nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

Kermit.de.frog

I think it is in May.

I won't because it does not affect me. If they get it passed fair play but I doubt i'm in a minority when I say I have little interest in it.

I think this apathy might be the biggest risk to the referendum and also the appeal of giving the government a harmless (in my view) kicking.

Anyone feel the same way about it? I just could not be bothered. I think it will be like the children's referendum. Very low turnout.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Annasopra

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 is the traditional meaning of marriage though

Traditionally 12 year old girls could marry
Traditionally men could legally rape their wife within marriage

What about same sex unions in Christian Pre Mosern Europe - were they traditional?

Annasopra

tayto lover wrote: »

No. I think he means the traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

Again what does that even mean? There seems to be some kind of false propaganda that marriage has never changed or evolved.

Perhaps you are referring to these traditions;
The tradition that 12 year old girls could marry
The tradition that men could legally rape tgeir wives
The tradition that married women had to leave work

Annasopra

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.

What?

Are you suggesting marriage hasnt evolved or changed in the last 500 years in Ireland?

Annasopra

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.

The divorce referendum was surely during your lifetime.
Decriminalising marital rape was possibly within your lifetime
Allowing couples the legal right to contraception was possibly a previous generation
Lifting bans on wives working was possibly a previous generation
lifting the age from 12 year old girls legally marrying was possibly a previous generation
I'm sure cso figures would also show huge differences between the ammount of marriages in churches and registry offices between 1984 and 2014

Theres some evidence for you!

Tombi!

What exactly are we voting on?
Is it same sex marriage and that's it (ie, two men have the same legal marriage rights as a man and woman)?

endacl

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

What exactly are we voting on?
Is it same sex marriage and that's it (ie, two men have the same legal marriage rights as a man and woman)?

The full text, I'd imagine, is yet to be hammered out. I'd sat that's the gist of it though.

endacl

Hey! Against my better judgement, I went and did a bit of a hunt on the effect of introducing same-sex marriage in the States. Makes for interesting reading.

Full text here.

Annasopra

1123heavy wrote: »

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)

What are you on about?

Annasopra

1123heavy wrote: »

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

What? Seriously? A proper upbringing prevents gayness?

Annasopra

tayto lover wrote: »

I don't agree with banning the likes of Larry Wildman because he stated his opinions. I may not agree with them but it's peoples opinions that add to the debate on this important issue.
I think it's a mistake not to allow debate.

His posts were not "debate"; They were hate filled homophobic abuse.

Annasopra

tayto lover wrote: »

But Larry was answering the questions posed.
His answers might not have suited many but he was giving his views.
The thread has been ruined now.
People on the "No" side will now be reluctant to view their opinions for fear of being banned.

Sorry no.
We shouldn't have to put up with disgusting offensive hateful abuse hurled at us.

Annasopra

GalwayGuitar wrote: »

Aren't homosexuals notoriously promiscuous?

Arent heterosexuals?

Annasopra

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

The saddest thing about holding this referendum is that, because of laws concerning balance in political debates, all of our broadcasters are going to have to half-pretend to be bigots until next may.

No

That rule for balance is only in the 30 days beforehand

VinLieger

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No

That rule for balance is only in the 30 days beforehand

Tell that to the BAI and Ray McIntyre Irelands most recently appointed thought police

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1120/661008-bai-complaints/

Shrap

GalwayGuitar wrote: »

Why do you think he's gay?

I said he is possibly gay. I have noted his utter disgust at seeing the ubiquitous semi-clad women on TV and at the rather less clad women on posters in his brother's room. He's so uncomfortable about this that the other day he came right out with "I don't like boobs", to which I said "That's fine. You don't have to like boobs at all", and he looked extremely relieved and said "I'm not like *name of brother*". He also has what I can only describe as a crush on one of his older brother's best looking friends and no interest in girls at all.

ZiabR

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)

You seem to be one of the very few people in this thread that is hellbent on voting NO with no real argument as to why you are voting NO. You seem to be blind to the fact that this is something that has been around since the dawn of time, and humanity has been just fine.

PopePalpatine

The Adversary wrote: »

A different understanding of words? A different understanding of words?! You couldn't make this stuff up.

By any chance, are those words which masti's speaking of from the Bible? :rolleyes:

Billy86

PopePalpatine wrote: »

By any chance, are those words which masti's speaking of from the Bible? :rolleyes:

You're the Pope, you tell us!!

PopePalpatine

Billy86 wrote: »

You're the Pope, you tell us!!

It's times like these I wish I could change my username to something like "PopePalpatineEmeritus". :pac:

mrkiscool2

A lot of what's been posted on this thread has p!ssed me off no end. Why wouldn't you vote for people to have the same fcuking rights as you? Any of the homophobes I'm not too bothered about you because you're going to vote no and I couldn't care less.

It's the people who are saying "I'm all for gay people getting married but..." You are the ones I am addressing now. A lot of us (I'm not gay, but I did my part) have campaigned for years...YEARS!... for this and the fact you want to even give the no side a chance of winning this is unacceptable to me. If you don't vote, and the no side does somehow manage to win can you live with yourself? Like, could you honestly live with the fact you have stopped two people who want to marry each other, who love each other, that basic, fundamental human right?

If the answer to that is no, vote. If not for random people, one of your future relatives. Because statistically, one member of your family is going to be gay or bisexual (and then want to marry someone of the same sex). Not voting in this is the same as agreeing with the no side. That's all I have to say

floggg

BarryD wrote: »

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.

Yes, but even if we can agree that the modern concept of marriage is a good thing, that is no reason to conclude that allowing same sex couples to marry on the same terms is necessarily a bad thing.

The fact that something already works well for the many is is not an argument against expanding to include the few - it's an argument for expanding it.

So it in the absence of a logical reason why the marriage eligibility criteria should not be expanded to include same sex couples (which wouldnt result in any substantive change), you are making exactly the kind of absurd appeal to tradition for traditions sake that you seemed to try and distance yourself from above.

Flem31

Maybe this thread has come to a natural end.

The title of it is "will you vote in the gay marriage referendum" but it has moved from that a long long time ago.

floggg

tayto lover wrote: »

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.

You can respect somebody's right to vote whilst not respecting their choice as to how they use it.

You can respect somebody's right to express an opinion without respecting how the opinion they express.

I'm not saying a view Barry as a bad person or don't respect him as a person, but if he chooses to contribute to a discussion and volunteers his intent to vote to do harm to many posters here for rather flimsy reasons, then it's reasonable and natural that others would challenge that reasoning and how he uses his vote.

Whilst the right to vote freely is an important part of the democratic process, so to is the right to try and influence people's votes and to rebut and rebuke their arguments for or against particularly causes.

I think if any poster here wasn't willing to have their reasoning or oosition challenged (whether they are for or against), then their decision to join and participate in a discussion forum is pretty baffling.

floggg

Sala wrote: »

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.

We are all people with too much time on our hands arguing on the Internet. People who hang around on this threads tend to have strong opinions one way or the other, so we really aren't dealing with typical undecideds here.

Our real life conversations would be much different. They would also have the benefit of tone and context, so what might read as an angry rant to some here would be a considered and reasoned discussion about the root causes of certain views.

Hammer Archer

I find it funny that if someone from the yes side intimates that a person who wants to deny a SSC the right to marry is a bigot/homophobe (I don't agree with doing this, by the way), they will have people criticising them for it. Yet when a no voter on this thread calls homosexuals inferior, unnatural, compares them to animals or inanimate objects and (the coup de grace) brings the parenting of homosexuals into question, these same people are nowhere to be found.

In case it wasn't clear, I will be voting yes. The only way a yes vote will affect me is I'll probably have a few more weddings to go to in the next 10 years or so.

floggg

mrsbyrne wrote: »

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?

I don't really think having a vote on your right to equality is comparable to anything - and it's something that should never take place.

Do you think civil rights should have been put to a vote in the US or NI? It would have lost on both places.

It's a matter that should be decided in the courts or a legislature, but it should never be something that's subject to the whim of the masses.

And I think you missed my point entirely. Do you see anything wrong with a madrid heterosexual person scolding LGBT people telling them to ask nicely for their rights or else they won't get them.

Unfortunately, it is what we have to do and the campaigners have been throughly excellent in doing so. It should not be the case (for any minority), and so the scolding (even if we'll intentioned) is rather rich.

smash

tayto lover wrote: »

I don't know how he feels apart from what he said about having concerns.

Concerns that are relevant in what way? They're personal beliefs that are wrong and are backed by an outdated way of life.

tayto lover wrote: »

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.

That's nonsense. This is a human rights issue as I see it. A no vote, is a vote against human rights in my opinion.

floggg

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?

The question is - can you?

Any arguments trotted out to date have either based in naked bigotry, demonstrably wrong based on all available research, facts and data (which is now rather voluminous) or disproved by the results in other countries, or else just absurd.

And that has been established as a matter if fact in numerous court cases recently.

So can you come up with anything better?

Flem31

Hammer Archer wrote: »

I find it funny that if someone from the yes side intimates that a person who wants to deny a SSC the right to marry is a bigot/homophobe (I don't agree with doing this, by the way), they will have people criticising them for it. Yet when a no voter on this thread calls homosexuals inferior, unnatural, compares them to animals or inanimate objects and (the coup de grace) brings the parenting of homosexuals into question, these same people are nowhere to be found.

In case it wasn't clear, I will be voting yes. The only way a yes vote will affect me is I'll probably have a few more weddings to go to in the next 10 years or so.

Pointless really.......the bigot comments continued anyway from the Yes side .......and the No voters spewing their particular nastiness got bans.

Calibos

I shouldn't have to get my lazy ass out of bed to vote on this nonsense!

It's a right that should be universal with no need to vote on. It should just be the case of a stroke of a pen on a piece of rubber stamped legislation.