Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

Clandestine · 22-12-2014 10:48pm

Savage Tyrant wrote: »

There genuinely isn't one.

There are, but how groundbreaking they are is subjective:

-When people get married they get tax breaks (as far as I know) More people getting married means less tax revenue... which may lead to cuts.
-Churches may be forced to have gay marriage ceremonies when they don't want to perform them. If in the law its not seen as "discrimination" then this isn't valid.

The Masculinist · 22-12-2014 10:49pm

marienbad wrote: »

You implied earlier that the quality of the yes voters changed your mind , so I don't need to convince you .

Well you did state that the forum was not quite mature enough for your views - maybe advanced is the wrong word - but there was a note of condescension in your posts.

I really don't care how you vote and have no interest in persuading you - all the info is out there. But whatever you do - do it because you believe it , not because some anonymous posters annoyed you .

Once again, can you please tell my why homosexual marriage is a right? Do you have a reason or are you just throwing around buzz words to support your argument?

floggg · 22-12-2014 10:49pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You implied that their age somehow "explained a lot". The point I was making is that you were dismissing their opinion because of their age, not because they were simply talking out their arse holes.

I'm aware of what they posted. They posted as much wind-up material as they thought they could safely get away with that could almost look like a legitimately held opinion. NONE of it made sense, and yet even though you knew none of it made sense, you and other posters still chose to rise to the bait instead of ignoring them, leading to one vital 'yes' campaigner also earning themselves some time out. The wind up posters aten't interested in a discussion, and are even less interested in your opinion. They wanted to illicit a reaction, and they achieved that. What did anyone who engaged with them achieve? Nothing anyone didn't know already.

If I were a Jew whose future depended on it, I'd be choosing my words carefully and making sure I didn't come off like a knob, especially when I would consider that what's at stake is bigger than just getting one up on a bunch of neo-nazis, and when I knew I had 80% support, I wouldn't want to do anything that would turn that support into apathy.

The immature thing to do is to celebrate thinking you've given wind-up merchants an Internet smackdown as if you've actually achieved anything significant. You haven't. They're still going to vote the same way they always were, and all you've done is ignored the people you should be supporting, the people you need to come out and vote.

Look at how much of a clusterfcuk this thread has been already, with the few remaining die-hards and the wind-up merchants. Can you imagine what this crap for the next six months in the run up to the referendum is going to do to people? It's going to wear people out, physically, mentally and emotionally, there's going to be nobody left feeling positive about going to the voting booths come referendum day.

The onus isn't on anyone who is opposed to marriage equality to justify themselves to anyone else. That is the default position of the State already. If nobody turns up on referendum day, then society will remain governed by the same laws that currently offer a sub-standard level of protection to LGBT couples in relationships, and the children of those couples in LGBT relationships. If those people who said they would support marriage equality are too exhausted to turn up, or simply don't care any more, or become complacent that the vote will be carried in their absence, then the discriminatory laws stay as they are.

The onus is on anyone who advocates for marriage equality to ensure that this doesn't happen. The only way to achieve that is to support each other, not to get distracted from that by arguing with people who you know are only on a wind-up! It's a waste of time and energy and it's taking your attention away from people who really need your support.

I actually think you insult the intelligence of the undecideds thinking they could be swayed by the comments in response to the ignorant, bigoted nonsense being posted.

If their sympathies lies with the poster spouting that crap, then they aren't that undecided.

marienbad · 22-12-2014 10:50pm

The Masculinist wrote: »

Once again, can you please tell my why homosexual marriage is a right? Do you have a reason or are you just throwing around buzz words to support your argument?

You are avoiding my point ?

The Masculinist · 22-12-2014 10:52pm

marienbad wrote: »

You are avoiding my point ?

Why are you not answering my question?

I am not going to make my mind up on how to vote based on a post I read on boards.ie. Don't be daft. I am a bit more reasoned than that, so there is no need to give me that advice. My issue is with how the debate is stifled as a whole including coverage in the media. Does that address your "point" I am "avoiding"?

22-12-2014 10:54pm

The Masculinist wrote: »

Why are you not answering my question?

I am not going to make my mind up on how to vote based on a post I read on boards.ie. Don't be daft. I am a bit more reasoned than that, so there is no need to give me that advice. My issue is with how the debate is stifled as a whole including coverage in the media. Does that address your "point" I am "avoiding"?

One never knows where one might find the data one might reason over however. I would not rule out a post on boards changing your mind. I would not even BE here if posts on here did not change my mind on things every so often.

Never rule out _any_ source of change is my position - ever after hours - or you are not being as "reasoned" as you might think. It can come from anywhere.

The Masculinist · 22-12-2014 10:57pm

Deleted User wrote: »

One never knows where one might find the data one might reason over however. I would not rule out a post on boards changing your mind. I would not even BE here if posts on here did not change my mind on things every so often.

Never rule out _any_ source of change is my position - ever after hours - or you are not being as "reasoned" as you might think. It can come from anywhere.

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

Annasopra · 22-12-2014 11:00pm

Clandestine wrote: »

There are, but how groundbreaking they are is subjective:

-When people get married they get tax breaks (as far as I know) More people getting married means less tax revenue... which may lead to cuts.
-Churches may be forced to have gay marriage ceremonies when they don't want to perform them. If in the law its not seen as "discrimination" then this isn't valid.

Number 1 is not relevant because gay couples in civil partnerships already have the same tax status as married couples

Number 2 is not relevant and not true. Nobody in favour of equal civil marriage is suggesting forcing churches to marry anyone. That hasn't happened in any other countries either.

22-12-2014 11:02pm

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.

As do I. Great thing about forums though is you come face to face with many people who have (and alas even more who have not) done exactly that. A post on here might actually be the distillation of several months of engagement with a topic. Then again it is just as likely a post on here will be the distillation of 20 years of random baseless hate. One has to pick through it a bit

marienbad · 22-12-2014 11:02pm

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.

Good ,now we are making progress , so now you are going to engage in a broader analysis to reach your view. That is a monumental improvement on - some of the yes proponents are idiots so I am voting no to spite them.

That is my one and only point - if you are going to lecture others on maturity it behoves you to act maturely.

floggg · 22-12-2014 11:18pm

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.

And yet its also a fact that manipulation of the prostrate can result in great pleasure. Thats a biological fact - whether you care to admit it or not.

floggg · 22-12-2014 11:20pm

The Masculinist wrote: »

Before I answer this, why are you bringing the word "homophobe" into the debate? Have I made any homophobic comments thus far? Why are you using such emotive terminology which is essentially muddying the water? This is what I am talking about when I talk about the yes side stifling debate.

It was a hypothetical. Hence the use of the word "if."

If that is not your complaint as to the nature of the debate, please do inform me.

And asking a hypothetical doesnt stifle any debate.

Anita Blow · 22-12-2014 11:22pm

Having been following the thread the past few days, there really doesn't seem to be a credible reason against SSM. I do agree with some posters that the yes-voters need to stop hovering around undecided posts like vultures ready to shout "Why are you undecided!/Vote yes or you're a homophobe/religious nut! etc.". It does nothing for the yes side and surely the arguments for SSM are so strong that you should be confident that an undecided voter will naturally come to the right conclusion if SSM is the right thing to do.

On the other hand, 'No' posters here seem to be parroting on that all the yes side does is call them homophobes & berate them. Having seen the standard of 'No' arguments here, it is clear that a large proportion of them are genuinely homophobic. How anyone can argue that people saying "You're lucky you aren't considered criminals anymore", "we shouldn't be condoning homosexuality" etc. etc. isn't homophobic is ludicrous.
Based on this thread, the majority of arguments against SSM are homophobic (Like the arguments above) and boil down to "Homosexuals are inferior/unnatural", while a minority aren't homophobic but are just plain stupid in my opinion "Voting no as a protest vote", "I'm opposed to state-sponsored marriage in general".

Ultimately I think that this referendum will pass relatively easily. Complacency on the yes-side will no doubt narrow the margins, but this isn't something as grey as the children's referendum or judge's pay. This is a fairly black & white issue which most will have made their mind up about long before polling day. As a college student myself, this is something a lot of young people are passionate about. The USI just registered over 20,000 college students, the majority of which (if not all, since they were registered as part of a pro-marriage equality campaign) will be voting yes. I'd argue this will be one of the biggest mobilisations of the youth vote any referendum has seen.

floggg · 22-12-2014 11:25pm

The Masculinist wrote: »

Quite simple really buddy! I believe that marriage is deeply flawed. I believe that it is overhyped in Ireland and many people feel forced into marriage due to age constraints and societal norms. In effect, I believe that it causes many problems when things go sour which leads to extra undue hardship. Anyone who has been through a divorce will trstify to this. Indeed, I believe that there are not enough arguements supporting the simple idea of marriage and the benefits it actually offers couples (straight or gay) to begin with. I believe that there are benefits in very specific situations which I am happy to go in to if you would like.

Hence, I believe that there is no reason to change the scope of marriage to include homosexuals as I believe marriage is flawed to begin with. Hence, I don't want to change the consititution when I believe marriage, as it currently stands, is flawed as is.

A no vote doesn't do anything to undermine marriage, or render a change. it just puts one group in an unequal position, and deprives them of a vote that another group has.

Its akin to saying i don't believe in a title system like the have, so i will vote no to a (hypothetical) referendum to change the rule allowing titles be conferred on white people only so that we can confer them on all races equally. The fact of the vote isn't to undermine titles, its to perpetuate inequality.

You may disagree with some laws, but as long as they exist, they should apply equally.

22-12-2014 11:32pm

tayto lover wrote: »

I posted some links on page 118 just to have proper debate but posters decided to ignore that post and trade insults with the wind-up posters.

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:

Of course, all things are rarely equal. Many heterosexual parents fail at child rearing while many same-sex parents succeed. Single parents are often wonderful parents. And, finally, people marry for many important reasons other than their desire to have children, whom some couples can’t have and others don’t want.

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.

Mr.Frame · 22-12-2014 11:32pm

At the time of writing this, there are over 100 pages of comments, some peoples "opinions" are quite surprising and dare I say some even shocking.

For those who "couldn't be bothered to vote as it doesn't affect me".I would urge anyone/everyone to use their vote regardless of what way you are going to vote . We are very lucky in this part of the world that we have that right,so don't waste it.

The referendum might not affect "you"(heterosexual man/woman) but the outcome will most definitely affect 1000s of LGBT PEOPLE.

I purposely wrote the word people in capitals, because judging by some the posters above ,gay people are some sort of deviant creature, with a "lifestyle",that is not to their liking.

Speaking as a gay man I can safely say I am not a deviant ,nor do I have a "gay lifestyle",whatever that is!

My "lifestyle" consists of getting up at 6.15am shower breakfast, then off to work. Home again at 7pm make dinner watch tv for an hour or two and hit the bed. I do that 5 sometimes 6 days a week .
At the weekends I may go for a pint or dinner out,(depending on finances)

There is also this perception (incorrectly) amongst many straight people, that gay PEOPLE are forever having sex,with every other gay man, non stop.
Not only that but the sex involved is that "disgusting act" anal sex.

First off, gay men are no more promiscuous than heterosexual men.

Just think, for a minute about any straight guy going out on a night out, he meets the lads in town ,has a few drinks and "hopes to get lucky with someone"( i.e. a girl), or "get his hole".

As for the sex that the gays engage in ,well again it's a huge misconception that all they do is have anal sex. WRONG.

Recent survey taken last year (cant think who did it) showed that 61% of gay men did not engage in anal sex, whereas over 50% of straight couples DID have anal sex. I as a gay man have never had anal sex nor have any of my gay friends.
Funny that.

Why look upon gay people in a sexualise manner, why not look at us as being the very same as you,only attracted to someone of the same sex. That's it, nothing more nothing less.

The forthcoming referendum, (if passed) will not destroy marriage as we know it,nor will society collapse.

To those planning on voting NO, please ask yourself what impact will me marrying my long term partner have on your daily life? How will our relationship impact on your relationship?

All I wish for, is to be allowed the opportunity to have the same as you, i.e. the choice of marrying the love of my life. To share our love for each other in the presence of family and friends in a 30 minute CIVIL ceremony.

I respect peoples religious views, but this referendum is a civil matter and will have no bearing on your religious beliefs.

It's incredible that I as an Irish citizen born and bred here, has to ask other Irish citizens to vote yes so I can have what you take for granted, the choice to marry my partner. But unfortunately that's our constitution for you.

I do not for one minute think it's a given that the outcome will be a yes, but I do hope it will be.Not just for my future happiness but for future generations to come.

I have to say I dread the coming months lead up to the referendum. It will get incredibly nasty ,I as a gay man will be equated to a paedophile, a deviant and abnormal ect ect .

I am none of the above,I am simply a normal guy, doing normal things, who happens to have fallen in love with another man.

Our wish is that we can marry here in Ireland in 2015 , YOU can make that happen for us.,

bodice ripper · 22-12-2014 11:34pm

Clandestine wrote: »

There are, but how groundbreaking they are is subjective:

-When people get married they get tax breaks (as far as I know) More people getting married means less tax revenue... which may lead to cuts.
-Churches may be forced to have gay marriage ceremonies when they don't want to perform them. If in the law its not seen as "discrimination" then this isn't valid.

Isn't it still legal to fire a gay teacher if your school has a Catholic ethos? I'd say that puts a pretty big hole in the "what if they force the Churches?" argument.

shruikan2553 · 22-12-2014 11:39pm

tayto lover wrote: »

I posted some links on page 118 just to have proper debate but posters decided to ignore that post and trade insults with the wind-up posters.

I only had a chance to have a look at the first link but its all stuff we have seen before.

1. Religion: Religion doesnt matter, I am an atheist and my girlfriend is an agnostic, we wont be having a wedding with any connection to religion so whatever a religion thinks is pointless to us. Members of that religion can follow that religions version of religion.

2. Tradition and children: I could marry a black girl (Im white) and divorce her and have no children in the relationship. Nobody cares. In some countries marrying children could be seen as traditional. Tradition does not always mean right. Nobody questions my girlfriends health problems which may make conceiving difficult.

3. Some gay people dont want to get married: They dont have to get married, its not going to be forced on everyone. I can marry a woman if I want and other men can marry men if they want.

4. I cant believe its not marriage: It makes no sense, you can get married just dont call it marriage.

5. Doesnt really apply here.

Overall it is the same arguments that comes up time and again which contain no reason why we should prevent two people of the same gender to marry.

Mark Tapley · 22-12-2014 11:43pm

The Masculinist wrote: »

Why are you not answering my question?

I am not going to make my mind up on how to vote based on a post I read on boards.ie. Don't be daft. I am a bit more reasoned than that, so there is no need to give me that advice. My issue is with how the debate is stifled as a whole including coverage in the media. Does that address your "point" I am "avoiding"?

I'm not sure if you have a real point to make or are just being a contrarian. Voting no because of your perception of how the media deals with the debate seems a bit sulky.

The Masculinist · 23-12-2014 12:06am

Mark Tapley wrote: »

I'm not sure if you have a real point to make or are just being a contrarian. Voting no because of your perception of how the media deals with the debate seems a bit sulky.

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.

The Masculinist wrote: »

I will be voting no for two reasons;

1. A protest vote. I disagree how people who have a different viewpoint are labelled as biggots, hate filled and soforth. Surely in a free society we can listen to eachothers views and debate in a civil, logical manner.
2. I have a very different view on marriage. Depending on how mature posters are here I may elaborate on this later. I think that it is pretty controvertial and certainly unconventional.

I have no issue with homosexuals being in relationships, forming civil partnerships and soforth. I do have a problem how debate is stiffled in relation to this topic and it is making me veer towards the no side as a result.

Nodin · 23-12-2014 12:16am

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?

Nodin · 23-12-2014 12:18am

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.

Mark Tapley · 23-12-2014 12:49am

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.

floggg · 23-12-2014 12:53am

endacl wrote: »

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

Probably the bans.

irishfeen · 23-12-2014 12:54am

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 · 23-12-2014 1:06am

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.

floggg · 23-12-2014 1:11am

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 · 23-12-2014 1:16am

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 · 23-12-2014 1:21am

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.

Billy86 · 23-12-2014 1:22am

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.

Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

Comments