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

Tasden

VinLieger wrote: »

Exactly, he needs to inform himself a bit more as to what is and isn't possible to have per the limits of the constitution and its safeguards as far as marriage is concerned.

Just because he personally wants something (possible or not) it doesn't mean he isn't informed on the issue at hand or the limitations etc. He said he wants civil partnership to have the same/similar rights and not for marriage to be between two men/woman. That would be his ideal. He isn't saying if he votes no to marriage equality that that will happen or that it is an option available. What he wants is separate to how he votes re marriage because he personally sees marriage as between man and woman regardless.

kylith

Tasden wrote: »

He just sees it as something that is what it is and doesn't want that to change.
That it would be the same as marriage in that its the same rights etc but its not the same because its not between a man and woman so it is different and as such it should be called something else.

He doesn't know if he'd want a civil partnership but said he wouldn't get married if it was made possible. Like i said I'm not sure I'd agree with his stance either but I could see where he was coming from. But I don't think i ever plan on getting married either so marriage as a concept in general is not something I'd put much thought into other than believing everyone should be free to have that choice.

If it's his opinion it's his opinion, I guess. It just confuses me. It's like someone seeing a small dog and saying it can't be a dog because dogs are bigger than that. It's still a dog, it's just a little different, just like SSM is still marriage, just a little different.

VinLieger

Daith wrote: »

It can't have the same rights as marriage. Whatever way he wants to put he's voting no and willing to have his relationship be seen as inferior. That's his choice but I don't see why he would want it.

Separate but equal is not equal. Everyone can ride a bus, but the gay people should stand and straight people can sit. You're still getting to where you're going and you're still paying the same but it's not equal.

Exactly, he needs to inform himself a bit more as to what is and isn't possible to have per the limits of the constitution and its safeguards as far as marriage is concerned.

Daith

Tasden wrote: »

That it would be the same as marriage in that its the same rights etc but its not the same because its not between a man and woman so it is different and as such it should be called something else.

It can't have the same rights as marriage. Whatever way he wants to put he's voting no and willing to have his relationship be seen as inferior. That's his choice but I don't see why he would want it.

Separate but equal is not equal. Everyone can ride a bus, but the gay people should stand and straight people can sit. You're still getting to where you're going and you're still paying the same but it's not equal.

bodice ripper

I will in my hole beg for parity of esteem from people who have blatantly made their mind up already.

this

'hey bucko, I am through begging'

Tasden

kylith wrote: »

This is the thing that really confuses me. He wants civil partnership to be the same as marriage in every way, but not to call it marriage. If it's identical to marriage then why should it be called anything else? We have a word for partnerships that are the exact same as marriage - marriage.

Do you know is this marriage-by-some-other-name is something he would like to do someday?

He just sees it as something that is what it is and doesn't want that to change.
That it would be the same as marriage in that its the same rights etc but its not the same because its not between a man and woman so it is different and as such it should be called something else.

He doesn't know if he'd want a civil partnership but said he wouldn't get married if it was made possible. Like i said I'm not sure I'd agree with his stance either but I could see where he was coming from. But I don't think i ever plan on getting married either so marriage as a concept in general is not something I'd put much thought into other than believing everyone should be free to have that choice.

Daith

Tasden wrote: »

He wants civil partnership to be the same as marriage in the way of legal rights etc for gay couples.

Which would never be the case because a civil partnership having the same rights as marriage would undermine marriage which is a no no in our constitution. It's the reason straight couples can't opt for civil partnerships.

Does he understand that?

Captain Flaps

Some shocking views here.

I have to be honest, if SSM gets voted down I'll put some serious consideration into emigrating. I've always thought of Ireland as a place where everyone is welcome even despite a tradition of exclusion of those who were different, and that the country had finally moved forward to that place. I can struggle through government after government dragging us over the coals, cuts, charges, booms and busts, whatever, because this is where I want to live. If a large enough portion of Irish society feels strongly enough to deny others a basic human right my opinion of the country will be utterly smashed and I think I honestly would just give up and not look back.

Not gay btw, just feel strongly about this.

VinLieger

kylith wrote: »

This is the thing that really confuses me. He wants civil partnership to be the same as marriage in every way, but not to call it marriage. If it's identical to marriage then why should it be called anything else? We have a word for partnerships that are the exact same as marriage - marriage.

Do you know is this marriage-by-some-other-name is something he would like to do someday?

I agree why not just call a spade a spade? Also the concept that marriage is limited to only a man and woman is actually a modern concept as has been proven many times previously here.

kylith

Tasden wrote: »

I plan on voting yes.

Was speaking to a gay friend of mine about it and he is voting no. His reasoning was that marriage was and is something between man and woman and it should remain so. Not that he sees himself or his partner, or their relationship, as inferior or deviant, just not man and wife and therefore not a relationship that should end in marriage. I sort of saw where he was coming from but I'm not sure I agree. But his opinion wasn't from a homophobic or hateful place, he's openly and happily gay and in a loving relationship, he just thinks that marriage itself was between man and wife and it should remain that way. He wants civil partnership to be the same as marriage in the way of legal rights etc for gay couples.

This is the thing that really confuses me. He wants civil partnership to be the same as marriage in every way, but not to call it marriage. If it's identical to marriage then why should it be called anything else? We have a word for partnerships that are the exact same as marriage - marriage.

Do you know is this marriage-by-some-other-name is something he would like to do someday?

Tasden

I plan on voting yes.

Was speaking to a gay friend of mine about it and he is voting no. His reasoning was that marriage was and is something between man and woman and it should remain so. Not that he sees himself or his partner, or their relationship, as inferior or deviant, just not man and wife and therefore not a relationship that should end in marriage. I sort of saw where he was coming from but I'm not sure I agree. But his opinion wasn't from a homophobic or hateful place, he's openly and happily gay and in a loving relationship, he just thinks that marriage itself was between man and wife and it should remain that way. He wants civil partnership to be the same as marriage in the way of legal rights etc for gay couples.

floggg

gizmo555 wrote: »

Indeed. But in the main case which was heard in our courts on the matter, Zappone and Gilligan were unsuccessful in seeking to have their Canadian marriage recognised.

Yes, though that was only heard by the HC, in a judgment which used somewhat questionable logic (interpreting the constitution by reference to legislation).

I would wonder whether the SC would rule differently if given the chance - particularly given the large body of persuasive precedent now available to them from US and Canada.

That judgment also relied on the fact marriage equality wasnt generally permitted in other westen countries.

We now have many more countries with marriage equality, and public demand for it in many more.

Susandublin

Totally voting YES
We can only judge a society based on how well it treats its citizens. To date, same sex couples have been treated pretty poorely. The fact marriage currently does not exist is crazy - don't think anyone should be able to have a monopoly on marriage, happiness, joy, love etc.
We are all human just trying to get some joy into our lives.
I have a few same sex couple friends and hope for their sake this gets through and we become a bit closer to being an accepting society.

20Cent

Yes and yes. Shouldn't even be a referendum just make it law. Awful we have to vote to allow fellow citizens the basic right to marry. Will be a great day when this passes.

Tipsy McSwagger

I will and I'll be voting Yes.

gizmo555

floggg wrote: »

The ECHR is not the only (or even primary) source of human rights in this country. The constitution, common law and natural justice all provide us with various additional rights - one of the principal of which is equality.

Indeed. But in the main case which was heard in our courts on the matter, Zappone and Gilligan were unsuccessful in seeking to have their Canadian marriage recognised.

TwoShedsJackson

So has anyone come up with anything better than 'have to go to more weddings' as a reason for voting No yet?

david75

Forgot to answer your question. Yep. We'll be having kids. As will thousands of gay couples.

All that's really changed is that they'll be brought up to respect faith but ignore hate. Oh wait. That's the same as being Christian. Well I guess you need to go back to Jesus and his main message.
Love one another.

david75

fran17 wrote: »

Why would I need sentences when yours are clear to view.You and your social grouping are not the views of Ireland,traditional or modern,and that david is something you'll never understand.Be a love and answer me this,if you receive recognition in marriage,Is starting a family something you and your partner see as the next step in the integration process?

As usual, your posting is barely legible for being so utterly nonsensical but I'll meet it at its own level. Just for you.

I think you're about to discover it is the view of Ireland's people that they do support gay marriage and they will elect to at last shake off that last hypocritical grasp of a church long since made irellevant and finally be rid of the hateful claptrap of the churches self obsessed and self aggrandising splinter group, them four lonely sad clowns in Iona. I just wonder about what will be the next target for your irrelevant and outdated view once the referendum passes and Ireland's people let their unwillingness to be controlled by such a hateful few be known.
You're not allowed dismiss other religions anymore, or assume superiority over people of different belief(or skin Colour) anymore (wouldn't be very Christian of you if you did).

So where for you next? Are you married? Would any sane woman have you with such a view? The priesthood maybe? You have nobody left to hate, but yourself. And Like most self repressed self loathing closet cases you'll find the closet you've built for yourself is one you revere but despise. You very clearly are a closeted gay. Stop being obsessed with hating gay lifestyle and gay sex, start by loving your life and living it and go have the sex you really want to have. You'll be glad you did(unless you're the priest in which case leave those kids alone)

MOD: Take a few days off.

pharmaton

I'm going to get married, with the blessings of my family and friends and community and thats a great great thing to have to look forward to, so thanks in advance.

Billy86

tayto lover wrote: »

There have been many great posts supporting SSM on this thread and I believe that it will become law with the proposed Referendum so I have been searching for some of the reasons why people might object to SSM and came up with some articles just to see the opposite views. Some are interesting --

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26634214

Point 1 here is entirely conjecture, I haven't seen any gay people talking about forcing churches to marry them. Then they slip into the same old "traditional marriage" nonsense, which is entirely untrue as same sex marriage is every bit as old as marriage itself.

Point 2 is a double standard, as it should then mention sterile or elderly couples should not be allowed marriages either; it does briefly mention that not all straight couples will have children and it "may require the state to recognise relationships in alternative ways" but that it a vague nothingness, and it goes into zero detail on it. Then it falls into the same fault as many others, talking about redefining marriage being troublesome, when marriage has been redefined in numerous ways over the past few decades, and indeed was redefined way back when to not allow same sex marriage, which had never been an issue previously.

Point 3 claims to cite gay people who do are against gay marriage, but actually cites a gay man in Rupert Everett who is against marriage full stop, and a gay conservative who is talking about religious marriage throughout his article stated and not state marriage - which is entirely irrelevant to this debate.

Point 4 against cites the same guy talking about religious marriage and not state marriage, it then cites a Lord Bishop who says "Society gave legal and institutional expression to what many hold to be true - that gay and lesbian people should have the same rights to formalise their commitment to each other and enjoy the social and legal benefits that opposite-sex couples have" and finally a Labour MP who is in support of gay marriage.

Point 5 claims to have nothing against gay marriage, but just rushing the law through in haste and not assessing everything in absolute full detail. Personally I don't know what there would be to look over so carefully, but the person it is referring to clearly states "Society gave legal and institutional expression to what many hold to be true - that gay and lesbian people should have the same rights to formalise their commitment to each other and enjoy the social and legal benefits that opposite-sex couples have,"

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=if04g01

http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/homosexuality/10-reasons-why-homosexual-marriage-is-harmful-and-must-be-opposed.html

http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/10/13/4231139_reasons-to-oppose-nc-gay-marriage.html?rh=1

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/06/18-arguments-made-against-gay-marriage-house-lords

I'm going to leave these here for the minute and get back to them later.

floggg

Deleted User wrote: »

Are there any of those links in particular that you think present valid or coherent arguments against same sex marriage? Some of those House of Lords quotes, for example, were just downright nasty and merely rehashed the same old ignorant tripe - gay marriage will open floodgates to incest and polygamy (#5, #9), marriage is only for procreation and gays would undermine the family (#2) etc - that have been refuted time and time again. Plus we don't have to worry about the "lesbian queen conundrum" over here! :pac:

As for the Jewish doctor in News Observer, I can appreciate that he does not come across as homophobic or bigoted but I can't help but feel that he defeats his own argument by (correctly) stating the following:

If you can acknowledge all of the above, it baffles me why you'd still be against gay marriage. The author of that piece really just seems to reduce it to having a gut feeling that it would be a bad idea without much in the way of evidence to back up this feeling, which with all due respect is a very flimsy basis to deny marriage equality to a large group in society who has historically been treated as second class citizens and who still have to fight for what others take for granted.

Actually, all things being equal "traditional marriage" is no better or worse than stable, two parent same sex households*

*there may actually have been one study that said lesbian couples were better at raising kids than straight couples, by the difference was small and so could well have been an anomaly.

floggg

The Masculinist wrote: »

Ok, noted, fair point. However, I like engage in broader analysis and utilise several sources to make a decision on such an important matter.

But you said your weren't basing your vote on the issues, but rather some unsubstantiated and unstated flaws in the debate process.

So you aren't really considering any sources on the actual issue at hand.

floggg

gizmo555 wrote: »

The European Court of Human Rights found in 2010 that same-sex marriage is is not a right under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Of course, Ireland could decide to grant the right in the upcoming referendum, but it isn't the case that we are preventing people who want access to same-sex marriage from exercising a right to which they are already entitled.

The ECHR is not the only (or even primary) source of human rights in this country. The constitution, common law and natural justice all provide us with various additional rights - one of the principal of which is equality.

floggg

The Masculinist wrote: »

As I posted previously, can you tell me why you believe that gay marriage is a (civil) right? What are you basing this on? The UN charter of human rights? What is your basis? I am not saying gay marriage is not a right, I was just unaware. I am open to persuasion!

Nobody wants to get gay married. Just married.

Marriage is an established legal right. So is equality.

In the absence of any compelling objectively justifiabl reasons otherwise a, gay people should be entitled to have their relationships recognised on the same terms as heterosexual relationships.

irishfeen

I actually can't comprehend how anyone could have a problem with gay people marrying eachother - what the hell difference does it make to me or any straight person/couple?

If they happy then fcuk it who am I or anyone to stop them from doing something as simple as getting married in the eyes of the law/taxman?

floggg

endacl wrote: »

What is it about this topic that prompts people to register an account simply to post arseology and nonsense?

Probably the bans.

Mark Tapley

The Masculinist wrote: »

Mark, as I stated previously my reasons for proposing to vote no are not confined to simply how the media deals with the debate. Perhaps read my views in full before jumping to conclusions.

There are posters who have an active enmity towards homosexuals and are expressing it in no uncertain terms. Do you consider these posts adult and reasonable . You could vote yes in protest. People who feel their views are being stifled often have very unpleasant things to say. People have asked
no voters to give a reason for their decision but as far as I'm aware no sensible answer has been given. Personally I wouldn't ban even the most vitriolic posters but Boards does not offer free speech and they decide what is or is not acceptable.

As far as your views on the institution of marriage go, I think it is selfish to use this referendum to voice your disapproval. It is also meaningless. It reminds me of an article in Waterford Whispers about the man who won the Christmas lights competition for the fifth year in his head.

The posts that moved me the most in this thread were from evil twin who just wants his/her daughter to have a happy future with equal rights and without facing prejudice.
That to me is what this is about.

Nodin

The Masculinist wrote: »

My reasons are quoted below, care to read them if you would like. Thanks.

You could just type "narcissistic bollocksology" and cut to the chase.

Nodin

fran17 wrote: »

My dear God son I genuinely worry for you.The prostate is a gland who's job is to secrete fluid so as semen becomes alkaline on the PH scale.The reason for this is so semen will neutralise the acidity of the female,yes female,vagina so as sperm can live longer.This has always and will always be natures intention for this gland.You can make attempts to redefine words like marriage but this is a chemical and biological fact.

Hey Fran. Going to tell us why you're against gay people getting married now?