Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

fran17 · 18-12-2014 11:16PM

Billy86 wrote: »

Once again... we're all 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.

And once again... what are these "requirements" for getting married you were on about earlier, and who exactly came up with them?

Careful Billy,you might give me the attention I crave.

dark crystal · 18-12-2014 11:18PM

Larry Wildman wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that society should endorse two men riding each other? Tolerating it is fine - We're a liberal society. However endorsing it and saying that it's just the same as a normal relationship is insane.

It's exactly the same as a 'normal' relationship. They make love, they support each other, they laugh together, they cry together, they fight, they make up, they are there in sickness and in health, they are each other's best friend. Their gender is irrelevant.

Marriage is not simply about what goes on in the bedroom, not that anyone's bedroom habits should concern or affect you in any way. If the idea of two guys riding doesn't appeal to you, don't do it. I can't see how two people committing to each other legally affects your life in any way whatsoever.

Billy86 · 18-12-2014 11:19PM

fran17 wrote: »

Careful Billy,you might give me the attention I crave.

You don't have an answer, do you?

Larry Wildman · 18-12-2014 11:21PM

dark crystal wrote: »

It's exactly the same as a normal relationship. They make love, they support each other, they laugh together, they cry together, they fight, they make up, they are there in sickness and in health, they are each other's best friend. Their gender is irrelevant.

Marriage is not simply about what goes on in the bedroom, not that anyone's bedroom habits should concern or affect you in any way. If the idea of two guys riding doesn't appeal to you, don't do it. I can't see how to people committing to each other legally affects your life in any way whatsoever.

What bothers me is the assertion that a homosexual relationship is equal to a heterosexual one. It is founded on unnatural and deviant acts. It is grossly inferior and a million miles from normal, despite the incessant media campaigning by homosexuals.

lazygal · 18-12-2014 11:22PM

Larry Wildman wrote: »

What bothers me is the assertion that a homosexual relationship is equal to a heterosexual one. It is founded on unnatural and deviant acts. It is grossly inferior and a million miles from normal, despite the incessant media campaigning by homosexuals.

Megalolz.

Ihatecuddles · 18-12-2014 11:23PM

I was against gay marriage once, it was a thread like this that made me change my mind.

I had gay friends, they were in happy relationships, I was happy for them, but without ever giving it much thought I decided that marriage shouldn't be for them. Marriage should be between a man and a woman, and homosexual couples can have civil partnerships and be happy with that, and why not be?

I'm ashamed that I once thought like that. It was pure bigotry and ignorance. I'll be voting in favour of gay marriage, and I apologise to anyone who I ever believed to be inferior or unequal, because that's how I viewed them by believing they didn't deserve the rights afforded to straight people.

Plus, it has sweet f*ck all to do with me if Adam wants to marry Steve

GLaDOS · 18-12-2014 11:25PM

Larry Wildman is taking a few days off folks, please refrain from replying to his posts

lazygal · 18-12-2014 11:26PM

Ihatecuddles wrote: »

I was against gay marriage once, it was a thread like this that made me change my mind.

I had gay friends, they were in happy relationships, I was happy for them, but without ever giving it much thought I decided that marriage shouldn't be for them. Marriage should be between a man and a woman, and homosexual couples can have civil partnerships and be happy with that, and why not be?

I'm ashamed that I once thought like that. It was pure bigotry and ignorance. I'll be voting in favour of gay marriage, and I apologise to anyone who I ever believed to be inferior or unequal, because that's how I viewed them by believing they didn't deserve the rights afforded to straight people.

Plus, it has sweet f*ck all to do with me if Adam wants to marry Steve

Did you ever change your mind on cuddles?

Shrap · 18-12-2014 11:26PM

^^ Excellent, thanks mod, but OT....um, did you lose a bet?! Or perhaps you really like one direction - sorry....

Billy86 · 18-12-2014 11:27PM

Shrap wrote: »

^^ Excellent, thanks mod, but OT....um, did you lose a bet?! Or perhaps you really like one direction - sorry....

He just knows that he's beautiful.

Ihatecuddles · 18-12-2014 11:28PM

lazygal wrote: »

Did you ever change your mind on cuddles?

That would take a far more serious thread, with some excellent points in favour if them.

One thing at a time

deadybai · 18-12-2014 11:28PM

Yes. I will vote no. I don't agree with it.

lazygal · 18-12-2014 11:29PM

deadybai wrote: »

Yes. I will vote no. I don't agree with it.

Any reasons why?

VinLieger · 18-12-2014 11:31PM

fran17 wrote: »

So if this referendum fails what you perceive to be the correct outcome and the majority of Ireland vote no,Are elderly people,religious people and the young all bigoted "homophobes"?

Yes my grand mother is against it but she is a product of her time, I love her however I'm under no delusion that she is a bigot, the difference being it is bigotry through ignorance whereas for a lot of other people for instance younger than 60 it is bigotry through choice where they either believe without question whatever their local priest preaches or just choose to be a bigot as they are likely horrible people who hate other peoples happiness

Sala · 18-12-2014 11:34PM

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.

1) I am not talking about church recognition. I am talking about civil marriage and divorce was only introduced in the Family Law (Divorce) Act 1996 Act in Ireland
2) Penal laws banned marriage between Protestants and catholic. These were repealed sometime in 1700/1800s. What you are referring to seems to be a decree issued by the pope - post dates penal laws and the repeal of same and is religious rather than state law

Anyway the facts and whether you disagree/agree with certain traditions are not the issue - my other points were used to illustrate that marriage in Ireland is a fluid concept and has been changing constantly. The law is changing constantly to reflect the needs of society because people are, though their actions and desires, seeking a change in the definition of marriage.

I think you are conflating marriage and religion - I didn't refer to it regarding divorce, you did. And you brought up a decree issue by the church

And I respectfully disagree that the "rest of my points are have little to do with marriage as a civil and legal contract - just aspects of society". fair enough the cabbage one, but the dowries, women working ban and the lack of contraception and lack of criminal sanctions for rape within marriage all allude to the position of women within marriage. Fair enough dowries were tradition, but the rest were legislated for (or failed to be legislated for) and certainly provide an unequal marital structure or "tradition" that I as a woman would not be happy to associated with today.

Anyway I digress, my main point was that you told me to provide you evidence marriage is evolving. I think I have done that. I think you can accept marriage is not a fixed concept, and it has evolved (and in my opinion for the better) whether or not you believe man/woman is a tradition that you wish to hold onto is your choice and your own vote.

PopePalpatine · 18-12-2014 11:35PM

Eramen wrote: »

PP, always so needlessly critical of society and others in nearly every single post. And an ardent supporter of the 'equality' god!

I see no reason to oppose equality between homosexual and heterosexual couples. If we allow infertile couples to both marry AND adopt children, then I see no reason to deny those rights to homosexual couples. Based on the fact that single people (regardless of sexuality) can adopt children once they've satisfied vetting procedures, I presume homosexual couples will still be subjected to the same vetting as heterosexual couples when they want to adopt children.

But where is the self-criticism? This is what's most important; awareness of oneself is key, otherwise it's easy to get dragged away by false sentiments which seem intellectually sound from the outside, but really aren't.

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” - Marcus Aurelius

I'm very much aware of my own failings.

Based on my own reasoning, it is the "No" side of this debate that are among the "ranks of the insane" - I have yet to see a sane reason to vote No to this referendum.

deadybai · 18-12-2014 11:36PM

Just think marriage should be between a man and a women. I don't mind gay people doing their own way but to be legally married I don't agree with

Billy86 · 18-12-2014 11:39PM

deadybai wrote: »

Just think marriage should be between a man and a women. I don't mind gay people doing their own way but to be legally married I don't agree with

And another person who is yet to give any valid reason beyond "I don't wanna".

Why don't you agree with it?

VinLieger · 18-12-2014 11:39PM

deadybai wrote: »

Just think marriage should be between a man and a women. I don't mind gay people doing their own way but to be legally married I don't agree with

So can you explain your issue specifically with them being legally married?

Ihatecuddles · 18-12-2014 11:39PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Could anyone using the 'not natural' argument explain to me why we see homosexuality in the animal kingdom?

They're going through a phase

shruikan2553 · 18-12-2014 11:40PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Could anyone using the 'not natural' argument explain to me why we see homosexuality in the animal kingdom?

Or how they manage to live a natural lifestyle.

ShadowHearth · 18-12-2014 11:40PM

As a non gay male voter: Yes to gay marriages.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgwBqXQ6MPI

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 18-12-2014 11:41PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Could anyone using the 'not natural' argument explain to me why we see homosexuality in the animal kingdom?

Well, perhaps they haven't tried not being animals...

1123heavy · 18-12-2014 11:44PM

I thought this argument was long dead. What part of NO don't you people understand ? You will not be able to force your nonsense upon those unwilling to accept it, be it through bullying or otherwise (unfortunately the yes people see it as their "right" to shoot anyone with a different opinion to them out of the air under the thinly veiled cover of "supporting equality")

shruikan2553 · 18-12-2014 11:46PM

1123heavy wrote: »

I thought this argument was long dead. What part of NO don't you people understand ? You will not be able to force your nonsense upon those unwilling to accept it, be it through bullying or otherwise (unfortunately the yes people see it as their "right" to shoot anyone with a different opinion to them out of the air under the thinly veiled cover of "supporting equality")

One side wants some people to have a choice in marrying the people they want.
The other side wants to approve of their partners first.

Tell us again about who is forcing their opinion on who.

VinLieger · 18-12-2014 11:50PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I thought this argument was long dead. What part of YES don't you people understand? You will not be able to force your nonsense upon those unwilling to accept it, be it through bullying or otherwise (unfortunately the no people see it as their "right" to shoot anyone with a different opinion to them out of the air under the thinly veiled cover of "preserving marriage")

I was gonna reply to it too but there's no point after that

1123heavy · 18-12-2014 11:51PM

and the prize for the stupidest post ever seen on these hollowed forums goes to our friend from Donegal, congratulations Doc.

I may just give up talking to you peoplee, we will let the voting speak for itself. Right now I will get more across while speaking to a wall, you people are so hellbent on changing nature you are being blinded by your own happy fantasies.

I certainly hope I'm not around on the day it becomes acceptable in Ireland for same sex people to be engaging in all sorts of sexual behaviour in the middle of shopping centres, restaurants etc. (and before you say it is already happening, no it is NOT)

Ihatecuddles · 18-12-2014 11:52PM

I think what made me see sense, was imagining my son growing up and if he was gay, not being able to marry who he loves, the way I married my husband.

I couldn't look him in the eye knowing I had a chance to change it and voted no. And for what reason? It won't have any impact on my life, but eh....nature?

1123heavy · 18-12-2014 11:54PM

Ihatecuddles - That needn't be a fear for you my good friend, now assuming you provide a proper upbringing it won't be.

Billy86 · 18-12-2014 11:54PM

1123heavy wrote: »

and the prize for the stupidest post ever seen on these hollowed forums goes to our friend from Donegal, congratulations Doc.

I may just give up talking to you peoplee, we will let the voting speak for itself. Right now I will get more across while speaking to a wall, you people are so hellbent on changing nature you are being blinded by your own happy fantasies.

I certainly hope I'm not around on the day it becomes acceptable in Ireland for same sex people to be engaging in all sorts of sexual behaviour in the middle of shopping centres, restaurants etc. (and before you say it is already happening, no it is NOT)

Try.

Harder.

Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

Comments