tayto lover wrote: » There are few posters around who can remember things earlier than that IF indeed it was that way prior to then.
Billy86 wrote: » Because that is how debate works - one side gives their reasons, the other side gives theirs, and they argue the merits against each other. If one side cannot give any valid reasons, they have no argument. Hence the problem with the no side still having not given any valid reasons.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » So I think you are responding to my responses to you unfairly given the vast undercurrent of agreement between us. I agree with what you are saying entirely, but I am merely moving to proportion blame FOR what you are observing correctly. And that blame lies predominantly (on this thread at least) with the "no" camp. But I am compelled to repeat, that does in no way justify or excuse the name called in the yes camp. They embarrass our side, and myself, entirely, and when they get egregious I do move, like you, to draw them into line and decorum. Either personally, or via use of the report function and the moderators.
Flem31 wrote: » Just because someone feels another is writing disgusting comments......does that give all free reign to do it also.......2 wrongs and all that, (only time I ever saw a double negative working out was in maths where a minus and a minus added together becomes a plus.....go figure) I had hoped that as least some of us behave like adults in the real world.....we might do that here. As someone who is undecided(I know my bad) I see two sides throwing cheap shots at each other and despite good arguments on the yes side, I feel that message is being cheapened by the desire to keep up with the other side. Kinda wish the referendum was tomorrow because I'm not sure if 5 months of this is going to do anyone any favours.
Clandestine wrote: » Won't be voting. I don't believe in voting for things like this (or in general really). If something its not directly harming anyone else, it should be legalized without a vote.
tayto lover wrote: » One man's valid reason is another man's discrimination though. That's why we need proper debate even if what they say, if genuinely felt, disturbs us.
lazygal wrote: » That's lovely, but you do know this has to be decided by a vote because of our written constitution, regardless of what you think requires a vote?
Flem31 wrote: » Just because someone feels another is writing disgusting comments......does that give all free reign to do it also.......2 wrongs and all that
Flem31 wrote: » I had hoped that as least some of us behave like adults in the real world.....we might do that here.
Flem31 wrote: » As someone who is undecided(I know my bad) I see two sides throwing cheap shots
Straylight wrote: » You are perfectly entitled to say that, nobody can stop you. You're 100% wrong, but sure why let the truth prevail over ignorance? As for the whole gay gene thing, nobody ever said there was one, just like there's no straight gene either. That's just how people are and there doesn't have to be a reason why.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » Considering your posts on this matter have focused on how mean all the yes people are for using the word 'bigot' while ignoring the wild claims of child abuse and so on from the other side, for some reason I don't entirely believe your claim of being undecided.
floggg wrote: » 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?
masti123 wrote: » I'm 100% wrong? What proof or studies do you have that show this?
Flem31 wrote: » I am undecided.....and as previously advised, I don't feel the need to condemn the no side as there is always plenty of Yes people already going through them for a shortcut. I have no issues with equality and have no issues with the general proposal but will wait until I see the wording of the government proposal as well as whatever debates are broadcast. I never make final decisions on abstracts
VinLieger wrote: » The constitution mentions nothing about marriage being between only and a man and a woman, it is the supreme courts backwards interpretation of it that requires the referendum.
Billy86 wrote: » Let's break down the reasons given... 1. "It's not traditional" - it is traditional. It dates back as far as marriage between opposite sexes, pretty much globally. This is nothing but misinformation, and nobody who has used this reason has voiced displeasure over young girls being made to marry, marital rape laws being introduced and so on. 2. "Marriage has always been about kids and family" - it has not, and originally had very little (if anything) to do with either. Not one person who has said this has voiced any disagreement with impotent men/women, post menopausal women, or couples who do not want to have kids getting married. This is misinformation and hypocrisy. 3. "Gays are promiscuous, it won't last" - this is blatantly prejudiced and has no basis, it's no different to saying "black love watermelon and chicken" or "Jews only love their money". 4. "It is bad for the child" - this is a) completely unproven and again is just prejudiced, I don't recall a single reputable study as to how it could be bad for a child to be raised by same sex parents... and b) has nothing to do with marriage whatsoever, since it is an adoption/insemination issue. It's like someone being asked where their favourite place in Ireland is and why, and answering "Toyota Corolla, sure it never breaks down". 5. "I just don't agree with it". This is nothing but prejudiced, because there is no other reason given by the person saying it other than their own prejudice. As has also been pointed out - just switch 'same sex marriage' with 'interracial marriage' and try to find someone who would try to claim that is not a prejudiced statement. 6. Gay people choose to be gay. I think we can all agree that was nothing short of insane. 7. "It is unnatural" - so why does it exist in nature? Like I said, not a single valid one and this shows because there is a failure to back any these up with any statistical evidence, detailed studies or anything of the like when people are pushed on it. So they disappear, and a good few just pop up a few hours later with the exact post they made originally, and again disappear when pressed on their theories. As evidenced by their repeated failures to back their arguments up with any reasoning or validation, they are by definition unreasonable and invalid arguments.
lazygal wrote: » The SC is guided by the constitution, hence the ruling on the X case and abortion laws here. Abortion isn't mentioned in the constitution, but the implication of the eighth amendment allowed for something not mentioned expressly in the constitution to in fact be a constitutional right. So while it isn't mentioned explicitly that marriage is between one man and one woman, any attempt to introduce same sex marriage without a referendum would be subject to constant legal challenge because of other rulings. I am sure the attorney general and other legal advisors have advised the Government accordingly. They would not hold a referendum if they didn't have to, they are expensive, divisive and a clumsy way to legislate, but necessary in this case.
floggg wrote: » It doesn't. That's a cop out for the government. There is no compelling argument why this can't be done through legislation. There is no definition of marriage or family in the constitution.
VinLieger wrote: » I disagree here, I really do think the Government had some say in that ruling simply so they didn't have to make a decision that would further alienate more voter's, FG are also terrified of another creighton exodus over what many on their benches still consider a religious choice which gives further credence that they didn't want to have to legislate for this themselves
lazygal wrote: » A referendum is always more difficult to pass than ordinary legislation. Why do you think they didn't have another abortion referendum before the 2014 Act? I would say the government would not hold a referendum on this unless they have been legally advised it is necessary. No government wants to hold referendums, they'd much rather legislation go through the oireachtas in the usual manner.
bodice ripper wrote: » Haha, for real? Your source for gay being a choice please....
VinLieger wrote: » Doesn't matter if its more difficult to pass cus whichever side wins this the government win's as well, as the majority that win's will be happy they were given the oppurtunity to vote on it, I honestly doubt we will see serious campaigning from FG on either side as they just want to be seen to give the choice so they don't have to do it themselves.
masti123 wrote: » You choose everything except birth, birth order, race, or anything that is genetic.
Irishcrx wrote: » If so , can I ask what your primary reason is for wanting the ability to marry? Or to anyone gay men/women on the forum. I take it that legality is the reason?
Irishcrx wrote: » Therefore I still think that this answer isn't as easy as yes or no. There are still points for both sides , 'marriage' still is a religious symbol for most
Irishcrx wrote: » have all the legal rights of married people but in essence won't be 'married'
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/ec88939d138952fce94db89a5749c975.svg)
