Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

1…3334363839…66

Comments

  • #1052
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,119 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    fran17 wrote: »
    You cannot demand because this whole issue is about acceptance in my opinion,you cannot demand acceptance.

    I see you're saying no with this post, how about we ask you to vote again? ;)


  • #1053
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    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.

    Anyone advocating denying gay people equal rights is a homophobe, calling them one is not unfair and wrong. There's no non-batshit reason to vote no.

    I'm sorry if your outdated prejudice is leaving you increasingly isolated from the developed world.


  • #1054
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    fran17 wrote: »
    You cannot demand because this whole issue is about acceptance in my opinion,you cannot demand acceptance.

    I find it quite quite sad you cant accept that people deserve human rights. I'm genuinely sad for you.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #1055
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    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.

    Well, what we can say pretty much definitively at this stage is that (i) homophobia does inform a lot of the arguments against and (ii) the remaining arguments have been repeatedly and consistently been shown to be based on numerous erroneous assumptions, assertions and beliefs, and have indeed little or no basis in fact or reality.

    In various court cases, the arguments advanced against marriage equality have been found to be utterly without basis, pre-supposed a nonexistent threat to opposite sex couples from happy and stable gay couples, and are actually counter to the interests of children, despite what they might protest.

    So if they are opponents who arent motivated by homophobia, they are advocating from a place of ignorance and without any understanding of te facts


  • #1056
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    floggg wrote: »
    So if they are opponents who arent motivated by homophobia, they are advocating from a place of ignorance and without any understanding of te facts

    Not always - there are queer and feminist critiques of marriage that are not motivated by homophobia and far from ignorant.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Advertisement
  • #1057
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Grayson wrote: »
    Don't ask. Demand.

    No one should have to ask for the same rights as everyone else.
    Malcolm X wrote:
    No negro leaders have fought for civil rights
    They paid for civil rights
    They have begged the white man for civil rights
    They have begged the white man for freedom
    And anytime you beg another man to set you free
    You will never be free
    Freedom is something you have to do for yourselves

    Part of the reason they "you should beg politely to be considered equal" posts really piss me off (even if thats unfortunately the practical reality).


  • #1058
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,991 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    fran17 wrote: »
    You cannot demand because this whole issue is about acceptance in my opinion,you cannot demand acceptance.

    So Martin Luther King should have asked nicely if people would accept black people?

    This is simply a matter of denying a group of people a right that everyone else has. that is to declare your love for someone and have that love recognised by the state on the same level as everyone else. To not be told that your relationship is worth less than someone elses.

    The only reason people deny it is because they dislike gay people. They make them feel a bit icky.

    It's not just in this country. In other countries like Uganda and Russia gay people are denied a multitude of rights for the exact same reason. It's ALWAYS the same reasons.

    Sometimes they even get so incredibly flimsy. Like a refusal to change the definition of a word. People actually get worked up changing the definition of a word in a dictionary. I'm pretty certain that of they are faced with the following clue in the Irish Times crossword "legal bond between two people who are in love (8)" , (Starts with M) they won't be flummoxed.

    edit: I'd like to add, the only reason we have gay rights in this country is because people brought the government to court. Otherwise we'd still have cops busting into a room where two blokes are watching X factor.
    One of the main reason we have any acceptance of gay people is because gay people got in our faces. They had gay pride parades and kept making sure that people never forgot they were there.
    If gay people had sat quietly and demanded nothing then beating up gay people would still be acceptable to society at large.


  • #1059
    a person.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 53 ✭✭a person.


    Grayson wrote: »
    So Martin Luther King should have asked nicely if people would accept black people?

    The only reason people deny it is because they dislike gay people. They make them feel a bit icky.
    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Not always - there are queer and feminist critiques of marriage that are not motivated by homophobia and far from ignorant.

    This doesn't add up, and King's family have stated he would be against gay marriage


  • #1060
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    floggg wrote: »
    WTF?

    By that bull**** criteria, the priest insults hindus every sunday when he declares theres only one god. and insults muslims when he says jesus is god.

    I know that we'll never agree on certain issues floggg but I really am starting to question your rational.Of course religions disagree on many issues and always have but in this day and age you don't imply that somebody's faith is based on the following of a crazy liar,well adults don't anyway.And you to try and compare such is at best childish.For pope to say such is deeply offensive and ignorant.


  • #1061
    a person.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 53 ✭✭a person.


    MalcomX wrote:
    No negro leaders have fought for civil rights
    They paid for civil rights
    They have begged the white man for civil rights
    They have begged the white man for freedom
    And anytime you beg another man to set you free
    You will never be free
    Freedom is something you have to do for yourselves

    You reckon a violence promoting extremely strict black Muslim would support gay marriage ?


  • Advertisement
  • #1062
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    a person. wrote: »
    You reckon a violence promoting extremely strict black Muslim would support gay marriage ?

    Peter Tatchell thinks it's a possibility.
    Towards the end of his life, Malcolm's ideas were evolving in new directions. Politically, he gravitated leftwards. Faith-wise, after his trip to Mecca, he began to embrace a non-racial mainstream Islam. His mind was becoming open to new ideas and values.
    Had he not been murdered in 1965, Malcolm might have eventually, like Huey Newton of the Black Panthers and the black power leader Angela Davis, embraced the lesbian and gay liberation movement as part of the struggle for human emancipation.

    Gruaniad, Oct 2009 (and he's said a lot more about it since then as well)


  • #1063
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    Just posting this as well, in case anyone gets the impression that mainstream Muslims are in favour of gay marriage - they most certainly are not, or at the very least their religious leaders are not.


  • #1064
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,991 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    a person. wrote: »
    This doesn't add up, and King's family have stated he would be against gay marriage

    I think you missed the point. Black people were being discriminated against. That wouldn't have changed if they had sat back and accepted it. The same goes for groups like the suffragettes.
    Change like that only comes about when people demand it. It's not right that black people or women were discriminated against. It's not right that it's happening to gay people either.


  • #1065
    Grayson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,991 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Donkey Oaty wrote: »
    Just posting this as well, in case anyone gets the impression that mainstream Muslims are in favour of gay marriage - they most certainly are not, or at the very least their religious leaders are not.

    Mainstream Catholics are in favour of it (80 something percent of the irish population are and a fair chunk of then are catholic). That doesn't mean we can expect Bishop martin to support it :)


  • #1066
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    Grayson wrote: »
    Mainstream Catholics are in favour of it (80 something percent of the irish population are and a fair chunk of then are catholic). That doesn't mean we can expect Bishop martin to support it :)

    That's true, and the MP for Tooting, who is a Muslim, voted in favour of gay marriage (he received death threats as a result, apparently).

    But UK Muslims are generally not, and there really isn't much doubt about that. An interesting New Statesman comment piece about the background includes this gem:
    In fact, a 2009 poll by Gallup found that British Muslims have zero tolerance towards homosexuality. “None of the 500 British Muslims interviewed believed that homosexual acts were morally acceptable,” the Guardian reported in May that year.


  • #1067
    pl4ichjgy17zwd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,053 ✭✭✭pl4ichjgy17zwd


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Not always - there are queer and feminist critiques of marriage that are not motivated by homophobia and far from ignorant.

    Are these just against marriage in general though? I think it's pretty arrogant for someone to decide marriage isn't for someone else just because it isn't for them (and I'm a feminist)


  • #1068
    UCDVet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,894 ✭✭✭UCDVet


    The honest truth is that we should just not have a concept of marriage that is legally recognized. But if we are going to, anyone should be able to marry anyone else, so long as they are of legal age and consent to the marriage.

    Any race.
    Any gender.
    Any background.

    None of it should matter. The government has no business dictating such things. Marrying a man is as valid as marrying a woman and marrying two men is as valid as marrying one. Outlawing polygamy is as ridiculous as outlawing gay marriage which is as ridiculous as outlawing inter-racial marriage or inter-religious marriage.

    I support human rights - not gay rights or black rights. Marriage should be a privilege for all who seek it, or for none. That includes family members.


  • #1069
    a person.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 53 ✭✭a person.


    UCDVet wrote: »
    The honest truth is that we should just not have a concept of marriage that is legally recognized. But if we are going to, anyone should be able to marry anyone else, so long as they are of legal age and consent to the marriage.

    Any race.
    Any gender.
    Any background.

    None of it should matter. The government has no business dictating such things. Marrying a man is as valid as marrying a woman and marrying two men is as valid as marrying one. Outlawing polygamy is as ridiculous as outlawing gay marriage which is as ridiculous as outlawing inter-racial marriage or inter-religious marriage.

    I support human rights - not gay rights or black rights. Marriage should be a privilege for all who seek it, or for none. That includes family members.

    A good point well made and thought through. True equal rights should mean rights for all types of people, not just straight and gay couples. What business is it of a government who, what, or how people marry, they should have no involvement whatsoever in marriage ceremonies and private legal arrangements, and dictating that only certain government approved couples can marry.


  • #1070
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    porsche959 wrote: »
    - 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.

    You know that if I find a self hating Jewish it doesn't mean that Hitler had the right idea.


  • #1071
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Not always - there are queer and feminist critiques of marriage that are not motivated by homophobia and far from ignorant.

    Are they against marriage or marriage equality?

    There is a fundamental difference between saying you shouldn't want to get married and saying you shouldn't be allowed get married.


  • Advertisement
  • #1072
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    a person. wrote: »
    This doesn't add up, and King's family have stated he would be against gay marriage

    Funny , Caretta Scott King (that would be Mrs MLK) has said he would be in favour.

    And Bayard Rustin, the main organiser of the million man march was an out and proud gay man.


  • #1073
    DeadHand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,828 ✭✭✭DeadHand


    floggg wrote: »
    You know that if I find a self hating Jewish it doesn't mean that Hitler had the right idea.

    Who are you to say those commentators are self-hating?

    Not agreeing with a prevailing opinion is not a character defect.


  • #1074
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    DeadHand wrote: »
    Who are you to say those commentators are self-hating?

    Which commentators are we talking about?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #1075
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    fran17 wrote: »
    I know that we'll never agree on certain issues floggg but I really am starting to question your rational.Of course religions disagree on many issues and always have but in this day and age you don't imply that somebody's faith is based on the following of a crazy liar,well adults don't anyway.And you to try and compare such is at best childish.For pope to say such is deeply offensive and ignorant.

    In questioning your intelligence here.

    If you are am atheist, you don't accept that Jesús or Muhammad were prophets. The only logical conclusions is that somebody was telling porkies or suffering from a delusion.

    Equally, a Christian who doesn't accept that Muhammed was a prophet must also Think the whole thing is a low or delusional.


    And if you think there is only one God, You belive the entire Hindu faith is BS - whether you express it in those terms or not. To accept one faith is to believe the others are made up. Reciting the Hail Mary or Our Father is technically blasphemous in most other faiths.

    To have no religious beliefs is to think they are all made up.


  • #1076
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Wynter Hissing Armadillo wrote: »
    Are these just against marriage in general though? I think it's pretty arrogant for someone to decide marriage isn't for someone else just because it isn't for them (and I'm a feminist)

    Both critiques would have problems with the institution of marriage itself yes - actually neither would take an individualistic view of marriage (as you suggest) at all. feminist critiques would be very much critiquing from an egalitarian feminist viewpoint. Some of the feminist critiques from the past include:

    * married women had very few independent rights in law.
    * A lot of marriages are associated with a very fixed gendered division of labour where women take on most of the domestic and caring work and yet were paid much less than men for work outside the home.
    * The symbolism of marriage was and is in many still very patriarchal with suggested overtones of male ownership e.g. the father “giving away” the bride, the vows of obeying the husband; the minister telling the husband “you may now kiss the bride” the reception at which, traditionally, all the speeches are given by men; the wife surrendering her own name and taking her husband’s.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #1077
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    floggg wrote: »
    Are they against marriage or marriage equality?

    There is a fundamental difference between saying you shouldn't want to get married and saying you shouldn't be allowed get married.

    It's not about not wanting to get married. It's about challenging the institution of marriage itself.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #1078
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    a person. wrote: »
    You reckon a violence promoting extremely strict black Muslim would support gay marriage ?

    Firstly, when did I say he did?

    Secondly, lazy and inaccurate generalisations aside, it's pretty difficult to tell what Malcolm X would believe if he were alive today. His political and religious beliefs shifted dramatically and repeatedly throughout his life. I have no idea where he would stand on the issue.


  • #1079
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    I love this Christmas message from Greenbow Deaf LGBT

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vDMqgOI0W0

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #1080
    pl4ichjgy17zwd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,053 ✭✭✭pl4ichjgy17zwd


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Both critiques would have problems with the institution of marriage itself yes - actually neither would take an individualistic view of marriage (as you suggest) at all. feminist critiques would be very much critiquing from an egalitarian feminist viewpoint. Some of the feminist critiques from the past include:

    * married women had very few independent rights in law.
    * A lot of marriages are associated with a very fixed gendered division of labour where women take on most of the domestic and caring work and yet were paid much less than men for work outside the home.
    * The symbolism of marriage was and is in many still very patriarchal with suggested overtones of male ownership e.g. the father “giving away” the bride, the vows of obeying the husband; the minister telling the husband “you may now kiss the bride” the reception at which, traditionally, all the speeches are given by men; the wife surrendering her own name and taking her husband’s.

    The feminist circles I move in would suggest rectifying these issues within marriage instead of abolishing it and promoting a society that women wouldn't feel obligated into marriage, but enter it by willing choice and have an equal partnership. To me, any feminism that negates a woman's individual choice just takes away from the movement.

    EDIT: I don't mean to make this a discussion about feminism, I just don't agree with the 'all marriage is bad so I'm going to vote against SSM' when marriage isn't likely to be abolished any time soon.


  • Advertisement
  • #1081
    a person.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 53 ✭✭a person.


    floggg wrote: »
    Firstly, when did I say he did?

    Secondly, lazy and inaccurate generalisations aside, it's pretty difficult to tell what Malcolm X would believe if he were alive today. His political and religious beliefs shifted dramatically and repeatedly throughout his life. I have no idea where he would stand on the issue.

    So why was he quoted as an endorsement ?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement