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

TwoShedsJackson

Hammer Archer wrote: »

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.

The only compelling argument against same sex marriage so far.

VinLieger

Flem31 wrote: »

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

I really don't see the problem with calling a bigot a bigot.

floggg

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

definitely against, the institution of marriage has been through out history and from the birth of mankind between a man and a women and I wouldn't like this tradition to be changed at least in this country plus the fact that a marriage is not required for a happy relationship.

You are either woefully misinformed or a blatant liar.

I'd check the bible as a starting point ok what marriage originally was (at least in the abrahamic faiths) - a polygamous property transaction.

One eyed Jack

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.

I'd be one of those people, and the reason I say there's no point in "calling out bigots and homophobes", etc, is because they simply don't care for other people's opinions of them. They don't care about the consequences for other people of them casting a 'no' vote. They firmly believe, whether rightly or wrongly according to anyone else, that they are doing the right thing for society for their own reasons, and they aren't particularly bothered whether those reasons make sense to anyone else or not. Their reasons make sense to them, and no amount of name-calling or derision or righteous finger wagging is going to make one iota of a difference to their opinion.

mrsbyrne is right, there's nothing to be gained from petty sniping back and forth between the two lobby groups, and most people would rather avoid the whole thing than get caught in the middle between the two groups, and if you can't see why after 70 odd pages (on the touch site), then you're never likely to see it, but the bitching and the finger wagging from both camps just wears most people out to the point where they just don't care about listening to either side of the argument. They'd sooner just let the two sides fight it out amongst themselves as they have better things to be doing, and come referendum day, they'll cast their vote without any of the drama and without having to explain themselves to anyone.

floggg

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)

Yes, that's the agenda - sex in shopping centres and restsuarants.

Obviously sex in a restaurant located in a shopping centre is the holy grail.

VinLieger

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'd be one of those people, and the reason I say there's no point in "calling out bigots and homophobes", etc, is because they simply don't care for other people's opinions of them. They don't care about the consequences for other people of them casting a 'no' vote. They firmly believe, whether rightly or wrongly according to anyone else, that they are doing the right thing for society for their own reasons, and they aren't particularly bothered whether those reasons make sense to anyone else or not. Their reasons make sense to them, and no amount of name-calling or derision or righteous finger wagging is going to make one iota of a difference to their opinion.

mrsbyrne is right, there's nothing to be gained from petty sniping back and forth between the two lobby groups, and most people would rather avoid the whole thing than get caught in the middle between the two groups, and if you can't see why after 70 odd pages (on the touch site), then you're never likely to see it, but the bitching and the finger wagging from both camps just wears most people out to the point where they just don't care about listening to either side of the argument. They'd sooner just let the two sides fight it out amongst themselves as they have better things to be doing, and come referendum day, they'll cast their vote without any of the drama and without having to explain themselves to anyone.

I would disagree with this, the reaction of anyone I have ever called a bigot for holding such views is anger as they are suddenly faced with their own hypocrisy and how foolish they look for holding such backwards views, proving they actually do care about other peoples opinion's of them

the ax murderer

I'll be voting yes to feel better about myself.

floggg

Flem31 wrote: »

Yes I do, not here though as with the numerous people on the Yes side for every No voice, it is not required. It has cropped up recently at work where the bias was the other way, and I defended the rights of the Yes side to be entitled for their rights to be respected as all others.

But whether I apply this standard is immaterial......I am not trying to change people's attitudes and get a referendum passed.
If this entire debate descends into one big slagging match......the chances of an overall Yes is diminished. After all, when the Irish are unsure of things, we opt for the status quo......no change here needed

how do you want me to respond to the claims that I am unnatural, incapable of entering into a meaningful relationship, that my sex life is unnatural, that I am promiscuous, that my raising a child would be tantamount to child abuse, or that my relationship is inferior to those of my straight friends and family members?

What am I meant to say? Tell them what an insightful view they had, and how I'll certainly take their view of me as a dysfunctional unnatural child abuser on board. Who cares if I have to cry myself to sleep.

Why would I be asked to respect a belief that I myself am unworthy of respect or equality?

nozzferrahhtoo

Flem31 wrote: »

Based on this thread, if any undecided voter shows any possible counterview.....instead of a rational argument...........the person is automatically labelled a bigot.

There appears now to be periodic posts that are essentially saying this same thing over and over and over and over again.

However I ask you as I have asked others to look at my posts on the thread. And observe who I have done NO LABELING of the people I have replied to AT ALL.

Now count how many of the "no" side have thus far engaged with the posts in question. Count how many of the "no" people I have replied to who have actually then replied to my posts and points in turn.

I can save you the time....... at this moment the count is at Zero. So if people are getting labelled (by others) it is likely because rational discourse has failed with those people, as they have simply whole sale rejected to engage with it. That is the MO of this "no" side at the moment I am afraid.

I wish to see as much rational discourse between the two sides as you, but if one side if rejecting whole sale attempts to do so.... what recourse is left to us exactly? Labeling and name calling, ALAS, is what follows when one side of a conversation simply shuts down conversation and that is where blame lies predominantly, though partially shared by the people who do resort to name calling.

Insults demean only the insulter, never the target, ever.

nozzferrahhtoo

masti123 wrote: »

gayness is nothing other than a "thought process" , just like "shy-ness" and schizophrenia.

Is this true of heterosexuality too then, or do you already acknowledge a genetic and hormonal element to sexuality?

masti123 wrote: »

maybe your gay since you get along with your own sex better

No.... homosexuality is a sexual thing, not just an interpersonal relationships thing. It does not matter how well you "get on" with someone, you are either sexually attracted to them or you are not. You do not get to choose that. I can not choose to be attracted to a person I am not. Nor can I choose to stop being attracted to the people I am.

masti123 wrote: »

This is a very unique perspective. People have to keep an open mind.

And "open mind" means "willing to change your position if presented with compelling substantiation to do so".

As you have provided none for your "unique" perspective.... at all.... of any form......... the relative "openness" of the minds of people reading it are therefore rendered wholly irrelevant and your comment here is mere filler.

The Adversary wrote: »

You couldn't make this stuff up.

But, he just did

masti123 wrote: »

Thought I'd share my opinions on this thread but there seems to be alot of narrow minded people

Narrow minded does not mean what you think it means. Again.

As I said above, open mindedness is about accepting a view when just cause to do so is offered. Close minded means refusing to do so.

All you have offered is opinion and assertion. There is nothing close or narrow minded about refusing to adopt assertions.

You appear to be re-defining the words "open mindedness" to mean "Anyone who agrees with me". It does not mean that. Likely it never will.

masti123 wrote: »

There is no gay gene and it will never be found. Therefore, homosexuality can't be passed through birth.

Actually you are entirely wrong in many ways here. The only thing you are likely right on is there being no "gay gene" per se. But one is not required for homosexuality to be genetic. And one is not required for it to be passed through birth. BOTH of these things can be true without there being a "gay gene".

Go on, ask me why, I dare you

Display to us this "open mindedness" you find so precious in others.

kmrm

I'll be voting yes, it doesn't affect me but I believe everyone should have the same equal rights regardless of sex.

Some family members of mine have either said they won't vote or will vote no. However I was able to change some of their views when I asked them would they be able to look their grandchildren/children/nieces/nephews in the eyes and be able to tell them they were part of the reason they can't get married if one of them happens to be gay.

nozzferrahhtoo

GalwayGuitar wrote: »

Aren't homosexuals notoriously promiscuous? Why do they even want marriage?

Not really no. There have been a couple of "studies" that have suggested this but when one reads the methodology sections of those studies, something I am happily trained to do, one sees a different story.

What they did essentially was, instead of a representative section of the homosexual community, they cherry picked homosexuals who would give them the results and figures they wanted to get.

So the "researchers" hung out in notorious cruising and promiscuous sex locations like truck laybys, gay baths and the like, interviewed ONLY those gay men, then extrapolated their results to a generalizations of the gay community as a whole.

I am a person who enjoys seeing his opinions validated, and even born out in our voting system. But I myself can not actually imagine being SO dishonest in the pursuit of perpetuating my positions that I would wantonly contrive at that level to produce statistics that validate my views. I simply can not get myself into the heads of people who act in this way.

nozzferrahhtoo

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

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

Not only that, but the people who rant about homosexuality not being natural, are entirely missing the point that not only do we observe homosexuality in the animal kingdom...... we NEVER observe marriage there. If homosexuality is to be asserted by them to be "unnatural" then marriage is doubley so.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Has anyone managed to post anything about voting no while backing it up with facts?

Look over my posts on the thread. Then look at how many of those posts got replied to by the people they were directed at.

The current score is: Zero. Though perhaps my reputation of being utterly untrollable has some account for this.

So I guess no, not one of them has done this yet.

tayto lover wrote: »

I don't agree with banning the likes of Larry Wildman because he stated his opinions.

Then you might be happy to realize that I do not think any such thing has happened. Rarely are people banned from here for stating their opinions. It is HOW they state them that tends to be the issue. Look at the bans on the breast feeding thread for examples of this.

tayto lover wrote: »

I think it's a mistake not to allow debate.

As above, no such thing is actually happening you will be over joyed to find. It is perfectly allowed. But a certain level of conduct and decorum is expected while doing it. The forum is all for debate, and not so much for one directional soap boxing. We do not need forums for that. That is what Blogs are for.

nozzferrahhtoo

BarryD wrote: »

Where is the evidence that marriage (in Ireland) is constantly evolving??

The fact that this referendum is happening at all is evidence of this in and of itself. Both that marriage is evolving, and our requirements of that institution are evolving. An attempt to merely maintain the status quo is nothing more than an attempt to put each of these things out of step with each other.

Other evidence includes divorce, the age of consent to marriage, inter religion marriages, and more. What evidence more do you need to see it has been evolving constantly for some time?

BarryD wrote: »

Yes the world is changing and society is changing and we each have to look into what we think is in the best interests of our children and society when voting.

And as I said, merely attempting to maintain the status quo is NOT a decision that is in the "best interests" of anyone. The "best interests" of everyone is served by ensuring the institutions we have in our society match the needs and requirements OF that society. And a yes vote will do that.

BarryD wrote: »

All I'm saying is that even though I'd be far more liberal than many of the populace, this referendum gives me pause for thought.

If a referendum of any kind did not make you pause to think, then you would be doing it wrong.

BarryD wrote: »

I happen to think that the concept of marriage as it stands is one that has broadly served well.

And that concept will not be changed by a yes vote. It will be EXTENDED to serve others equally as well as it has served us to date.

The idea that anything about the marriage you hold traditionally dear will actually be changed by this yes vote is false. There is no modification here. Just an extension to a wider target group.

Anything you would list as having served us well will continue on unhindered after a yes vote and this may be the core point you are missing in your points so far. Your heart may even be firmly in the right place trying to maintain the things that have served us well, but a yes vote simply will not affect the things you hold dear.

nozzferrahhtoo

Eramen wrote: »

Notice how people who disagree with them are immediately slandered and attacked in the most vile manner

That simply has not happened at all actually. Notice my reply to your post earlier in the thread. No attacks. No mocking. No slander. No Ad Hominem such as you provide here. Nothing. My post was three requests for you to substantiate three claims you have made.

And what have you done? Ignored it. Wholesale outright and entirely ignored it. While presuming to lecture others on "failing to interact in an intellectual way". Purchase a mirror sometime.

So what SEEMS to be happening is you are constructing a straw man of the other side as aggressive and slandering, by simply contriving to wholesale ignore the people who do not fit that mould, and react only to the massive minority who actually do.

fran17 wrote: »

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?

Of course it is. By laying out arguments, evidence, data and reasoning which substantiates the claim that society would be in some way worse off if it were allowed to pass.

If you can do this you would not be intolerant or a homophobe, and in fact I will switch my vote to "no" too and campaign for others to do so along with me with every bit as much energy as I have been doing for the opposite to date.

fran17 wrote: »

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

So like Barry, your only ACTUAL point on the matter is a yes vote will cause a change and you do not want a change. Thats essentially it. Like Mog in the Judith Kerr books, you simply want things to remain the same?

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.

I do not think people are confusing or comparing race with sexuality.... so much as they are comparing the kinds of arguments and issues that arose with both. And that comparison is quite valid.

There was a time when inter racial marriage was not permitted, even illegal. The Loving V Virginia case will be oft cited at you for this reason. And many of the arguments used by the people who were AGAINST inter racial marriage at that time.... are the _exact_ same arguments we see on this issue. Almost to the very word for words presentation of them sometimes.

The arguments failed THEN clearly. One can only hope they fail here too, for the same reasons as before.

One eyed Jack

VinLieger wrote: »

I would disagree with this, the reaction of anyone I have ever called a bigot for holding such views is anger as they are suddenly faced with their own hypocrisy and how foolish they look for holding such backwards views, proving they actually do care about other peoples opinion's of them

I'm loathe to quote Stephen Fry as I find him a rather odious individual but, with all due respect - so fcuking what?

What do you actually gain from it?

What do you want for doing that?

I don't see anyone handing out rubber medals for righteousness? All you did was engaged in a bit of humiliation one-upmanship, and while you might get a couple of internet claps on the back for your actions, the person you humiliated will still go into the voting booth and still vote no, so you've actually achieved nothing. You've wasted your time and energy on someone who was always going to vote no in the first place, instead of showing people that you don't descend to the level of people you perceive to be bigots and homophobes.

You can choose to entertain them, or you can choose not to entertain them, but if you choose to entertain them, then on a fundamental level, you really are showing that you're no different to them - you're both as arrogant and self-righteous as each other, and both have chips on your shoulders. Whether the referendum on marriage equality is passed or not at that point simply becomes irrelevant, as the result isn't going to change either of your attitudes towards each other as human beings.

nozzferrahhtoo

Dont call me Shirley wrote: »

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.

I can not imagine sharing that temptation. The idea of voting against my better judgement just to spite a group of people who likely will not care either, appears to me to be as petty as it is anti intellectual. All my votes are based on what I think the right vote is. I have never other stood spiteful votes, petty votes, shoving it to the government votes or any of that.

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

definitely against, the institution of marriage has been through out history and from the birth of mankind between a man and a women

Except that is simply not a fact, and your historical revisionism is not going to work here.

deadybai wrote: »

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

masti123 wrote: »

I will be voting No due to my personal beliefs. I think a poll would be interesting to see.

There is an emerging tradition on the thread for asking one liner no posters like yourself to expound upon your reasoning, so may I add my own voice to the movement

deadybai wrote: »

Just think marriage should be between a man and a women.

That does not really answer the question though. You are simply saying the same thing, but using different words.

VinLieger

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm loathe to quote Stephen Fry as I find him a rather odious individual but, with all due respect - so fcuking what?

What do you actually gain from it?

What do you want for doing that?

I don't see anyone handing out rubber medals for righteousness? All you did was engaged in a bit of humiliation one-upmanship, and while you might get a couple of internet claps on the back for your actions, the person you humiliated will still go into the voting booth and still vote no, so you've actually achieved nothing. You've wasted your time and energy on someone who was always going to vote no in the first place, instead of showing people that you don't descend to the level of people you perceive to be bigots and homophobes.

You can choose to entertain them, or you can choose not to entertain them, but if you choose to entertain them, then on a fundamental level, you really are showing that you're no different to them - you're both as arrogant and self-righteous as each other, and both have chips on your shoulders. Whether the referendum on marriage equality is passed or not at that point simply becomes irrelevant, as the result isn't going to change either of your attitudes towards each other as human beings.

Because as others on here have stated in arguing with family members asking people to look their future children or grandchildren in the eye who may happen to be homosexual and tell them they were the reason why they are not legally allowed marry the person they love would be incredibly embarrassing and humiliating to do.

These people are not ruled by logic they are ruled by their own emotions and irrational hatred of something they don't understand. So I target their emotions and in this case future humiliation and embarrassment to try and begin changing their opinions, when you open them up emotionally to understanding how irrational they are being it becomes possible to then use logic to reinforce this.

This is not one upmanship no matter ho much you seem to want to believe it, I am simply ask for anyone opposing it to show me an argument that is not rooted in blind bigotry and misinformed hatred and I have yet to see one after requesting it several times.

Also it sounds like your opinion of me is I will be someone who when, fingers crossed, a Yes result is announced I will be the person waving it in the faces of those who opposed it. I certainly will not do this, I will celebrate with all the homosexual people that I know that they now are equal in the eyes of the law to every other person of this country and leave it at that.

kunst nugget

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm loathe to quote Stephen Fry as I find him a rather odious individual but, with all due respect - so fcuking what?

With respect to Stephen Fry, he was talking about people being offended when it really makes no difference to their day to day lives. People voting no to marriage equality could have a pretty big impact on some people's lives in this country.

Flem31

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There appears now to be periodic posts that are essentially saying this same thing over and over and over and over again.

However I ask you as I have asked others to look at my posts on the thread. And observe who I have done NO LABELING of the people I have replied to AT ALL.

Now count how many of the "no" side have thus far engaged with the posts in question. Count how many of the "no" people I have replied to who have actually then replied to my posts and points in turn.

I can save you the time....... at this moment the count is at Zero. So if people are getting labelled (by others) it is likely because rational discourse has failed with those people, as they have simply whole sale rejected to engage with it. That is the MO of this "no" side at the moment I am afraid.

I wish to see as much rational discourse between the two sides as you, but if one side if rejecting whole sale attempts to do so.... what recourse is left to us exactly? Labeling and name calling, ALAS, is what follows when one side of a conversation simply shuts down conversation and that is where blame lies predominantly, though partially shared by the people who do resort to name calling.

Insults demean only the insulter, never the target, ever.

Once again......any general comments made by me have to be referenced against your specific posts. Maybe all the yes side should be silenced so that any dissenter should only talk to you ?

The word bigot has been posted by numerous posters in the last 22 hours or so.....not by you, but certainly by some of the people advocating yes in the forthcoming referendum.........but that's ok by me and if the Yes campaigns wish to stoop down to the level of the No's so be it.

Would have thought homophobic would likely be a more accurate tag and less inflammatory language.

It's going to be a long six months and with two distinctly polarised groups and all the bile being spewed out on both sides......I wonder how many undecided will just switch off the debates and decide outside the polling station if they get that far at all

floggg

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'd be one of those people, and the reason I say there's no point in "calling out bigots and homophobes", etc, is because they simply don't care for other people's opinions of them. They don't care about the consequences for other people of them casting a 'no' vote. They firmly believe, whether rightly or wrongly according to anyone else, that they are doing the right thing for society for their own reasons, and they aren't particularly bothered whether those reasons make sense to anyone else or not. Their reasons make sense to them, and no amount of name-calling or derision or righteous finger wagging is going to make one iota of a difference to their opinion.

mrsbyrne is right, there's nothing to be gained from petty sniping back and forth between the two lobby groups, and most people would rather avoid the whole thing than get caught in the middle between the two groups, and if you can't see why after 70 odd pages (on the touch site), then you're never likely to see it, but the bitching and the finger wagging from both camps just wears most people out to the point where they just don't care about listening to either side of the argument. They'd sooner just let the two sides fight it out amongst themselves as they have better things to be doing, and come referendum day, they'll cast their vote without any of the drama and without having to explain themselves to anyone.

There are some people who's views are entrenched, and gone only thing having their views labelled as a bigoted does is further their victims complex.

Others though, do look inward when bigoted statements are called out an sponsored their actions.

But I think more Broadly, it's important that we can label and call out bigotry in all its forms and to make it clear it won't be tolerated.

We do no tolerate racist speech in our society. When people utter it (as is their rihht), it is quickly condemned and it is made clear that it is not a reasonable or acceptable posotion to hold.

Yet it seems with homophobia we have to accept it as something they are reasonably allowed utter, and something we should merely politely disagree on.

Some of the stuff said in here has been pretty abhorrent and disrespectful towards lgbt people.

If people said comparable things about an ethnic group, their would be near unanimous condemnation.

Yet it seems both here and in the media, deeply homophobic views are treated as a reasonable position to hold.

Guests and primetime or newspaper writers are freely allowed say things like gay people are incapable of monogamy, we only want marriage to ruin it for straight people, that we are a danger to kids etc. All deeply offensive and plain wrong.

And yet it seems we aren't allowed challenge it for the hate filled bile or plain stupidity (it's the only alternative exllanafion) that it is. We have to try and and politely try and argue for our own humanity and basic decency, as if it is a matter which is open to a reasonable debate.

Why?

We don't tolerate comparable hate speech when it comes to ethnic or religious groups.

Why then do we have to turn the other cheek to homophobia?

P_1

I'll be voting yes myself.

To address some of the main concerns of the NO argument:

Adoption is not being voted on, in fact this is due to be legislated for in the Dail before the referendum.

Forcing the church to marry SS couples won't be happening, this is all about CIVIL marriage, not CHURCH marriage.

Redefining marriage Joe and Steve deciding to marry will have as much impact on your own marriage as Jane and Sergio getting married would, in other words, nil.

Ash.J.Williams

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 value creation in their children. This differentiation 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 the capabilities of the two sexes in aid of the politically-charged mechanisations of the LGBT is warranted at all.

What if the married male and female are abusers?

One eyed Jack

floggg wrote: »

And yet it seems we aren't allowed challenge it for the hate filled bile or plain stupidity (it's the only alternative exllanafion) that it is. We have to try and and politely try and argue for our own humanity and basic decency, as if it is a matter which is open to a reasonable debate.

Why?

It's not that you're not "allowed" challenge what you perceive to be hate filled bile or stupidity (and if you think that's the only alternative explanation, then you're hardly willing to entertain one that doesn't suit you, so no different than the other crowd calling you stupid or belittling your opinions really, shouldn't come as a surprise when that's your chosen tack - you get back what you give out, and referring to other people as stupid because you can't be arsed to articulate yourself in a way they might understand, is no different to them doing the same to you in return - quid pro quo, ad nauseum).

We don't tolerate comparable hate speech when it comes to ethnic or religious groups.

Ohh but we do floggg, we really, really do, or dare I ask what rock have you been living under since, well, time immemorial really!

Why then do we have to turn the other cheek to homophobia?

Well I don't personally care tbh whether you do or you don't, but if you genuinely DO care about changing people's opinions and attitudes, then the best place to start is with yourself, and if you want to put an end to hatred and intolerance, then best examine your own attitude first and see do you exhibit hatred and intolerance towards anyone else, for any reason?

Do you?

dont bother

i just cant stop picturing the "no" crowd being little ugly backwards boggers with no woman in their lives but mammy for the dinner and the clothes washing. they watch re-runs of top gear and winning streak... their saturday night consists of mammys dinner, gettin' the levi's and shirt on, and not forgetting the sh!t kicker boots, and head down to patsy in the local pub to complain about dubs and quares and anyone who doesnt fit into their TINY TINY worlds.

it's the people with the smallest lives that have the biggest mouths.
it's the smallest minds who live in tiny worlds...

ie: The no crowd are idiots. they are "entitled to their opinion"... but, we all know that their "Opinion" is rubbish.

IGNORE.

floggg

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not that you're not "allowed" challenge what you perceive to be hate filled bile or stupidity (and if you think that's the only alternative explanation, then you're hardly willing to entertain one that doesn't suit you, so no different than the other crowd calling you stupid or belittling your opinions really, shouldn't come as a surprise when that's your chosen tack - you get back what you give out, and referring to other people as stupid because you can't be arsed to articulate yourself in a way they might understand, is no different to them doing the same to you in return - quid pro quo, ad nauseum).

Ohh but we do floggg, we really, really do, or dare I ask what rock have you been living under since, well, time immemorial really!

Well I don't personally care tbh whether you do or you don't, but if you genuinely DO care about changing people's opinions and attitudes, then the best place to start is with yourself, and if you want to put an end to hatred and intolerance, then best examine your own attitude first and see do you exhibit hatred and intolerance towards anyone else, for any reason?

Do you?

The thing is, I have considered every argument against marriage e equality and none have been rooted in facts and/or free of bigotry or ignorance /stupidity.

Even as a gay man, if you could show me actual harm to children or society by allowing marriage equality, I would agree that it should not be permitted.

It has not been even close to proved to date.

Your saying I'm closed minded because I can't contemplate the possibility of a non-bigoted or non-stupid argument against it, but can you offer one?

Again, this is something even the courts have come to accept - there is no such argument. Any arguments put before them against marriage equality has been shown to either be thinly veiled hate or to have no basis in facts or reality.

As for tolerating racist language, we would never be asking why somebody jot banned for repeatedly saying "all black people are promiscuous whores".

Moreover, anybody who attempted to state that on prime time would be immediately challenged by the host.

We do not see that in debates about marriage equality - the inferiority of same sex relationships is treated as a reasonable position.

Finally, in what way have I evidenced hatred or intolerance? I don't believe I have done so once.

I have repeatedly recognised their right to their opinions and to express them. I have however asserted my right to call them out as bigoted when appropriate (though I haven't really actually done that to anybody in particular (I think)).

Refusing to accept or respect flawed argues and hateful believes is not intolerance. Nor is refusing to accept their intolerance of me and my relationship. I am happy for them to believe what they want.

Again, I will not treat the idea that I am less than as a reasonable position to hold.

If they want to produce some actual evidence as to why my marriage to another man might be harmful, then I will accept that we should not be permitted to marry as a matter of law.

I will not however accept their dislike of me or my relationships, or their unfounded believe that I am less than they are as a valid reason to deny me equality or as a reasonable position to hold.

hotmail.com

mrsbyrne wrote: »

See what you did there? I'm actually a supporter of gay marriage but you've taken my post and deliberately made it look as if I accused gay couples of abusing children. What on earth is wrong with you? Stop spitting and frothing, calm down and try and think of something positive which could possibly result in a fence-sitter or "don't know" or "don't care" coming down in favour of the yes side.

Do you only get annoyed with the extreme element of the pro same sex marriage side?

Most people are aware that they are extremes and idiots in every campaign. Focus on the issue itself. If you are supporter of gay marriage. Great.

nozzferrahhtoo

Flem31 wrote: »

Once again......any general comments made by me have to be referenced against your specific posts.

Once again..... that is not what I said _at all_ but how you have chosen to interpret it both times. Falsely. Making an error once is ok. Making it a second time after being corrected on it is just poor form.

I am merely pointing my posts out as a useful example of the point I then followed it with. You are over extending the relevance of my reference to the example, while missing the point being made for which my posts were only a supporting example. I am happy to repeat the point again:

We can rant and rave against people name calling and calling others "bigots". And I share your concern 100% in that, because I believe that insults demean the insulter not the insulted. And when people on my "side" in this debate resort to it, it does indeed demean our whole side.

BUT........ and this is my point.......... there is a certain level of understandably to it too and the blame has to be portioned out correctly. When rational, cogent, polite and thoughtful arguments ARE presented.... in the way you are clearly calling us to do.......... they are being consistently ignored and dodged. And I MEAN consistently. I have personally replied to EVERY "no" poster on this thread, with polite, reasoned, cogent and rational responses.

And to date not ONE of the "no" side has replied to ONE of those posts. Scroll back through the thread if you wish to verify this for yourself. The only real replies I have gotten are from YOU, and you and I are not even dicussing the topic but how people conduct themselves while discussing the topic. This is _very_ telling about the "no" side.

And that is my point. You can (rightfully) rant against the people throwing out labels and insults. I do too. But it is pointless until one first rants against those who are bringing it on themselves by the behavior I have detailed for you and invited you to verify yourself.

Flem31 wrote: »

The word bigot has been posted by numerous posters in the last 22 hours or so

And very often the word has been validly and accurately employed. One dictionary gives the definition as "a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions." but I would also extend this slightly to people who are against something, but have no _actual_ reasons for doing so. They just are, because they are. That, for me, is essentially bigotry.

Flem31

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am merely pointing my posts out as a useful example of the point I then followed it with. You are over extending the relevance of my reference to the example, while missing the point being made for which my posts were only a supporting example. I am happy to repeat the point again:

QUOTE]

You are the one who keeps referring to your own posts.......if others make a general comment, respond in kind rather than repeated demands to refer another's general comment against anything you may have written in the last 60 pages

tayto lover

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

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

No. I was talking about traditional marriage as we know it in Ireland, between a man and a woman.
12 year olds getting married is not traditional.
Rape even within marriage is not traditional.
Women leaving work was only happening within the Civil Service afaik.

It is also traditional within the Travelling community for girls to wed young i.e. 16/17 years but not traditional within the country as a whole.