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

kylith wrote: »

Fair point actually. How would they feel about gay people saying they wouldn't vote on that issue because it didn't effect them personally.

Actually, seeing as how they all aren't super nice to us undecideds, and beg us for the right to see their kids, I'm going to vote no just to spite them.*

*actually as somebody who probably will never be a father, I still think it's outrageous how little rights a father has in this country and would gladly support any initiative to improve their position. I am nice like that though - I can empathise with the light of others and want just and equality for their own sake, rather than for an personal benefit

Lyaiera

floggg wrote: »

Wearing your same sex partners clothes on a night out isn't kinky.

I think wearing your partner's underwear no matter your partner's sex is a little kinky.

But I may just be old fashioned.

floggg

Lyaiera wrote: »

I think wearing your partner's underwear no matter your partner's sex is a little kinky.

But I may just be old fashioned.

To me, it just means I need to do some laundry.

shruikan2553

floggg wrote: »

Actually, seeing as how they all aren't super nice to us undecideds, and beg us for the right to see their kids, I'm going to vote no just to spite them.*

*actually as somebody who probably will never be a father, I still think it's outrageous how little rights a father has in this country and would gladly support any initiative to improve their position. I am nice like that though - I can empathise with the light of others and want just and equality for their own sake, rather than for an personal benefit

Traditionally its the women who mind the children, it is also tradition to treat single mothers like ****. Yay for tradition! Keeping back progress.

jobbridge4life

floggg wrote: »

Actually, seeing as how they all aren't super nice to us undecideds, and beg us for the right to see their kids, I'm going to vote no just to spite them.*

*actually as somebody who probably will never be a father, I still think it's outrageous how little rights a father has in this country and would gladly support any initiative to improve their position. I am nice like that though - I can empathise with the light of others and want just and equality for their own sake, rather than for an personal benefit

Said like a truely PC member of the facebook 'like' generation. Society is doomed.

floggg

Billy86 wrote: »

Well that makes probably two of the three or four most ardently anti-same sex marriage advocates in this thread teenagers who just finished their leaving certs then, which explains a lot.

Of course then there's fran whose posting history for the last six months is almost exclusively gay bashing and who has been in what looks to be well over a dozen threads on this as well as some posts women bashing, and who has other posts claiming he would have sex with his own mother if she were attractive and that black and white people should have separate Olympics because of 'racial superiority'. Oh, and despite all of this he also claims to like to fantasise over gay people... . Probably explains why he doesn't want to answer anyone's questions. :pac:

Between them they're not exactly painting the prettiest picture of the average 'no' voter.

What's this about fantasising about gay people? Should I be worried?

I felt more comfortable when I thought he just didn't like us.

floggg

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Traditionally its the women who mind the children, it is also tradition to treat single mothers like ****. Yay for tradition! Keeping back progress.

Can't we want to improve the position of both?

Billy86

I don't think people should be 'having a go' so to speak at Kaiser for not voting, but as has been mentioned I also think he should really consider the importance of voting in an issue such as this, and indeed that the changes of long held 'societal norms' could in turn also lead to people being more interested in enacting change in the interests of the common good - including equal rights for separated/divorced fathers (something I also believe in). This hasn't got anything to do with a Facebook 'like' generation, or an ice bucket challenge or anything like that - this is something that will positively change the lives of tens of thousands or Irish men and women and grant them equal rights as equal citizens, and many times that for generations to come without having any adverse effect on anyone else whatsoever (beyond offending some people's homophobia). It is a private vote, so there is no search for 'peer acceptance' involved; you don't even have to tell anyone you voted at all, and taking 15-20 minutes out of your day as mentioned could change the lives of those forever.

To put it into numbers, if 5,000 same sex couples get married for an average of 30 years each, that is over 78 billion minutes of happiness and equality you will have contributed towards by giving up 15-20 of your own.

kunst nugget

I'll vote yes but only if all of the gay people are nice to me. Give me free lifts, weekly foot massages, that sort of thing. But ye's are warned. If it's raining or there's something good on the telly, I won't be going near the polling station. I'm not part of the herd. I do me own thing. Like everyone else.

Lyaiera

kunst nugget wrote: »

I'll vote yes but only if all of the gay people are nice to me. Give me free lifts, weekly foot massages, that sort of thing. But ye's are warned. If it's raining or there's something good on the telly, I won't be going near the polling station. I'm not part of the herd. I do me own thing. Like everyone else.

I'll bring you back an airport Toblerone the next time I get a flight somewhere if you vote Yes.

Flem31

Billy86 wrote: »

I don't think people should be 'having a go' so to speak at Kaiser for not voting, but as has been mentioned I also think he should really consider the importance of voting in an issue such as this, and indeed that the changes of long held 'societal norms' could in turn also lead to people being more interested in enacting change in the interests of the common good - including equal rights for separated/divorced fathers (something I also believe in). This hasn't got anything to do with a Facebook 'like' generation, or an ice bucket challenge or anything like that - this is something that will positively change the lives of tens of thousands or Irish men and women and grant them equal rights as equal citizens, and many times that for generations to come without having any adverse effect on anyone else whatsoever (beyond offending some people's homophobia). It is a private vote, so there is no search for 'peer acceptance' involved; you don't even have to tell anyone you voted at all, and taking 15-20 minutes out of your day as mentioned could change the lives of those forever.

To put it into numbers, if 5,000 same sex couples get married for an average of 30 years each, that is over 78 billion minutes of happiness and equality you will have contributed towards by giving up 15-20 of your own.

How many SSC are there in Ireland ?

flunkyfearsome

fran17 wrote: »

What is the difference between a straight relationship and a gay relationship apart from sex?

Lesbians talk more than sex

its deffo not like the porn industry would have you believe

Billy86

floggg wrote: »

What's this about fantasising about gay people? Should I be worried?

I felt more comfortable when I thought he just didn't like us.

I glanced over his posting history and I think it was in the Rose of Tralee coming out thread. Why is he fantasising over something he sees and "unnatural" and hates so much that it is almost all he has been able to talk about on boards for half a year? Hhhhhmmmm......

Billy86

Flem31 wrote: »

How many SSC are there in Ireland ?

Not a clue to be honest, so I did a quick google search and came up with this - http://www.gaire.com/e/f/view.asp?parent=673253&nav=3 and

About 150 identified as such in 1996, 1,300 in 2002, 2,090 in 2006, and 4,042 in 2011 ( http://www.cso.ie/en/newsandevents/pressreleases/2012pressreleases/pressreleasecensus2011profile5householdsandfamilies/ ) so it is a number that is increasing steadily, and that is before taking into account couples that have not yet met (e.g. say two 10 year old kids now, who meet in 10 years and want to get married 15-20 years from now).

floggg

Billy86 wrote: »

I don't think people should be 'having a go' so to speak at Kaiser for not voting, but as has been mentioned I also think he should really consider the importance of voting in an issue such as this, and indeed that the changes of long held 'societal norms' could in turn also lead to people being more interested in enacting change in the interests of the common good - including equal rights for separated/divorced fathers (something I also believe in). This hasn't got anything to do with a Facebook 'like' generation, or an ice bucket challenge or anything like that - this is something that will positively change the lives of tens of thousands or Irish men and women and grant them equal rights as equal citizens, and many times that for generations to come without having any adverse effect on anyone else whatsoever (beyond offending some people's homophobia). It is a private vote, so there is no search for 'peer acceptance' involved; you don't even have to tell anyone you voted at all, and taking 15-20 minutes out of your day as mentioned could change the lives of those forever.

To put it into numbers, if 5,000 same sex couples get married for an average of 30 years each, that is over 78 billion minutes of happiness and equality you will have contributed towards by giving up 15-20 of your own.

I don't think its "having a go" but this is a discussion board, and if you state your position than you are by default inviting commentary on it.

He is of course fully entitled to vote, or not vote, as his conscience dictates.

kunst nugget

Flem31 wrote: »

How many SSC are there in Ireland ?

Twelvety!

yer man!

As a gay man, I will certainly be voting yes to this and so will all my family and friends. I really fail to understand people who are against it, any time I query their side and scrutinise it they fly off the wall and never actually end up making a clear argument. My relationship with other men affects nobody, the way I live my life in no way negatively affects anyone's elses life other than make some of them feel slightly uncomfortable about the idea of me getting off with a person of the same sex. I've only been in one relationship so far, as I'm still quite young, I can tell you it was a very loving and fulfilling one too. It does upset me a little bit that some people view this as being a mortal sin and will go out of their way to affect my happiness when I've absolutely no influence on their life at all.

Flem31

Billy86 wrote: »

Not a clue to be honest, so I did a quick google search and came up with this - http://www.gaire.com/e/f/view.asp?parent=673253&nav=3 and

About 150 identified as such in 1996, 1,300 in 2002, 2,090 in 2006, and 4,042 in 2011 ( http://www.cso.ie/en/newsandevents/pressreleases/2012pressreleases/pressreleasecensus2011profile5householdsandfamilies/ ) so it is a number that is increasing steadily, and that is before taking into account couples that have not yet met (e.g. say two 10 year old kids now, who meet in 10 years and want to get married 15-20 years from now).

Thank you for your response.....no ulterior motive for asking, was just interested

2011 figure is probably understated anyway

Billy86

floggg wrote: »

I don't think its "having a go" but this is a discussion board, and if you state your position than you are by default inviting commentary on it.

He is of course fully entitled to vote, or not vote, as his conscience dictates.

Well this is true as well, I'm more just trying to convince him of the importance of voting because he wasn't coming over as "I'm undecided/not voting/not saying which way I am voting but all the yes campaign in here just seem like terrible people/I don't want change" types that have been steadily popping up throughout the thread.

I think the yes/no vote on Scottish independence is a great example of why people shouldn't be sitting back and ignoring the vote, to be honest. And as has been mentioned, people advocating single father's rights will almost surely need support from those it does not effect if they are to have a referendum on their issues down the line.

Billy86

Flem31 wrote: »

Thank you for your response.....no ulterior motive for asking, was just interested

2011 figure is probably understated anyway

No worries, was actually an interesting question since it hadn't even crossed my mind beforehand and being straight without many gay friends it's not something that I had a breeze of. I'm guessing that the 'real' numbers have not been rising as quickly as those census' suggest myself, more so that it has become more "acceptable" for them to come out about it openly. Of course the growth in Ireland's population and influx of migrants from countries where it has been more culturally 'acceptable' for longer than it has here might contribute also.

floggg

Billy86 wrote: »

I glanced over his posting history and I think it was in the Rose of Tralee coming out thread. Why is he fantasising over something he sees and "unnatural" and hates so much that it is almost all he has been able to talk about on boards for half a year? Hhhhhmmmm......

I tried to go searching his post history for it, but there were too many hits for threads with the word gay in it for me to wade through.

Nice of him to spend so much time thinking about us.

MayoAreMagic

First off I will say, I believe all people are entitled to the same rights, and have no issue with 2 people same-sex or otherwise, being able to have a civil marriage, where they are entitled to the same things every other 2 people who are together.

My question is around same-sex marriage in religion. A religion is what it is, that can be defined as backward or whatever, that isn't really the point. The fact is the parameters are set. For that reason, Im wondering if same-sex marriage should be allowed in specific religions. I mean the entire premise is that this was set down thousands of years ago for us by God, or various gods etc, depending on the religion, so can it now be redefined? And if so, surely that means everything can be redefined... Surely the religion cant allow it to be redefined as it would undermine the entire thing...

Delirium

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

First off I will say, I believe all people are entitled to the same rights, and have no issue with 2 people same-sex or otherwise, being able to have a civil marriage, where they are entitled to the same things every other 2 people who are together.

My question is around same-sex marriage in religion. A religion is what it is, that can be defined as backward or whatever, that isn't really the point. The fact is the parameters are set. For that reason, Im wondering if same-sex marriage should be allowed in specific religions. I mean the entire premise is that this was set down thousands of years ago for us by God, or various gods etc, depending on the religion, so can it now be redefined? And if so, surely that means everything can be redefined... Surely the religion cant allow it to be redefined as it would undermine the entire thing...

for those at the back of the class, we're discussing civil marriage!

Billy86

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

First off I will say, I believe all people are entitled to the same rights, and have no issue with 2 people same-sex or otherwise, being able to have a civil marriage, where they are entitled to the same things every other 2 people who are together.

My question is around same-sex marriage in religion. A religion is what it is, that can be defined as backward or whatever, that isn't really the point. The fact is the parameters are set. For that reason, Im wondering if same-sex marriage should be allowed in specific religions. I mean the entire premise is that this was set down thousands of years ago for us by God, or various gods etc, depending on the religion, so can it now be redefined? And if so, surely that means everything can be redefined... Surely the religion cant allow it to be redefined as it would undermine the entire thing...

to be fair, I don't think (m)any are looking for, or that interested in, marriage from a religious point of view here. Though at the same time it has to be mentioned that marriage predates more (all?) known religions including Christianity, and that they in fact redefined the parameters of what is 'acceptable' in terms of marriage.

Evidence of same sex marriages date back to around 2,350BC whereas evidence of marriage at all dates back to about 2,400BC (so around the exact same time in the scheme of things) - thousands of years before Christianity came about and a few hundred years before Judaism started up. The Egyptians and Sumerians had religions dating back before then I believe, but both were also quite accepting of same sex marriage so I can only assume their older religions had little or no issue with it.

kylith

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

First off I will say, I believe all people are entitled to the same rights, and have no issue with 2 people same-sex or otherwise, being able to have a civil marriage, where they are entitled to the same things every other 2 people who are together.

My question is around same-sex marriage in religion. A religion is what it is, that can be defined as backward or whatever, that isn't really the point. The fact is the parameters are set. For that reason, Im wondering if same-sex marriage should be allowed in specific religions. I mean the entire premise is that this was set down thousands of years ago for us by God, or various gods etc, depending on the religion, so can it now be redefined? And if so, surely that means everything can be redefined... Surely the religion cant allow it to be redefined as it would undermine the entire thing...

1) We are discussing civil marriage. No-one will force priests to marry a gay couple.

2) There used to be SSM in Christianity*, i.e. a ritual by which two men were joined together for life. So the fact that this has been stopped circa the 1200s means that Christianity has ALREADY changed the meaning of marriage at least once. Why not encourage them to do it again and be as welcoming to Adam and Steve as they once were to St. Baccus and St. Serge?

* ignoring the hundreds of other religions globally which did and do marry SSCs no problem.

http://www.randomhistory.com/history-of-gay-marriage.html
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Gay-Marriage.html

fran17

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Nothing. That is the point.

Exactly,I don't know why the other posters were being so evasive.The only difference between straight people and gay people is sex,So I really don't understand the whole gay pride/parades/attention thing if the only difference is something as insignificant as sex.

jobbridge4life

fran17 wrote: »

Exactly,I don't know why the other posters were being so evasive.The only difference between straight people and gay people is sex,So I really don't understand the whole gay pride/parades/attention thing if the only difference is something as insignificant as sex.

Oh for god sake 'Read your history book Kim'

fran17

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Oh for god sake 'Read your history book Kim'

Can you expand on that?

VinLieger

fran17 wrote: »

Exactly,I don't know why the other posters were being so evasive.The only difference between straight people and gay people is sex,So I really don't understand the whole gay pride/parades/attention thing if the only difference is something as insignificant as sex.

Because for quite a long time being gay has had the negative association of being something to be ashamed about hence PRIDE parades to celebrate homosexuality as something that is not shameful anymore and show those still struggling with it it's okay, really not that hard to understand fran if you just open your mind a small amount

Delirium

fran17 wrote: »

Exactly,I don't know why the other posters were being so evasive.The only difference between straight white people and gay black people is sexskin colour,So I really don't understand the whole gay pride/parades/attention thing if the only difference is something as insignificant as sex skin colour.

modified your post to apply it to civil rights. Do you begin to see why people would campaign for equality now?