Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

Options
1…6263656768…72

Comments

  • Options
    #1922
    keeponhurling
    Registered Users Posts: 5,153 ✭✭✭keeponhurling


    I see in the UK now, the hetrosexuals are trying to make civil partnership more inclusive, i.e. for all people.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30586950

    I think it makes sense, hetrosexual couples can have all the legal rights, without having to participate in something with religious connotations.


  • Options
    #1923
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    keeponhurling wrote: »
    I think it makes sense, hetrosexual couples can have all the legal rights, without having to participate in something with religious connotations.

    Civil Marriage has no religious connection either.

    In any case unless we remove the part about marriage having a special place and it can't be attacked, civil partnerships will not have the same rights here.


  • Options
    #1924
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,034 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    We need some violins

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

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #1925
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    keeponhurling wrote: »
    The only way it would swing to No at this stage would be if the Yes-side ran a very bad PR campaign.

    Which is possible, as there is somewhat of a culture of abusing people who hold views other than Yes.

    There are of course many voters who don't particularly care and would be leaning towards Yes, so as long as they aren't turned off, I think it'll pass

    I think this is pretty simplistic view of it. The Yes side running a bad PR campaign is not going to be the be all and end all of it. The No campaign will be preying on the fears of people with unsubstantiated claims about the ill effects of same sex marriage on society which will be very hard to fight against. Just look at the problems that exists today with the MMR vaccine even though it's been proven conclusively to have no link to autism. Also, the notion that the No side can be free to say whatever they like, no matter how underhand, and yet if the Yes side are seen to not be all sweetness and light, they'll be crucified for it and people will vote against them because of it- that to me seems slightly insane.

    Another big problem that is happening is the No side calling foul when their motives for voting no are called into question.

    'I'm voting no because I believe in the tradition of marriage and it's better for children like this!'

    'Well, this viewpoint is completely outdated and not supported by research'

    'STOP ATTACKING ME!!!'


  • Options
    #1926
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,164 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    I think this is pretty simplistic view of it. The Yes side running a bad PR campaign is not going to be the be all and end all of it. The No campaign will be preying on the fears of people with unsubstantiated claims about the ill effects of same sex marriage on society which will be very hard to fight against. Just look at the problems that exists today with the MMR vaccine even though it's been proven conclusively to have no link to autism. Also, the notion that the No side can be free to say whatever they like, no matter how underhand, and yet if the Yes side are seen to not be all sweetness and light, they'll be crucified for it and people will vote against them because of it- that to me seems slightly insane.

    Another big problem that is happening is the No side calling foul when their motives for voting no are called into question.

    'I'm voting no because I believe in the tradition of marriage and it's better for children like this!'

    'Well, this viewpoint is completely outdated and not supported by research'

    'STOP ATTACKING ME!!!'

    The no campaign will be very similar to the No campaign against divorce

    http://irishelectionliterature.wordpress.com/category/divorce/

    They were all about "Hello Divorce, bye bye daddy"

    Ironically the top bit here "Do you want to deprive people of a life long marriage?" Is the reason many will vote yes.
    http://irishelectionliterature.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/nodiv86a.jpg

    Just to add, there's a letter from Michael D on the first link:)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1927
    keeponhurling
    Registered Users Posts: 5,153 ✭✭✭keeponhurling


    kunst nugget wrote: »

    'I'm voting no because I believe in the tradition of marriage and it's better for children like this!'

    'Well, this viewpoint is completely outdated and not supported by research'

    '

    I would say a better answer would be
    "You're entitled to your view, but I think it would actually be better for children if you vote Yes, because of <insert reasonable argument(s) here>."


  • Options
    #1928
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    keeponhurling wrote: »
    I would say a better answer would be
    "You're entitled to your view, but I think it would actually be better for children if you vote Yes, because of <insert reasonable argument(s) here>."

    No, a child needs a mother and father. I find the idea of two men raising a child to be creepy.

    Damn, sarcasm gone. I'm fully gay and my fully gay cousin and his boyf are happily raising a fully happy child.


  • Options
    #1929
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Daith wrote: »
    No, a child needs a mother and father. I find the idea of two men raising a child to be creepy.

    Why?


  • Options
    #1930
    ZiabR
    Registered Users Posts: 5,575 ✭✭✭ZiabR


    Just a thought, why is there not a poll on this thread?

    Will you be voting in the referendum?

    Yes:
    No:

    Would also be nice to see how many would be voting Yes Vs No?


  • Options
    #1931
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    Why?

    I don't really. It's just the general answer you get.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1932
    keeponhurling
    Registered Users Posts: 5,153 ✭✭✭keeponhurling


    logik wrote: »
    Just a thought, why is there not a poll on this thread?

    Will you be voting in the referendum?

    Yes:
    No:

    Would also be nice to see how many would be voting Yes Vs No?

    maybe 3 options

    Yes:
    No:
    Undecided:

    or 5 options, splitting Yes/No into definitely Yes/No, probably Yes/No


  • Options
    #1933
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,261 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Daith wrote: »
    No, a child needs a mother and father. I find the idea of two men raising a child to be creepy.

    Don't raise a child with a another man, so. Creepiness avoided and problem solved.


  • Options
    #1934
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,261 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    I had a lovely rogan josh last night. I hope people who support traditional dinners didn't experience their meat and two veg as being undermined or devalued at all in any way.

    Perhaps it made no difference to their dinner at all?

    *analogy ends*

    This debate is fcucking stupid.


  • Options
    #1935
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,634 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    endacl wrote: »
    I had a lovely rogan josh last night. I hope people who support traditional dinners didn't experience their meat and two veg as being undermined or devalued at all in any way.

    Perhaps it made no difference to their dinner at all?

    *analogy ends*

    This debate is fcucking stupid.

    Well played.


  • Options
    #1936
    keeponhurling
    Registered Users Posts: 5,153 ✭✭✭keeponhurling


    endacl wrote: »
    I had a lovely rogan josh last night. I hope people who support traditional dinners didn't experience their meat and two veg as being undermined or devalued at all in any way.

    Perhaps it made no difference to their dinner at all?

    *analogy ends*

    This debate is fcucking stupid.

    Well, if you are in a debate trying to convince people, the other people might be making arguments to support their view (and generally it's easier to persuade people not to make changes),

    and you come out with "this debate is focking stupid", or "this debate isn't relevant to you", then you're not going to be convincing many people of the merit of your arguments.


  • Options
    #1937
    Magico Gonzalez
    Registered Users Posts: 2,328 ✭✭✭Magico Gonzalez


    endacl wrote: »
    I had a lovely rogan josh last night. I hope people who support traditional dinners didn't experience their meat and two veg as being undermined or devalued at all in any way.

    Perhaps it made no difference to their dinner at all?

    *analogy ends*

    This debate is fcucking stupid.

    The important question is whether your rogan josh consumption:

    1. Made Baby Jesus Cry
    2. Did Not Make Baby Jesus Cry

    Let's get to the crux of the matter here.


  • Options
    #1938
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    keeponhurling wrote: »
    and you come out with "this debate is focking stupid", or "this debate isn't relevant to you", then you're not going to be convincing many people of the merit of your arguments.

    The No have no arguments at all. Not one. Yet it's the Yes side who constantly have to do persuade people?

    You either vote yes for equality or you vote no for inequality.


  • Options
    #1939
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    endacl wrote: »
    Don't raise a child with a another man, so. Creepiness avoided and problem solved.


    It's not as simplistic as that though, is it? And this is why I'm saying that it's equally important to ensure that the children of LGBT marriages are provided equal protection of the State, because right now they're not, because LGBT marriages outside the State aren't recognised is one thing, but also if one of the parties in the marriage has children from a previous relationship, there may be custodial issues that would need to be legislated for.

    You cannot legislate however for one partner deciding that they don't want their child raised by another person, and that's something that will come up especially in relation to legislating for marriage equality - guardianship issues. So it's not so simple as saying "don't raise a child with another (wo)man", the previous partner may under legislation have no choice in the matter or the manner in which their children are raised, and then because of the way the children's referendum was passed, the State can simply step in and say "we're taking the child away now because you couldn't agree amongst yourselves" (well, not in so many words, but they now have that power!).


    Or, y'know, we could just break out the violins, or talk about lovey dovey, rather than discuss complications and legal issues that may arise from whether the referendum passes or fails, since we seem to be gone from taking it seriously to descending to the facetious.


  • Options
    #1940
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Magico Gonzalez wrote: »
    The important question is whether your rogan josh consumption:

    1. Made Baby Jesus Cry
    2. Did Not Make Baby Jesus Cry

    Let's get to the crux of the matter here.

    Yes, sure rogan josh has been around forever but is it natural?


  • Options
    #1941
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,261 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    keeponhurling wrote: »
    Well, if you are in a debate trying to convince people, the other people might be making arguments to support their view (and generally it's easier to persuade people not to make changes),

    and you come out with "this debate is focking stupid", or "this debate isn't relevant to you", then you're not going to be convincing many people of the merit of your arguments.

    I know. I agree. Conversation doesn't shift prejudice though. Experience does.

    It's the fact that the debate is happening at all that I find stupid.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1942
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Or, y'know, we could just break out the violins, or talk about lovey dovey, rather than discuss complications and legal issues that may arise from whether the referendum passes or fails, since we seem to be gone from taking it seriously to descending to the facetious.

    The referendum has nothing to do with children though regardless if it fails or passes.


  • Options
    #1943
    Magico Gonzalez
    Registered Users Posts: 2,328 ✭✭✭Magico Gonzalez


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    It's not as simplistic as that though, is it? And this is why I'm saying that it's equally important to ensure that the children of LGBT marriages are provided equal protection of the State, because right now they're not, because LGBT marriages outside the State aren't recognised is one thing, but also if one of the parties in the marriage has children from a previous relationship, there may be custodial issues that would need to be legislated for.

    You cannot legislate however for one partner deciding that they don't want their child raised by another person, and that's something that will come up especially in relation to legislating for marriage equality - guardianship issues. So it's not so simple as saying "don't raise a child with another (wo)man", the previous partner may under legislation have no choice in the matter or the manner in which their children are raised, and then because of the way the children's referendum was passed, the State can simply step in and say "we're taking the child away now because you couldn't agree amongst yourselves" (well, not in so many words, but they now have that power!).


    Or, y'know, we could just break out the violins, or talk about lovey dovey, rather than discuss complications and legal issues that may arise from whether the referendum passes or fails, since we seem to be gone from taking it seriously to descending to the facetious.

    Once you have an actual serious point to make, rather than muddying the waters with irrelevant and poorly illustrated examples we'll have the string quartet pack up and the silly jokes will stop.

    You don't though, so,...YAY.


  • Options
    #1944
    fran17
    Registered Users Posts: 1,264 ✭✭✭fran17


    david75 wrote: »
    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.

    Yes you see what is quite evident here that every now and then the mask slips and the true feelings and beliefs of people such as this one surfaces.
    david75 wrote: »
    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.

    I would highly recommend that this person,not all people,work on his own life and issues before attempting to become a parent as he wishes to do.There probably are some gay couples out there who would make fine parents and that should be dealt with on a case by case basis.However in the case of the average,garden variety type I believe opening up this to all would be a social and civic calamity.
    As our law currently stands a couple must be married to make an application to adopt a child and if this referendum is passed then Pandora's box is opened and the people of Ireland need to think long and hard about this.There is far more involved here than marriage.


  • Options
    #1945
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Daith wrote: »
    The referendum has nothing to do with children though regardless if it fails or passes.


    Perhaps not from your perspective, and that's fair enough, but from my perspective it certainly does, and not in a moralising "won't somebody think of the children" sort of way, as I've already established that anyone, regardless of their gender, race, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, etc, is capable of raising a child to be a healthy and mature and well-rounded adult, but if this referendum fails, then because of the children and families bill, those children are considered members of a 'de facto' family (see the EHCR Austria decision), and are not then offered the equal status as those children in heterosexual marriages, thereby only offered what I would consider legally the same sub-standard status that LGBT people are currently subjected to.


  • Options
    #1946
    Magico Gonzalez
    Registered Users Posts: 2,328 ✭✭✭Magico Gonzalez


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Perhaps not from your perspective, and that's fair enough, but from my perspective it certainly does, and not in a moralising "won't somebody think of the children" sort of way, as I've already established that anyone, regardless of their gender, race, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, etc, is capable of raising a child to be a healthy and mature and well-rounded adult, but if this referendum fails, then because of the children and families bill, those children are considered members of a 'de facto' family (see the EHCR Austria decision), and are not then offered the equal status as those children in heterosexual marriages, thereby only offered what I would consider legally the same sub-standard status that LGBT people are currently subjected to.

    Another good reason to vote yes then?


  • Options
    #1947
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,634 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    fran17 wrote: »
    Yes you see what is quite evident here that every now and then the mask slips and the true feelings and beliefs of people such as this one surfaces.

    Which of course we never see happening on the 'No' side.


    I would highly recommend that this person,not all people,work on his own life and issues before attempting to become a parent as he wishes to do.There probably are some gay couples out there who would make fine parents and that should be dealt with on a case by case basis.However in the case of the average,garden variety type I believe opening up this to all would be a social and civic calamity.
    As our law currently stands a couple must be married to make an application to adopt a child and if this referendum is passed then Pandora's box is opened and the people of Ireland need to think long and hard about this.There is far more involved here than marriage.
    Yes, it's almost as if these things should be judged on a case to case basis rather than grouping people based solely on their sexuality. You're so, so close to getting the point here it's actually amazing you still manage to miss it.


  • Options
    #1948
    raze_them_all_
    Registered Users Posts: 6,744 ✭✭✭raze_them_all_


    Let the gays be miserable in marriage I say!


  • Options
    #1949
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Magico Gonzalez wrote: »
    Once you have an actual serious point to make, rather than muddying the waters with irrelevant and poorly illustrated examples we'll have the string quartet pack up and the silly jokes will stop.

    You don't though, so,...YAY.


    Oh please, don't stop making jokes about people's lives on my account, sure you'll get no thanks for that, I couldn't care less about your peurile attempts at ridicule tbh, you're hardly the first, but be careful using the word "we" as if every person who is an advocate for marriage equality agrees with you behaving like an immature prick.


  • Options
    #1950
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    fran17 wrote: »
    As our law currently stands a couple must be married to make an application to adopt a child and if this referendum is passed then Pandora's box is opened and the people of Ireland need to think long and hard about this.There is far more involved here than marriage.

    No the ability of gay couples to adopt has nothing to do with this referendum. It has been explained dozens of times already.

    If the referendum fails, gay couples will still be able to adopt

    The only question is whether two people regardless of sexuality can marry.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1951
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Magico Gonzalez wrote: »
    Another good reason to vote yes then?


    How can you vote 'yes' or 'no' based on wording you haven't even seen yet? That's my point - as much as I'm an advocate for marriage equality, I'd like to see what I'm being asked to vote on first before I make my decision so that we're not left in some legal quagmire 20 years from now.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement