keeponhurling wrote: » Why is gay marriage banned in the vast majority of the world ? Not sure if we are missing something here
fran17 wrote: » That depends if your talking about the traditional true marriage that all faiths recognise or the "redefined"version that we're talking about here.If your talking about one then everything and if the other then nothing.But you could have asked this question about 90% of the posts here.Why choose this post,exactly?
MomijiHime wrote: » I wish I could vote yes. I'm 16 and bi and as an Irish citizen, I have no say on something that will affect my life, more than a lot of the people that actually can vote on it.
a person. wrote: » What happens someone if they vote no ?
Flem31 wrote: » You should hold on to that....a real vote getter:)
AboutaWeekAgo wrote: » They leave the voting centre and go about the rest of the day. Much like what will happen someone if they vote yes!
Tin Foil Hat wrote: » They get to look back at their lives a few years from now, when gay marriage is entirely normalised, with a sense of shame and wonder what they were thinking that made them act like backward, knuckle-dragging little sh1ts.
shruikan2553 wrote: » They are hunted down by a team of assassins. That or nothing. Spontaneous combustion is also an option.
a person. wrote: » These answers don't match for some reason . . .
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » Go to bed mate
kevin12345 wrote: » It's actually annoying that you make us feel like we have to beg and earn your vote. We don't, we just hope that people have enough common sense to realise that this referendum is about giving equal rights to all citizens, something which we deserve, not something that must be earned.
Flem31 wrote: » I had hoped that as least some of us behave like adults in the real world.....we might do that here.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » 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.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » What part of your rights are actually being impacted?
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » Can't disagree with that. It's more or less impossible to pick holes in his arguments - he's been able to make me feel like a fool while taking the same side as him (unintentionally, of course).
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » Just answer the bloody question.
Mrwhite1970 wrote: » Hmm The vast majority of people enter marriage to procreate children-plucking out tiny minority cases doesnt change that fact or the reason why it exists. Of course people have children outside marriage but marriage is still far and away the major set up for people to have kids. Perhaps we have evolved to a different place or are evolving but lets at least have a discussion about the best union model for children to be reared and then talk about how we should support it. Surely children should come first? As for surrocacy-Germany has banned it. Its an ethical and moral landmine . Lets not conflate it with gay marriage alone. Its a separate issue that needs to be addressed quickly. As for Gay men with children? Lets work out first how all children should get equal access to both parents as a fundamental right no matter what their sexuality is. Getting gay Dad to marry Gay partner wont change that! At present 95% of men lose custody battles. Gay men are not known for their monogamy fact. I would love to hear this one denied from someone who is gay . As for black people(as you call them) and fried chcken-I cant comment The liberal agenda has sold many a man a pup in terms of divorce/custody lets not add to the mess. We are a great country for handing out rights only for the receiver to realize they amount to a hill of beans. Divorce is highly relevant to a debate that concerns marriage! BTW-Im being a bit of a devil's advocate here. Im open to changing my mind
Flem31 wrote: » Stop ignoring mine
One eyed Jack wrote: » EVERYTHING, is about perception. I simply can't stress that enough, and how people react when they are being baited will very much colour people's perception of them. It's one of the reasons why even though I read through this thread, I was reluctant to contribute because the course of the thread had simply taken the same template course they always do. Right now, the default position in Ireland is that LGBT people are discriminated against in a number of areas in Irish law. In order to change that default position, the burden is on the people who want to change the laws, to come up with the compelling arguments. There is no burden on people who want to maintain the status quo - they simply have to turn up at the booth and vote 'no'. They don't have to convince anyone of anything, so looking for arguments against marriage equality is simply a futile exercise and a waste of energy IMO. You wouldn't though, at all, and up until recently you'd probably only have been sanctioned in the Christianity forum for expressing such an opinion. There are numerous posts in this thread that fail to make the distinction between the opinions of the Hierarchy within the Irish RCC, and the opinions of the congregation. Even when Joey called people on it early on in the thread, it continued unabated, and same goes for elderly people in this country - the perception that they are generally bigoted and would vote no in a referendum on marriage equality. Clearly the posters espousing such views haven't really engaged with ordinary members of the RCC or elderly people (I can't help but wonder are they languishing under the ignorant and misguided perception that there are no elderly LGBT members of the RCC. They'd be wrong, but I prefer to pick my battles than engage with those who absolutely will not be moved from their position). People aren't going to be able to see their own flaws and biases any clearer when you call them out on what you perceive to be their misguided perceptions without first making the effort to understand where they might be coming from, and deciding based on that whether it is worth your time and energy engaging with them. If they're already so rooted in their beliefs that you're likely to aggravate them, then IMO they're not worth engaging with. You would be better IMO to concentrate on supporting those people who already agree with you and encouraging them to come out and vote in favour of marriage equality for LGBT people. Have you considered the point that people who disagree with your opinion don't particularly care for your opinion? Have you considered that while there may be no argument against marriage equality (in your opinion), that doesn't necessarily mean that there are no reasons to reject a referendum on marriage equality? Politicians aren't known for their honesty and their straightforward manner, and this has been evidenced time and again with the wording of the divorce referendum, the abortion referendum, and successive legislation that has been brought forward as a result of both those issues. We're currently in a legal quagmire with regard to both divorce and abortion in this country, and do you honestly think the proposed wording of any referendum on marriage equality will be any less ham fisted and arse covering than previous referenda? I wouldn't hold my breath that it will be anything as straightforward as a simple 'yes' or 'no', and if it's aims are anything less than what it says on the tin, I can tell you right now that I will be voting 'no', if only to send a message back to politicians that anything less than true equality in line with the EHCR guidelines on the issue is simply not good enough, and they need to go back to the drawing board until they can come up with copper fastened wording that will legislate for true marital equality regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of the parties involved in the marriage - (Now I know some of these issues are being addressed under the recent CHILDREN AND FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS BILL 2014 which I think itself will require careful examination as it's being done in an arse about face fashion. IMO we should be legislating for marriage equality first, and then drafting legislation with regard to the rights of children and families afterwards, based on the outcome of a referendum on marriage equality. By putting the cart before the horse, politicians are again simply paving the way for far more complicated suffering and heartache, instead of legislation that could have been so bloody simple. You're setting yourself up there on the back foot with the expression "as a gay man", it carries as much weight as anyone else who says "as a parent". If you truly want to make the point that there is no difference to a child regardless of the sexuality or gender of their parents, then I'd drop the "as a gay man" point of argument. Being a gay man doesn't confer you with any special powers that would differentiate your parenting ability from anyone else's potential ability to care for a child, including the biological parents of said children (and I say that as someone whose neighbour did a better job of raising me than my own parents did, and my neighbour was an elderly widow!). Jesus, enough with the labelling already. I never meant to insinuate you were "closed minded" or any of the rest of that nonsense. Short-sighted perhaps, but that's hardly the same thing, as you're unwilling to acknowledge even at this point that what you think, isn't as important as thinking about the way your opponent thinks. You're unwilling to acknowledge any opinion that to you is bigoted or stupid, and that's fine, if your future weren't dependent on that person seeing things from your point of view. Call them bigoted and stupid all you want, but the day of the referendum, you may regret that you didn't extend an olive branch instead of beating them with a thorny stick. See you can make all the protests you want equating racism and homophobia, and the arguments may hold up in an abstract sense, but arguing that way fails to acknowledge that the two are based on very different motivations, not the least of which being that with racism the differences are present immediately on the exterior, whereas with homophobia, the differences are interior and not immediately evident. Even attempts to equate interracial marriage with same sex marriage, simply ignores the intrinsic components of both in order to make that equation. That does both a disservice IMO. You're entitled of course to hold fast to that position, and nothing I can say will change your mind I don't think at this point, but you're not going to like what I'm going to say next - This referendum is more than just about you and what you want or what you will and won't accept, and you have to try and see the bigger picture rather than personalising the discussion as a gay man as if only you will be affected by whether the referendum passes or doesn't. While you're busy reminding everyone else that the outcome of this referendum affects everyone and even future generations, it might be worth keeping that in mind for yourself.
masti123 wrote: » So the referendum is in May, I turn 18 in May, how long does it take to register on the Register of Electors?
fran17 wrote: » The Internet is great,in a single bigoted post you can insult billions of people.But at least finally we got an opinion from you.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » 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.
porsche959 wrote: » I'm undecided, personally, as to how I will vote, but the idea that anyone opposed is automatically a troglodyte homophobe needs to be knocked on the head, it is most unfair and wrong - not least to the gay people that have reservations themselves about being pressured into voting for this referendum. Indeed there are at least two prominent gay Irish political commentators that are on the record as being opposed, for moral/theological reasons.
markmacken wrote: » Isn't marriage a religious thing? That is controlled by the Church? Don't we have equal access to civil partnerships already? And they are what is controlled by the state?
Joeytheparrot wrote: » Marriage is regulated AND by the Church We are asking for access to Equal civil marriage. Not religious marriage.
Grayson wrote: » Don't ask. Demand. No one should have to ask for the same rights as everyone else.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b605825002726fa398519aca553ff0db.svg)
