Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

masti123 · 19-12-2014 04:22PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Why do you think sexuality isn't influenced by genetics?

Scientists know what genes make us what we are. They know which ones determine our sex, male or female, which ones determine our hair color, eye color, ear size, foot size, or immunity ability. Why can't they find the 'gay gene'? How can a gene determine how a person "feels" about another person? How does a gene determine a person's 'desires'? How can that which is set and coded determine the actions of that which is not set and not coded (how can the molecule combination of H2O determine the temperature of the water?) It is my determination that it cannot (it takes outside influences to determine the temp of the water, just as it is outside influences that determine the sexual desires of a person.) There is no scientific evidence I know of that shows otherwise.

masti123 · 19-12-2014 04:24PM

lazygal wrote: »

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

The reasoning behind gay-ness can vary, as one reasoning behind gay-ness could be that your are getting turned down by the oppisite sex, you dont know why, and you find you get along better with your own sex more than the oppisite sex, so you instantly think to yourself, maybe your gay since you get along with your own sex better, another reasoning behind gay-ness is when you are a child and being taught vocabulary and such the words you choose
to use to define a word can cause gay-ness, example, when some says the word "Girl" your brain instantly comes up with all these words to use to define the word "Girl", well if your gay, you may use other words to define the
word "girl" which can cause a COMPLETELY different outlook n that term due to them using different words to define it. Now you take every word and have a slightly different definition to it and this can cause a completely
different outlook on life and how you perceive it, thus causing gay-ness.

bodice ripper · 19-12-2014 04:27PM

masti123 wrote: »

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

Source?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 19-12-2014 04:32PM

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

That's nothing to do with segragation - that's expression. Straight people are welcome to (and have) taken part in gay events.

Saying that a gay march is segragation is liek saying St Patrick's day is about segregation.

lazygal · 19-12-2014 04:33PM

masti123 wrote: »

The reasoning behind gay-ness can vary, as one reasoning behind gay-ness could be that your are getting turned down by the oppisite sex, you dont know why, and you find you get along better with your own sex more than the oppisite sex, so you instantly think to yourself, maybe your gay since you get along with your own sex better, another reasoning behind gay-ness is when you are a child and being taught vocabulary and such the words you choose
to use to define a word can cause gay-ness, example, when some says the word "Girl" your brain instantly comes up with all these words to use to define the word "Girl", well if your gay, you may use other words to define the
word "girl" which can cause a COMPLETELY different outlook n that term due to them using different words to define it. Now you take every word and have a slightly different definition to it and this can cause a completely
different outlook on life and how you perceive it, thus causing gay-ness.

Lolz.
Wut?

floggg · 19-12-2014 04:34PM

Irishcrx wrote: »

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.

Yes, I am a gay man.

Not only do I want to get married, but i am currently engaged to the love of my life and want to spend the rest of my life with him.

That should give you a fair idea as to why I personally want to marry - which is the same reason most people get married. To make a love life long commitment to the person I love, to build a life and a home together, to become each others family and become part of each others family, and to have that commitment recognised, protected, vindicated and cherised by the State in the same way as everybody else's.

If your question is why I want be legally allowed to marry as a gay person, as opposed to "civil partnership" or whatever "I can't believe its not quite marriage" alternative people might want to put forward is because I believe my relationship should be of equal importance to yours in the eyes of the State, and should not be recognised as being any different. I don't believe that either myself or my relationship are less than yours, less worthy of respect or less worthy of recognition and protection by the State.

If your argument is for "an equal in everything in name" type civil partnership, then I am even more outraged by the proposal, because to me that send a very clear message that peoples biggest objection to marriage equality isnt anything to do with the nature of marriage or same sex relationships - its the very idea that those relationships would be considered as being just the same as a straight relationship which offends and outrages them.

Some anti-equality advocates will say "why are you making such a big deal about the word marriage - why cant you just let us have our word and you use something else."

But really, it is they who are making the big deal about a word. They are willing to let us have (or at least concede) equality in substance, but are opposed to treating us equally in name. They are happy as long as they still get to mark us out as different somehow.

What purpose does that serve exactly? If you are willing to allow us be equal in substance, why cant we all agree to be treated the same? Why do we need to maintain an artificial distinction between the two.

I can see no purpose whatsoever other than to maintain division and retain the idea of gay people as something "other" and not quite the same or normal.

To me, this a really invidious and mean hearted type of discrimination. It not really any different to the separate water fountains for black in white. It allows you to create the appearance of equality, but the effect is just to further discrimination.

So personally, I'm just as offended by the separate but equal argument than some more patent prejudicial stances, because it seems to me that the person advocating seems to concede that we are equal but is loath to actually have to admit it (whether consciously or subconsciously).

At least the person who says I am incapable of forming a relationship believes there is a reason to their stance - even if its a non-existent one.

PS - you can carry some prejudices without being a bad person. most people have some prejudices to varying degrees, even if subconscious. but the better people recongise theirs and try and overcome them.

Flem31 · 19-12-2014 04:35PM

VinLieger wrote: »

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

Why is not having a definitive view on this 5 months before the key date, such a big issue.
Do I have to make up my mind today....based on no knowledge of the proposal that has yet to be drafted ?. I have given absolutely no thought as to what I think it should look like or what should be in it or not in it.

I am prepared to wait.......and I think you should give me the courtesy of respecting my rights as an adult and allow me to make my own mind up.
After all, is this referendum not about people's rights or are my rights dependant on other factors now

masti123 · 19-12-2014 04:39PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

Source?

Like I said there is no Scientific evidence to back either side of the argument.

floggg · 19-12-2014 04:41PM

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Straight people are welcome at any "Gay" event. And if somebody did refuse a straight person based solely on sexual orientation, that would be equally discriminatory and would likely be condemned by the majority of gay people.

But having a "gay" or predominantly "gay" event isnt segregation. Its diversity. The reason why dont have straight pride events, or any other form of "majority pride" event is because straight people always make up a majority of most events, so it would be redundant. It would just end up being an "event".

If you think gay pride events are a type of segregation, that gay people only began to become visibly integrated once gay pride events started. hardly a coincidence.

masti123 · 19-12-2014 04:47PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

That's a massive oversimplification of genetics that scientists, at least reputable ones, most certainly do not agree on. It's generally accepted that a variety of genes interact to produce many traits. There are some traits that have a simple relationship with the genes causing them to be expressed, but that is the exception rather than the rule. So why can't we find a gay gene? Simple, there might be several, each of which has no effect until it is combined with the others, perhaps with each one having many more obvious effects. It's not just a case of plugging 'gay gene' into a piece of software and having it analyse a DNA strand and magically find it. If sexuality isn't in any way genetically determined, by the way, then how does any organism know to be heterosexual?

You still haven't explained why we find homosexuality in over 450 species by the way, or why even if it were a choice it would be inherently wrong.

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.

Also when have I said that homosexuality is wrong? I have simply stated that it is possible for humans to "cure" their gay-ness.

MonkeyTennis · 19-12-2014 04:50PM

masti123 wrote: »

The reasoning behind gay-ness can vary, as one reasoning behind gay-ness could be that your are getting turned down by the oppisite sex, you dont know why, and you find you get along better with your own sex more than the oppisite sex, so you instantly think to yourself, maybe your gay since you get along with your own sex better, another reasoning behind gay-ness is when you are a child and being taught vocabulary and such the words you choose
to use to define a word can cause gay-ness, example, when some says the word "Girl" your brain instantly comes up with all these words to use to define the word "Girl", well if your gay, you may use other words to define the
word "girl" which can cause a COMPLETELY different outlook n that term due to them using different words to define it. Now you take every word and have a slightly different definition to it and this can cause a completely
different outlook on life and how you perceive it, thus causing gay-ness.

What the **** ? Im gobsmacked.

giggle84 · 19-12-2014 04:51PM

Larry Wildman wrote: »

There is equality - Everyone is free to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Is the fact that a man cannot marry a goat or a child "inequality"?

Where's the inequality?

There is one major flaw in your argument aside from the fact that you just compared a person to a goat... same sex marriage involves 2 consenting adults. Marriage to a goat or a child does not.

floggg · 19-12-2014 04:52PM

lazygal wrote: »

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.

are you serious?

politicans dont necessarily do whats best for the country. they do whats best for them.

FG, and probably Labour to a certain extent, feared a backlash over supporting and introducing an issue which they feared may prove controversial. So too did FF when they were in power, and only supported it publicly when they needed to rebrand.

There is no defintion or family or marriage in the Constitution - which has to be interpreted on the basis of the meaning of the words today, not in 1937.

If you were to try and analyse the meaning by reference to the other Articles, the most relevant would be the equality clause - which would argue in favour of marriage equality.

There is nothing in the Constitution which would pose any proper impediment to marriage equality.

Furthermore, the Constitution provides a mechanism whereby the president can refer any bill to the SC for a view on its constitutionality before it becomes law. Once the SC declares it constitutional, then that decision is final.

So the Gov could have easily passed this by legislation, and encouraged Michael D to refer it to the SC. The whole thing would have been determined consclusively, and if it did fail (which i doubt), they could then go to the polls.

They didnt do this.

Lastly, the SC has never ruled on whether same sex marriage is constitutional. the nearest case on the issue is the Zappone case, where the HC ruled the Constitution didn't REQUIRE marriage equality.

that is a very different matter than the question of whether it PERMITS it. that case was however a little odd, in that the judge appeared to try and interpret the constitution by reference to legislation (should be the other way around), though it never made it to the SC.

Crucially, the judge did appear to indicate the defintion of marriage could include same sex couples if thats how it was commonly understand in ireland and the rest of the world, but that we just hadnt gotten to that point yet (which was about 4-8 years ago i think).

i believe an amended case was to go back before the HC, but i dont know if this will proceed given the referendum.

floggg · 19-12-2014 04:55PM

masti123 wrote: »

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

Just thnk about your position here.

Are you aware of the countless number of gay people who attempt or commit suicide because of their unwanted same sex attractions?

The countless number who enter a heterosexual marriage because they think they can make it work, and dont want to be gay?

Do you know how hard I tried and wished to be straight for many years? Really ****ing hard.

Do you know how many gay people have suffered irreperable harm as a result of either being forced to or voluntarily enduring "conversion therapy".

in light of all of the above, the idea that its a choice is both ridiculous and disrespectful.

Believe me, if it was a choice, there would be little or no people who would choose it.

PopePalpatine · 19-12-2014 04:56PM

masti123 wrote: »

Like I said there is no Scientific evidence to back either side of the argument.

For fuck's sake, another poster has just said that homosexuality has been observed in ~450 species. That sounds pretty scientific to me.

backslapper · 19-12-2014 04:57PM

Basic equality really?

Billy86 · 19-12-2014 04:59PM

masti123 wrote: »

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such.

Nope, approximately 8% of rams form interest in females, albatrosses are monogamous and around 30% of females are lesbian (some exclusively), penguins are also monogamous with examples of gay pairings, and western gull birds are monogamous with 14% of all pairings are female/female.

kylith · 19-12-2014 05:00PM

Irishcrx wrote: »

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.

I really don't see why they should get the rights of marriage but not be allowed to call it marriage just to keep some Moaning Minnies happy. Sod them, gay people should be able to get married, call it marriage, and anyone who doesn't like it can lump it.

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.

This just come across as "I think they should have equal rights, but I can't be bothered to get off my arse and take 15 minutes out of my day to help achieve it".

masti123 wrote: »

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

Really? When did you choose to be hetrosexual?

floggg · 19-12-2014 05:03PM

Irishcrx wrote: »

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.

Oh, and on the religion angle, firstly this is civil marriage, so religion shouldnt come into it.

But also, are you aware that there are countless number of people who think same sex marriage is compatible with their religious views. that includes the various faiths which allow and celebrate same sex marriage, and those of other faiths who reject their religious leaders condemnations of it.

Further, there are also a large number of atheists, agnostics, non-believers or believers in alternative faiths who dont see it as a relgious matter whatsoever.

Why should the views of those who oppose marriage equality on religious grounds have primacy over the views of those who have no religious objection to it.

And why should a third parties religious beliefs be allowed determine what form my relationship should take? Why is my right to marriage and equality subservient to their beliefs?

Why should they state legislate on the basis of their beliefs, and allow them to impose their beliefs on me?

Savage Tyrant · 19-12-2014 05:04PM

masti123 wrote: »

The reasoning behind gay-ness can vary, as one reasoning behind gay-ness could be that your are getting turned down by the oppisite sex, you dont know why, and you find you get along better with your own sex more than the oppisite sex, so you instantly think to yourself, maybe your gay since you get along with your own sex better, another reasoning behind gay-ness is when you are a child and being taught vocabulary and such the words you choose
to use to define a word can cause gay-ness, example, when some says the word "Girl" your brain instantly comes up with all these words to use to define the word "Girl", well if your gay, you may use other words to define the
word "girl" which can cause a COMPLETELY different outlook n that term due to them using different words to define it. Now you take every word and have a slightly different definition to it and this can cause a completely
different outlook on life and how you perceive it, thus causing gay-ness.

Have you been in a serious accident that involved significant head trauma at some point in your life? Serious question.

masti123 · 19-12-2014 05:04PM

floggg wrote: »

Just thnk about your position here.

Are you aware of the countless number of gay people who attempt or commit suicide because of their unwanted same sex attractions?

The countless number who enter a heterosexual marriage because they think they can make it work, and dont want to be gay?

Do you know how hard I tried and wished to be straight for many years? Really ****ing hard.

Do you know how many gay people have suffered irreperable harm as a result of either being forced to or voluntarily enduring "conversion therapy".

in light of all of the above, the idea that its a choice is both ridiculous and disrespectful.

Believe me, if it was a choice, there would be little or no people who would choose it.

Oh, but I have recreated my thought process, my friend has, and many ppl around me have been slowly recreating said thought process, it is indeed possible, just not likely unless you understand it all

lazygal · 19-12-2014 05:06PM

masti123 wrote: »

Oh, but I have recreated my thought process, my friend has, and many ppl around me have been slowly recreating said thought process, it is indeed possible, just not likely unless you understand it all

Why did you need to recreate your thought processes?

floggg · 19-12-2014 05:07PM

masti123 wrote: »

The reasoning behind gay-ness can vary, as one reasoning behind gay-ness could be that your are getting turned down by the oppisite sex, you dont know why, and you find you get along better with your own sex more than the oppisite sex, so you instantly think to yourself, maybe your gay since you get along with your own sex better, another reasoning behind gay-ness is when you are a child and being taught vocabulary and such the words you choose
to use to define a word can cause gay-ness, example, when some says the word "Girl" your brain instantly comes up with all these words to use to define the word "Girl", well if your gay, you may use other words to define the
word "girl" which can cause a COMPLETELY different outlook n that term due to them using different words to define it. Now you take every word and have a slightly different definition to it and this can cause a completely
different outlook on life and how you perceive it, thus causing gay-ness.

Lol. Then I'm pretty confused at how my fiance ended up gay because by his own admission he doesnt have any male friends.

efb · 19-12-2014 05:07PM

Look what "treatment" did to one of our greatest scientific minds, Alan Turing

ScumLord · 19-12-2014 05:08PM

masti123 wrote: »

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such.

I don't know that you can argue that animals have a reproductive instinct as such. Can you say for certain that animals know that sex will lead to reproduction? They have an urge to have sex. Many males of different species don't even stick around after sex, if they were concerned with reproduction then surely they'd stick around to make sure the female got pregnant. Of course one leads to the other and nature can be confident that lots of sex will more than likely lead to lots of reproduction but that's a two stage thought process that I don't think many animals go into. They have a sexual urge. That sexual urge can be directed towards all sorts of things that won't lead to reproduction.

giggle84 · 19-12-2014 05:14PM

1123heavy wrote: »

This will only open the floodgates for all sorts of problems down the line. What next ? SSC being allowed to adopt ? As my old Irish teacher used to say, "Little by little they build the castle" ...

Ah the famous floodgates!

I despair.

nozzferrahhtoo · 19-12-2014 05:15PM

masti123 wrote: »

Scientists know what genes make us what we are. They know which ones determine our sex, male or female, which ones determine our hair color, eye color, ear size, foot size, or immunity ability. Why can't they find the 'gay gene'?

Because there is none. Yet in a way there is.

What you are forgetting, or pretending you do not know, is that every human being contains the FULL genetic set for being male AND the full genetic set for being female.

So no "Gay Gene" is required. You already contain the genes for being a man attracted to women. You already contain the genes for being a woman attracted to men.

So, a genetic explanation for homosexuality only requires that the "wrong" genes be "turned on" (expressed) in the "wrong" sex. Nothing more.

And this happens quite frequently. We have many cases in the medical journals detailing patients and conditions where a genetic attribute for one sex, was expressed in a person of the "wrong" sex.

So genetically speaking this is all a "gay gene" would be. Nothing magical. Nothing mysterious. Nothing new needing discovery. If you conceed that aspects of heterosexuality are genetic, then by default you have conceeded the same on homosexuality.

masti123 wrote: »

How can a gene determine how a person "feels" about another person?

Because the genes contain the blue print for how your brain will form, and your brain controls those feelings. Simples.

For example your genes control the construction of your "Body Image Map" at the level of the brain. And your "Body Image Map" has been shown to be directly related to what you find attractive in others. Your sexual attraction is partially based on matching mates to this general body image map. Which is why the majority of our species are attracted to other humans, not trees or dogs.

So yes, your genetics dictates a hell of a lot of this.

nozzferrahhtoo · 19-12-2014 05:15PM

Flem31 wrote: »

Do I have to make up my mind today....based on no knowledge of the proposal that has yet to be drafted ?

No of course not. But general principles and aspects of the issue in general can be discussed and resolved even before the draft.

Flem31 · 19-12-2014 05:19PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No of course not. But general principles and aspects of the issue in general can be discussed and resolved even before the draft.

Or I could just wait until the draft

endacl · 19-12-2014 05:19PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

Gay Byrne?

Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

Comments