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.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » Using big words doesn't make your viewpoint any less bigoted or intolerant. There there.
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.
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?
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » I don't believe so, unless you have something against marriage in general.
fran17 wrote: » I thank you for a straight answer.I have long held the view that this is the lgbt position on the public.
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.
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.
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.
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
kunst nugget wrote: » So, you've taken one person's opinion and extrapolated it so that it represents an entire movement? Fair play!
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.
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?
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » Looks that way to me. Any chance of an answer to this?
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..
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » I won't because it does not affect me.
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.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » Or maybe they just always supported it Are you ok?
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.
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.
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?
kunst nugget wrote: » People's attitudes change. I don't think it's a bandwagon, it's a hard won acceptance.
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.
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.
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.
