Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

fran17 wrote: »

Now this leaves me very confused because in a previous thread on a similar topic I was referred to as a "intolerant ignorant c#nt" and no action was taken.

Report it or PM a mod. Don't gripe on threads that are nothing to do with feedback.

Yep, I'll be voting in it and I'll be voting yes. It doesn't affect me directly but it costs me nothing to vote in favour of allowing people a bit of happiness, and I have heard literally no non-moronic reason to deny them the opportunity.

I also want to see John Waters head explode upon its passing - that would make it worth it for me.

tayto lover wrote: »

I do not mind them having their opinions challenged at all.
I worry about not allowing them express their opinions if that is being done just because they might be voting No.

Apart from those who were just repeating hateful statements over and over (pretty sure hate speech is against type charrter), who has been stopped from expressing their opinion?

People may be criticised or condemned for the opinions they express, but that doesn't mean that they are prevented from expressing it.

It's simply that it gets have expressed an opinion on the opinion expressed.

People seem to think that freedom of expression means you can say whatever you like without challenge or consequences, or that all opinions are equally worthy of respect.

It doesn't. Once you choose to express your opinion, you are opening your opinions up to judgement and (if thought fit) criticism from the audience.

tayto lover wrote: »

[/B]

Who has the right to decide on this though especially without debate first?

Isnt it though?

Denying the few rights available to the many. In the absence of an objectively justifiably reason for the differing treatment, that is a beach of the right to equality.

Irishcrx wrote: »

I will vote, I'm undecided on weather that will be yes or no though. I think there are valid points for both and will need to think about it beforehand.

There is a meaning to marriage , a meaning beyond religion and I think that needs to be upheld , religion I think should actually be cast down the pecking order when coming to a decision on this one it's so backwards and outdated that it cannot continue to be a moral high ground for everything. But marriage itself is a symbol , a symbol of life, of starting a family together, having children. Life revolves around this , it's how we procreate and continue to pass on through generations. For me , that's what marriage symbolises.

On the other hand , I have no issue with anyone being gay. I don't have an opinion on it one way or the other. Yes this decision effects us all but it doesn't affect me directly. In saying that , I don't know if it is ok for two men or two women to marry each other. Sure , they deserve the tax breaks if they are life long partners but in the long term I think I'm unsure if 'marriage' itself should be a right. I do believe in marriage being between a man and a woman and I do believe in traditional values, the world is changing so quickly , everything seems to be 'new age' 'technology' ' social media ' and I don't always think we stop to see the bad points in this.

It's easy for everyone to jump on anyone who wants to vote no and say that we are homophobic , hate gay people , religious nutcases etc etc and while that is the case for some , it's not the case for all. There are people out there who are just unsure on the matter , who haven't made a decision based on pressure or social stigma and that are just trying to convey their own opinion and use their right to vote as they should be in the right way after weighing up what they see to be pro's and cons.

I honestly don't know if a yes vote if the right one here , I don't want to stand in the way of other peoples happiness I really don't but at the same time I don't want to compromise what marriage is meant to be , it's important and this is an important vote. So I'll consider all this before deciding in May.

Not everybody who will vote no is homophobic. Some are just ignorant of the issues and consequences (particularly if they never felt it directly affected them and so were not inclined to consider the point).

That's understandable - though yiu should never advocate for an issue from a position of ignorance (not that that's what you are doing here).

On your point about the purposes of marriage, can I ask how my marriage to a man might affect the supposed purposes in any way.

Can I also ask how you reconcile uour view of marriage as the primary means for procreation with the following:

- the ability of the infertile or elderly to marry;

- the fact that the state recognises all marriage equally, whether or not children are born

- the fact that the states permits the use of contraception, giving married couples the choice as to whether or not they have children

- the prevalence of unmarried couples who choose to have kids

- the prevalence of single parents

- the fact that the state gives equal support to single, married and unmarried parents

From the above examples of how the state views the issue, it clearly doesn't see the purpose of marriage as being simply child bearing. It recognises that marriage is a good and beneficial thing regardless of whether or not children are produced. The state also recognises and protect unmarried families in the same way.

It should also be clear that society doesn't see marriage as being the way children are to be produced and we embrace all forms of families these days.

Can I ask you to have a think about those various points, and see whether it makes any difference to your view that regarding marriage equality or whether there is any fundamental difference between a same sex couples and a straight couple who choose not to have children.

Do you think allowing same sex couples marry would discourage straight compels marrying? Why?

And wouldnt that say more about the straight couple involved than any same sex couple. Should a straight couple with such a view be encouraged to marry in the first place - they hardly have the best attitude about the nature of the commitment.

Lastly, if children are your concern, have yiu considered the benefits that marriage would bring for the biological children of same sex couples (either from a previous relationship or born through surrogacy, adopted etc.).

By allowing same sex couples full marriage equality, we would be giving the non-biological parent legal and enforceable rights and obligations to support, inheritance, guardianship, custody etc. That must undoubtedly be to the benefit of those children (of which there are many) - particularly where something happens to their biologic parent.

Does any of that change your mind?

What other concerns do you have?

Flem31 wrote: »

Why do you need a reason on the No side......should the facts re equality etc not stand up for themselves.

What equality does the no side stand for exactly?

The current definition of marriage is discriminatory. As it stands it represents a religious view of marriage that has no place in law. The law needs to change to reflect society as it is and the right to marry is a legal right that ought to be available to all adults who are lucky enough to find a willing partner. The sexual orientation of the parties to the marriage is irrelevant. Anything less than equality is discriminatory, in the same vein as racism.

SD

Irishcrx wrote: »

I will vote, I'm undecided on weather that will be yes or no though. I think there are valid points for both and will need to think about it beforehand.

Then you are likely to be a valuable poster on this thread. The "no" camp on this thread have not provided us with these "valid points" of which you speak. This is either because they do not have them, are personally incapable of articulating them, or there is some more insidious reason for them keeping their cards to their chest that I can only guess ineffectually at.

But you being on the fence, and claiming to also know of these "valid points"........... I am finding myself daring to hope you might actually articulate and adumbrate them for us in a way the "no" camp thus far have failed/refused to do.

Irishcrx wrote: »

There is a meaning to marriage , a meaning beyond religion and I think that needs to be upheld

Then a useful first move in the game would be for you to define clearly and exactly what you think this "meaning" is. You, like many, have made vague reference to having children. I have two issues with that.

First, for many it is no such thing. Infertile couples, or near death couples (like 80 year olds with terminal illness) are just as moved to get married as any one else. This alone appears to cut the legs from under the "meaning" you want to give marriage. And in fact your definition of it therefore renders the marriage of many people in our world.... frankly void. And I doubt that is truely the intention you set out with and this should give you some pause.

Further however, having children can take many forms and actual direct biological procreation is only one of them. So even if we smuggle a family unit concept through the door of our definition of marriage, that attribute is likely a lot more dilute and less relevant that you clearly want it to be.

For me too marriage is a "symbol" in many ways. But for me it is a symbol of people who want to share their path in life in a meaningful way. And having children or a family is only one of the many possible expressions of that, and it is not a necessary or obligatory one.

And under THAT symbol, almost by definition, limiting it to solely people of opposite sex makes not just little, but absolutely NO sense at all.

Irishcrx wrote: »

It's easy for everyone to jump on anyone who wants to vote no

I trust you do not feel I have done any such thing. Let me know if you do and I will attempt to mediate my responses in light of your sensibilities :-)

Irishcrx wrote: »

I really don't but at the same time I don't want to compromise what marriage is meant to be

Nor do I, which is why I do not share your fear of a yes vote. I see a yes vote as being an EXTENSION of the existing institute of marriage. I do not see anything of the EXISTING elements of it being compromised or modified at all.

Perhaps a useful first move here is to identify exactly what you think is likely to be compromised by merely being extended. I can think of nothing. Perhaps you have thought of something where I myself have failed. Then we could address your concerns specifically, rather than in the general sense I just have.