Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

floggg · 19-12-2014 03:31PM

tayto lover wrote: »

There are few posters around who can remember things earlier than that IF indeed it was that way prior to then.

I was under the impression it was the 70s when marital rape was criminalised in Ireland.

In fact, per Wiki it was only 1990.

tayto lover · 19-12-2014 03:32PM

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.

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.

Flem31 · 19-12-2014 03:36PM

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.

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.

VinLieger · 19-12-2014 03:39PM

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.

So even if you agreed with the Yes side you would still vote No to punish them if you didn't agree with how they behaved during the run up to the referendum?

Clandestine · 19-12-2014 03:47PM

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.

lazygal · 19-12-2014 03:48PM

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.

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?

Billy86 · 19-12-2014 03:49PM

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.

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.

VinLieger · 19-12-2014 03:49PM

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.

I agree, especially regarding this issue considering the wording in the constitution which mentions nothing about a man and woman when it comes to marriage, however its not gonna be done without a vote anytime soon so why would you abstain from voting?

VinLieger · 19-12-2014 03:52PM

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?

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.

nozzferrahhtoo · 19-12-2014 03:52PM

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

Again I think you are now mirroring much of what I just said. As I said I move against the "yes" camp when their behavior becomes embarrassing to us. I do not think they should have free reign to do so and I am happy to confront them or have the moderators do it.

Their behavior, when it has happened, is poor. I am moving only to also highlight WHY this is happening. The "no" camp are refusing the intellectual discourse you wish to see happen, and the reaction of the "yes" camp to this behavior is....... while poor........ understandable.

Flem31 wrote: »

I had hoped that as least some of us behave like adults in the real world.....we might do that here.

Alas this is rarely true on many issues. Even less so in After Hours. Go look at the breast feeding thread.

Flem31 wrote: »

As someone who is undecided(I know my bad) I see two sides throwing cheap shots

No "my bad" about it. We have not even seen the wording of the actual referendum yet. It does well to be undecided in many ways! I encourage it. I am genuinely open to arguments that will change me from a yes to a no too. I am undecided in that capacity.

I share the suspicion of Jimbob however that some of the direction of your concerns fuels a suspicion that you might not quite be as undecided as you claim, or perhaps as you yourself think you are.

The trick however, as dirty a taste as it may leave in your mouth, is to look past the cheap shots and address the arguments. I am loath to repeat a request that you go read all my posts in this thread again, but perhaps many of them address directly the concerns you have while being an "undecided".

It is also always good not to just moan about the behavior of others, but to also live by example. So if intelligent discourse without cheap shots and poor decorum is your goal....... then lets you and I engage in some. Cheap shots aside what arguments on the ACTUAL ISSUE have you distilled thus far in either direction that you have so far found compelling. Lets discuss them and be a leading light in showing others how discourse is done

masti123 · 19-12-2014 03:54PM

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.

I'm 100% wrong? What proof or studies do you have that show this?

Flem31 · 19-12-2014 03:55PM

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.

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

Irishcrx · 19-12-2014 03:55PM

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?

Everything you have said there makes sense to me yes, particularly the issues revolving un-married partners to the biological parents. Somewhat similar to the issue with un-married fathers having 0 rights to their children, another issue that needs to be resolved in this country.

Can I ask , are you a gay man yourself or just speaking from the perspective of one?

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? To have the same rights as straight people from a legal standpoint , inheritance , tax breaks etc...

See I agree with that , I believe that same sex couples should have all of those things and that it is unfair of the law to outlaw them based solely on the fact that they are gay , meaning they aren't entitled to it unless they turn straight...which is silly and again comes bordering back on a religious aspect.

Again though , on the other hand I bet if you asked the majority of gay people if they had any desire to every marry in a church or support a religion which will still treat them as black sheep and as being 'un-natural' their answer would be no?

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, not for me but for most. A middle ground between yes and no may be the best answer that I would agree with , one in which same sex couples can have all the legal rights of married people but in essence won't be 'married', that way you keep the homophobes/religious nuts happy in their shell and you get everything that you are entitled to without the religious mumbo jumbo.

That's what I'm currently thinking myself, but there are some very good points being made and I'm glad my initial post didn't come across bad or get shot down straight away, I posted it simply to show that there are people out there who are genuinely on the fence about yes or no, and even those who are currently leaning towards no are open to a proper debate and open to having their mind changed.

I don't claim to know everything about the issue , or to know how gay people currently feel with their place pm it. I just said that I'm unsure between it and believe it is an issue that people should only vote on when they have actually thought about it and understood the issue fully and I mean that from both the yes and no sides.

bodice ripper · 19-12-2014 03:55PM

masti123 wrote: »

I'm 100% wrong? What proof or studies do you have that show this?

Haha, for real? Your source for gay being a choice please....

VinLieger · 19-12-2014 03:56PM

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

Fair enough as a hypothetical though what specific wording do you think could be involved that would cause you to vote no?

lazygal · 19-12-2014 03:57PM

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.

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 · 19-12-2014 03:58PM

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.

While I agree this shouldn't be put to a vote, it's the unfortunate hand we have been dealt.

But sitting home out of principle isnt going to do anything to change the position. Please take whatever small amount of time it will take to vote to do something which can have a major positive influence on so many of us.

tayto lover · 19-12-2014 03:59PM

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.

I agree with you on most of that. Tradition to me is what I remember happens from my first memories until now.

My main reason for posting on this at all is that I feel we have to hear all the arguments from both sides. Banning people is not allowing us to do this. Even if what they say disturbs us we have to listen to it and counter the argument.

For all we know there could be genuine posters thinking of voting "No" for all the wrong reasons but if they're not allowed express their arguments, reasons and concerns then they will not be changed.

floggg · 19-12-2014 03:59PM

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?

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.

19-12-2014 04:02PM

I will vote because its the right thing to do. But i would also happily vote on banning anything classed as

Gay March
Gay games
Gay computer game conventions
Gay this
Gay that

Lets start working on one big community of gay and straight people. Stop the segregation.

VinLieger · 19-12-2014 04:02PM

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.

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 · 19-12-2014 04:04PM

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.

There is no way a government would hold a referendum if it didn't have to. It costs money, it divides people and it makes things infinitely more complicated to put them in the constitution. If marriage equality was introduced through ordinary legislation it would be challenged by those opposed to it constantly. Not to mention that SC decisions on the interpretation of the constitutional position of marriage have found it to mean a man and a woman, that's why civil partnership isn't the same as marriage law.

lazygal · 19-12-2014 04:06PM

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

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.

VinLieger · 19-12-2014 04:12PM

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.

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 · 19-12-2014 04:12PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

Haha, for real? Your source for gay being a choice please....

I have never claimed that my beliefs were 100% right because I understand and accept that I can be wrong, unlike some people.

masti123 · 19-12-2014 04:15PM

You choose everything except birth, birth order, race, or anything that is genetic.

lazygal · 19-12-2014 04:16PM

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.

There's no point in passing a law that the SC would strike down, which would be highly likely if marriage equality was introduced without a referendum. I personally don't think rights like marriage and abortion should be subject to a 'will of the people at a point in time' framework, but in Ireland, unfortunately, that is the case, whether you like it or not.

keowny8 · 19-12-2014 04:16PM

I'll vote yes....

I think everyone should have the ability to be as unhappy as I am

And also because I can Vote and the right to vote is not something that our ancestors had but fought bloody hard to get....

lazygal · 19-12-2014 04:17PM

masti123 wrote: »

You choose everything except birth, birth order, race, or anything that is genetic.

Have you ever tried being gay? Why would someone choose to be gay, do you think? Do animals choose to be gay?

nozzferrahhtoo · 19-12-2014 04:17PM

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?

I am not convinced this is a fair question. How often do we in the heterosexual community get asked to justify our reasons for wanting to marry? We are simply not asked.

No one would demand it of you, no one has demanded it of me, so for what reason would we demand the motivations of someone else?

Plus, whatever answer such a user might give you, it is only THEIR answer. The next gay person you ask will likely give you a whole different answer or set of answers. As would any two heterosexuals if asked sequentially.

So I doubt the justification of asking this question, as well as it's relevance.

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

And those people will be entirely unaffected by a yes vote. They can still marry the way they did before. They can still have their religious ceremonies. They will not be forced to conduct gay marriages in their churches. They are WHOLLY unaffected.

So mediating your vote on the concerns of those people is not of use.

Irishcrx wrote: »

have all the legal rights of married people but in essence won't be 'married'

So the same but different is essentially what you are saying?

What is to be gained by this except to protect the sensibilities of those who will not actually be affected by a yes vote in the first place? I am seeing nothing that would be gained by maintaining the distinction you propose. And maintaining two distinct systems is costly to boot, when one single one would suffice.

Marriage has nothing to do with religion. The religious have their ceremonies tacked on the front of it, for sure, but that does not make marriage anything to do with religion. Whatever the ceremony, the marriage is validated by the state not the church.

Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

Comments