nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

Kermit.de.frog

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

floggg

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

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

That's not opposition to marriage equality though. It's an argument against marriage generally.

In fact, to the extent their argument is a criticism of gender roles on marriage, it doesn't even neatly apply to same sex relationships.

floggg

a person. wrote: »

So why was he quoted as an endorsement ?

He wasn't. You should go read the posts concerned.

He was quoted as an endorsement that you don't ask to be treated equally. You demand it.

a person.

floggg wrote: »

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.

Rev. Bernice King led a march to her father’s graveside in 2005 while calling for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

During a speech at a church meeting in New Zealand, she said her father “did not take a bullet for same-sex marriage.”

King viewed homosexuality as a cultural and psychiatrc problem that could be solved :

While writing an advice column for “Ebony Magazine,” Dr. King responded to a young “gay” man looking for guidance. Here is the exchange in its entirety:

Question: My problem is different from the ones most people have. I am a boy, but I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don’t want my parents to know about me. What can I do? Is there any place where I can go for help?

Answer: Your problem is not at all an uncommon one. However, it does require careful attention. The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired. Your reasons for adopting this habit have now been consciously suppressed or unconsciously repressed. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with this problem by getting back to some of the experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. In order to do this I would suggest that you see a good psychiatrist who can assist you in bringing to the forefront of conscience all of those experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.

a person.

floggg wrote: »

He wasn't. You should go read the posts concerned.

He was quoted as an endorsement that you don't ask to be treated equally. You demand it.

None of that was stated in the posts.

Equality should apply to all people, if you are truly intrested in equality, you don't seek equality for just certain government approved straight and gay couples.

endacl

a person. wrote: »

None of that was stated in the posts.

Equality should apply to all people, if you are truly intrested in equality, you don't seek equality for just certain government approved straight and gay couples.

Grayson

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.

Only religious people can develop a respect like that. If you step away from it all, it's all a bit silly. I was once joking about Mormonism and made a reference to when Joseph Smith parted the Mississippi. The didn't happen btw, it was just a joke. The reason I say this is because if you didn't know anything about Mormonism you would accept that Mormons believe this to be true. After all it's no more or less outrageous than anything in the bible.

FYI, Joseph Smith was a charlatan. He made a living selling fake cures and charms before he started a religion. He claimed God showed him the magic tablets and told him that only he was allowed to see them. He used to stick his head in a hat and read messages that God sent him. God also told him to marry tens of women. Actually women is being generous, he married a 14 year old girl at one point because God told him to.

Now does anyone outside of Mormonism actually believe God wanted him to marry a 14 year old? Even most Mormons deny that it happened for a very long time. Nevertheless there are millions that follow this guy.

I believe they are following the words of a conman. A man who wanted money, power and women and got his own religion to do it.

Likewise i can make similar pronouncements about L. Ron Hubbard. He founded a cult that sucks in gullible people.

Yet for some reason it's considered bad taste if I apply the same standards to Christianity?

I know probably thousands of Christians, tens of Mormons and a smattering of Muslims. Most are decent honest people (some are just dicks, but that's people for you). I respect most of these people but I don't respect their religious beliefs. They all believe in fairy tales.

However ridiculous I think their beliefs are, they are entitled to hold them. I'll not go and tell them they're wrong or silly. If however they attempt to impose their beliefs on others I will stand up and fight them on it.

And that's how it is with gay marriage. When someone attempts to prevent someone from having their same rights because their religion tells them being gay is bad, then their religion is fair game.

Religious people can spread ashes on their head, eat wafer and wine, and sing Kumbayah all they want, just don't stop other people from enjoying the same freedoms you do.

david75

if this referendum doesnt pass, it wont be out of any decisive push and big turn out from the no side..apathy owing to referendum fatigue and peoples anger with this government will cause a low turn out and that's the biggest danger it passing faces.

i'll be voting yes and encouraging all my family and friends to do likewise.

too long have that shower of ignorant backward ****es at iona dictated and controlled Irish people through their omnipresence in media..
that has to stop right now.

SeanW

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

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:

Yes, multi-culturalism FTW! Safe to say we can tell how most Muslims will be voting, if they do. But sssssssshhhhh, you don't want to be accused of racism.

Also, according to Feminism, as practiced by the likes of Julie Bindel, marriage is a tool of the patriarchy, (one of many, no doubt) that exists so that men can oppress women. Thusly, feminists should be opposed to gay marriage because gay marriage will strengthen the institution of marriage and this will make it easer for men to oppress women. Or something.

So straight off the bat, I can think of 3 overwhelming reasons to vote for gay marriage.

Firstly and most importantly, it will eliminate a certain level of discrimination against homosexual people, allowing them the same rights to their relationships as the rest of us. It would also make clear that we want a free society are inclusive to all of its people.
It would be the equivalent of giving toxic religious influence the two fingers.
It would allow us to give feminism (at least Julie Bindel's kind) the two fingers.

Any one of those reasons on their own are overwhelming reasons to vote for gay marriage. All 3 in one neat little package, the case is beyond dispute by any rational person.

To those who might be apathetic and say "I won't vote because this does not affect me" I would respond with a warning from history.

Rev Martin Niemoller wrote:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

[Deleted User]

I will be voting yes because I might want to get married some day and wouldn't be too thrilled with the prospect of not being allowed to.

If I was straight(er) then I would still vote yes because someone I care about , who happened to be LGBT, might want to get married some day and I wouldn't be too thrilled with the prospect of them not being allowed to.

As depressing as it is to read about people who plan to vote no, I'm much more surprised and puzzled about those who say they're not going to vote at all because it won't affect them. Do none of you people have LGBT family or friends or others you care about whose lives could be affected enormously by this? I'm not exactly the warmest person in the world myself but I really can't process the lack of empathy some people seem to have on this issue.

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.

I don't think everyone who's unsure about same sex marriage is automatically homophobic or bigoted. However, when some people openly and unabashedly make statements that are rooted in homophobia and bigorty, it really angers me to then hear them whine about being "called names" and painting themselves as victims just for being called out for what they are.

If somebody calls you a homophobe and a bigot when you clearly display homophobia and bigotry then you are not being insulted, you are simply being reminded of what you are in reality. If that bothers you, then the simple solution is to stop being homophobic and bigoted. Why can't some people understand that?

rannerap

This vote doesn't affect me personally, but as a person with two gay siblings and several gay friends it does affect those I love. I will definitely be voting in favour of giving them the same rights I have. It's unfair that I should have rights they don't have simply because I was born one way and they were born another.

Sheldons Brain

UCDVet wrote: »

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.

The government has no business dictating relationships. But if it is to provide a set of legal advantages then it has every business in regulating those and rationing them appropriately.

This thread is full of stuff about love and suchlike which has nothing to do with the issue. This is not a referendum about relationships, it is about paying less tax and getting cheaper car insurance and so forth.

shruikan2553

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

The government has no business dictating relationships. But if it is to provide a set of legal advantages then it has every business in regulating those and rationing them appropriately.

This thread is full of stuff about love and suchlike which has nothing to do with the issue. This is not a referendum about relationships, it is about paying less tax and getting cheaper car insurance and so forth.

Civil partnership already has the same tax as married couples. If you are going to be against something at least understand it.

a person.

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

The government has no business dictating relationships. But if it is to provide a set of legal advantages then it has every business in regulating those and rationing them appropriately.

This thread is full of stuff about love and suchlike which has nothing to do with the issue. This is not a referendum about relationships, it is about paying less tax and getting cheaper car insurance and so forth.

then this state marraige certification advantage and equality drive should be open to all groups, not certain government approved pairings such as straight or gay couples.

B_Wayne

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.

The person who causes immense offence and is rather ignorant in most of his/her statements complains about the very same thing... Oh my!

a person. wrote: »

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.

The likelihood of marriage ending as a legal institute is low so it'd be a rather pointless battle. Plus let's be realistic here, your argument is based solely on the fact you do not wish the gays to marry... You don't want a more equitable society.

a person. wrote: »

Rev. Bernice King led a march to her father’s graveside in 2005 while calling for a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

During a speech at a church meeting in New Zealand, she said her father “did not take a bullet for same-sex marriage.”

King viewed homosexuality as a cultural and psychiatrc problem that could be solved :

While writing an advice column for “Ebony Magazine,” Dr. King responded to a young “gay” man looking for guidance. Here is the exchange in its entirety:

Well,he was citing the psychiatric opinion of the time more than anything.(In 1958,he died ten years later) It's also perfectly possible that his view would have evolved as most did. Secondly, Bernice King was 5 upon the point of his death so I'd imagine his wife would know him a hell of a lot better in terms of the views that he held,she married him!

SeanW wrote: »

Also, according to Feminism, as practiced by the likes of Julie Bindel, , (one of many, no doubt) that exists so that men can oppress women. Thusly, feminists should be opposed to gay marriage because gay marriage will strengthen the institution of marriage and this will make it easer for men to oppress women. Or something.

Sean feminists views have many branches and being a feminist doesn't mean that each feminist holds the exact same view. It's exceedingly varied.

a person.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Civil partnership already has the same tax as married couples. If you are going to be against something at least understand it.

but the whole point of this state marriage drive is to give legal advantage to certain government approved groups only, instead of giving equal legal rights to civil partnerships.

Annasopra

a person. wrote: »

then this state marraige certification advantage and equality drive should be open to all groups, not certain government approved pairings such as straight or gay couples.

what groups?

a person.

B_Wayne wrote: »

The likelihood of marriage ending as a legal institute is low so it'd be a rather pointless battle. Plus let's be realistic here, your argument is based solely on the fact you do not wish the gays to marry... You don't want a more equitable society.

Actually I wish that equality to be extended to all , not certain groups and couples only

david75

Something i do have trouble with, and its probably stupid but speaking as a gay man in a long term relationship(8 years..) i dont get why we march on gay pride, the whole idea of pride being to celebrate our uniqueness and other qualities, then we march for marriage equality..we celebrate being different then demand the right to be the same..i think the normalisation process is good but its a double edged sword too..probably not explaining myself very well, just something I wonder about..

a person.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

what groups?

There's a lot more relationships in the world that just conventional straight and gay couples.

shruikan2553

a person. wrote: »

but the whole point of this state marriage drive is to give legal advantage to certain government approved groups only, instead of giving equal legal rights to civil partnerships.

So? I dont see how marriage is bad but i cant believe its not marriage is ok. It would be marriage in all but name so why not just call it that? I doubt people go around correcting a SSC when they refer to themselves as married.

Nodin

a person. wrote: »

Actually I wish that equality to be extended to all , not certain groups and couples only

What groups constitute "all" specifically?

Annasopra

B_Wayne wrote: »

Sean feminists views have many branches and being a feminist doesn't mean that each feminist holds the exact same view. It's exceedingly varied.

Oh absolutely - and the Marriage Equality campaign in Ireland has been lead by many strong feminists such as Katherine Zappone, Ann Louise Gilligan, Grainne Healy, Ailbhe Smyth, Ivana Bacik, Moninne Griffith.

Annasopra

a person. wrote: »

There's a lot more relationships in the world that just conventional straight and gay couples.

what are you talking? be more specific please?

a person.

B_Wayne wrote: »

Well,he was citing the psychiatric opinion of the time more than anything.(In 1958,he died ten years later) It's also perfectly possible that his view would have evolved as most did. Secondly, Bernice King was 5 upon the point of his death so I'd imagine his wife would know him a hell of a lot better in terms of the views that he held,she married him!

Winne Mandela disproves that claim

Slot Machine

david75 wrote: »

Something i do have trouble with, and its probably stupid but speaking as a gay man in a long term relationship(8 years..) i dont get why we march on gay pride, the whole idea of pride being to celebrate our uniqueness and other qualities, then we march for marriage equality..we celebrate being different then demand the right to be the same..i think the normalisation process is good but its a double edged sword too..probably not explaining myself very well, just something I wonder about..

No, I've seen the sentiment come up before. People are different, that is undeniable but it should not be a basis upon which to discriminate. That's what this is about.

The pride parades are, as you surmise, about highlighting those differences. Partly. It's more, as I believe, that people are forced to deal with the fact that we're a part of society.

david75

Slot Machine wrote: »

No, I've seen the sentiment come up before. People are different, that is undeniable but it should not be a basis upon which to discriminate. That's what this is about.

The pride parades are, as you surmise, about highlighting those differences. Partly. It's more, as I believe, that people are forced to deal with the fact that we're a part of society.

Pride long ago made a lurch from being a political protest(dublin city council still register it that way, and this affects planning for it) to just a big piss up, effectively..

p!sses me off no end that all the media cover in it, is the guy in the assless chaps and ridiculous outfits..it doesnt speak to the whole..not all gays are that excessive dramatic showqueen..but thats another topic i guess..

a well known drag queen has in the past berated me and labeled me'a self loathing gay' for having that view. You can't disagree with em sometimes, and that is something they'll have to be aware of and try not to do, in the run up to the referendum. We're not 'wrong' if we disagree or have questions about the purpose..

Sheldons Brain

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Civil partnership already has the same tax as married couples. If you are going to be against something at least understand it.

Does it? If you claim it does and there is no difference then why are we wasting money on this referendum?

padd b1975

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

why are we wasting money on this referendum?

Good question.

Civil partnership legislation is perfectly adequate for same sex couples.

Nodin

padd b1975 wrote: »

Good question.

Civil partnership legislation is perfectly adequate for same sex couples.

Why?

padd b1975

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

why are we wasting money on this referendum?

Good question.

Civil partnership legislation is perfectly adequate for same sex couples.