley wrote: »

Fine thank you, maybe a little grumpy today.

Surely they didn't always support it? Half the crowd shouting about how wonderful gay marriage is now would have been at the forefront of homophobia in the 70's and 80's. It's a bandwagon.

Aside from this I think it's great that it's coming in.

People's attitudes change. I don't think it's a bandwagon, it's a hard won acceptance.

fran17 · 18-12-2014 08:33PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

No, it doesn't touch religious marriage. This has already been covered in the thread numerous times. Even if it did, why does any one group get to have marriage to themselves? As has the idea that it's redefining marriage (spoiler: your own definition of marriage is a redefinition). Now, again, do you have any reasons that aren't based on bigotry or misinformation?

Well i'll disagree with you on that matter just as the majority would.If I was to give you any of the other numerous reasons to oppose this issue would it make any difference to your psyche?I think not.You have already,by admission,defined me and anyone else who opposes this issue as an intolerant,bigoted homophobe.Right?

Dont call me Shirley · 18-12-2014 08:48PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

People's attitudes change. I don't think it's a bandwagon, it's a hard won acceptance.

Ah fair play I see that point too. I agree that for a lot of ordinary decent people their attitudes to homosexuality has changed and that's great.

My peev is that there's a (loud) voice in Irish society that'll jump on popular opinion and use it to further their own political/media presence or personal sense of self-importance.

An example that really bugs me at the moment is the 'outrage' about disability services. I worked in this area for a time and it was widely known that some services were very poor and the system was wide open for the type of abuse that's now come to light. All of this was in the public domain, there were reports, articles on page 17 of the newspaper, documentaries that nobody watched, etc.

Now something comes along that people are (rightly) shocked about and it's everywhere but in a few weeks time the spotlight will have moved to something else and the kind of long term, root and branch attention disability services need probably won't happen, we'll get a short term fix until the next 'outrage' in a few years time.

fran17 · 18-12-2014 09:07PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

'If'

By the way, since this seems to be confusing you so much, I'd consider anyone who opposes this a homophobe for the same reason I'd consider anyone against interracial marriage a racist: because they blatantly are.

Another myth surfaces.Trying to compare race and sexual behaviour is like apples and oranges,opposite ends of the spectrum.An individual can be black,white,Asian etc. it does not matter as they are man and woman and can overcome all of this and meet the requirements for marriage.The true meaning of the word marriage and not the redefined version.

Billy86 · 18-12-2014 09:16PM

fran17 wrote: »

Another myth surfaces.Trying to compare race and sexual behaviour is like apples and oranges,opposite ends of the spectrum.An individual can be black,white,Asian etc. it does not matter as they are man and woman and can overcome all of this and meet the requirements for marriage.The true meaning of the word marriage and not the redefined version.

What are these "requirements" and who came up with them, exactly?

strobe · 18-12-2014 09:21PM

I don't vote, so no. But I hope it passes or whatever the proper term is. If it loses, or whatever the proper term is (anyone tell me the proper terms?) by one single vote I'll feel pretty guilty, I'm sure.

Chorcai · 18-12-2014 09:24PM

strobe wrote: »

I don't vote, so no. But I hope it passes or whatever the proper term is. If it loses, or whatever the proper term is (anyone tell me the proper terms?) by one single vote I'll feel pretty guilty, I'm sure.

I don't know what the proper reply is to this!

Shrap · 18-12-2014 09:24PM

strobe wrote: »

I don't vote, so no. But I hope it passes or whatever the proper term is. If it loses, or whatever the proper term is (anyone tell me the proper terms?) by one single vote I'll feel pretty guilty, I'm sure.

You don't vote, even when you feel strongly that something could be changed? What kind of thinking is that? And I speak as someone who seriously respected your input till now. Why bother even commenting as someone who holds a particular view if you won't put your mark where your mouth is?

Gotta say, I thought better of you strobe

Edit: I believe the term is "fail". An appropriate term when something that could only be good for people might fail to get the public off it's ass to vote.

Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

Comments