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

How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

Options
1…34689…335

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    jimboblep wrote: »
    I disagree any vote and especially a referendum to change the constitution should be argued from both sides and let it stand or fall on its own merits

    I feel I need to clarify my position on this as regards extending civil rights to gay people thts the correct and moral thing to do
    I am not argueing on any MORAL RELIGOUS OR HOMOPHOBIC GROUNDS


    You said you would consider voting no based on the dodgy arguments being used by the yes side. However the no side also use dodgy arguments, which you have completely ignored. Do you not see why this would make people think you were leaning towards the no side to begin with? I'm not saying you are or were, by the way.


  • Options
    #153
    jimboblep
    Registered Users Posts: 546 ✭✭✭jimboblep


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    So you're voting out of moral spite then?

    I havent fully decided how im going to vote but its this very attitude that you are displaying by trying to get a little dig in at me which has led me to even contemplate a no vote


  • Options
    #154
    jimboblep
    Registered Users Posts: 546 ✭✭✭jimboblep


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    You said you would consider voting no based on the dodgy arguments being used by the yes side. However the no side also use dodgy arguments, which you have completely ignored. Do you not see why this would make people think you were leaning towards the no side to begin with? I'm not saying you are or were, by the way.

    Not the dodgy arguments just the attitude of presumption
    this vote does not affect me so if they want me to get out and vote they should at least have the courtesy of explaining why


  • Options
    #155
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    jimboblep wrote: »
    I havent fully decided how im going to vote but its this very attitude that you are displaying by trying to get a little dig in at me which has led me to even contemplate a no vote

    Its pretty simple Jim, either you agree that gay people should be allowed to marry or you don't. If you are undecided as to which way to vote ignore the talking heads and do your own research and find out the facts then see how you feel. I don't understand why you would choose which box to tick based on the campaigners. Its got nothing to do with the issue at hand.


  • Options
    #156
    Venus In Furs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,028 ✭✭✭Venus In Furs


    jimboblep wrote: »
    I havent fully decided how im going to vote but its this very attitude that you are displaying by trying to get a little dig in at me which has led me to even contemplate a no vote
    What attitude? :confused:
    You posted that you're thinking of voting no PURELY to get a little dig at those yes voters who piss you off - people have queried it; that's how a discussion works.

    Some yes voters piss me off too - so I just ignore them and focus on how I feel about the issue at hand, seeing as that's what matters.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,044 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    RobertKK wrote: »
    That is one of the reasons I don't support heterosexual civil marriage. To me a church marriage is marriage, not the piece of paper you have to sign for the state to say you are married.
    I don't believe the state has a right to define marriage.
    Why should polygamists be not allowed to marry as many as they want at the same time.
    Because the state says so?
    It was only 22 years ago that the state laws said it was illegal to be homosexual.

    That's actually sayign the exact opposite: that the church has a right to dictate state policy regarding inheritance rights and taxations for married couples.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Options
    #158
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,548 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    jimboblep wrote: »
    I havent fully decided how im going to vote but its this very attitude that you are displaying by trying to get a little dig in at me which has led me to even contemplate a no vote

    And this attitude is what's leaving people more and more frustrated. What would you call it so?
    I've read and/or been involved in nearly all ssm or related topics on Boards. Every single one, the no vote has been more vicious and more nasty in their comments. You still haven't explained why that's okay for you, and people getting frustrated isn't. Not a single argument has been presented for the no vote that makes sense. Not one. Yet you're thinking of punishing the yes vote for vague replies? Why?


  • Options
    #159
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,044 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    jimboblep wrote: »
    I havent fully decided how im going to vote but its this very attitude that you are displaying by trying to get a little dig in at me which has led me to even contemplate a no vote

    I know people who claim to vote yes to annoy their religious parents and grandparents and I find that just as bizarre as what you're saying here.

    This referendum, for me, is more interesting not because of how people vote but their reasoning in doing so. And trying to dictate morals to other people is one of the worst and most condescending reasons - and it's something you are both accusing other people of and guilty of.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Options
    #160
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    To highlight the inconsistancy in your argument.

    As far as I can see, the no campaing comes from three different viewpoints:
    - homophobia
    - religion (why shuold I accept YOUR interpretation of "God's word"?)(What if I'm an atheist/agnostic/other faith?)
    - moral (why are your morals more important than mine?)

    The homophobic argument it the only one that doesn't actully reek of condescention or the idea that someone else claims to know more about social morality than I do, and I shoud really just accept their word without question.

    If there is another argument, then I've yet to hear it.

    Ok, try this:

    Marraige is a contract between two non-related people of opposing gender primarily focused on underpinning the family unit.

    Pulling asunder that which constitutes marriage - nullifies and/or trivialises marriage.

    There you go. No homophobia - no hatred - no hysteria - no Iona - no heckling and no hysteria.


  • Options
    #161
    Blahblah2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 397 ✭✭Blahblah2012


    What is the necessity to make gay marriage = straight marriage?
    Because quite simply...they aren't the same! That doesn't mean the relationships aren't of equal importance and relevance to the people involved and their families and should be viewed the same in law.
    There should be a distinction because in practical terms there is.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    reprise wrote: »
    Ok, try this:

    Marraige is a contract between two non-related people of opposing gender primarily focused on underpinning the family unit.

    Pulling asunder that which constitutes marriage - nullifies and/or trivialises marriage.

    There you go. No homophobia - no hatred - no hysteria - no Iona - no heckling and no hysteria.

    Don't speak for me. I'm married and have a traditional family. Whether gay couples can get married has nothing to do with that. I won't feel my marriage is threatened or in anyway diluted by the fact Paddy and Mick can get married. If anything more people getting married strengthens marriage.


  • Options
    #163
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    reprise wrote: »
    Ok, try this:

    Marraige is a contract between two non-related people of opposing gender primarily focused on underpinning the family unit.

    Pulling asunder that which constitutes marriage - nullifies and/or trivialises marriage.

    There you go. No homophobia - no hatred - no hysteria - no Iona - no heckling and no hysteria.

    Opposite sex couples who can't or don't wish to have children. Your move.


  • Options
    #164
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,704 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    I will be voting no.


  • Options
    #165
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,548 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    Ok, try this:

    Marraige is a contract between two non-related people of opposing gender primarily focused on underpinning the family unit.

    Pulling asunder that which constitutes marriage - nullifies and/or trivialises marriage.

    There you go. No homophobia - no hatred - no hysteria - no Iona - no heckling and no hysteria.

    The bolded parts are debatable.


  • Options
    #166
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Voting no, it is not about equality, it doesn't allow polygamy or bigamy. It doesn't cater for bisexuals who may want to marry a person from both sexes.
    If people want marriage redefined, why not allow multiple husbands or wives?
    We are told it is about love and equality, but then prevents a woman from having both a husband and wife, or more, or a man having both a husband and wife or more if he wanted.
    Does this referendum want bisexuals to have people whom they are married to and a mistress or another man involved in the marriage whom they are not married to?

    Surely the current wording doesn't go far enough for the LGBT lobby groups? It doesn't cater for bisexuals.

    Voting no as I would rather a whole new system of marriage without state involvement.


    Bisexuals have a special area of the brain devoted to spotting insincere concern, I now have a full blown migraine.


  • Options
    #167
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    jimboblep wrote: »
    Not the dodgy arguments just the attitude of presumption
    this vote does not affect me so if they want me to get out and vote they should at least have the courtesy of explaining why

    Ok then, my mistake.

    Why then do you find the attitude of presumption so much worse than the gay bashing/'think of the children' nonsense being peddled by the no campaign?


  • Options
    #168
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,729 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I had my wedding in a registry office. Is my marriage not a marriage then?

    The problem is, it is the state defining your marriage, not you defining what your marriage is.
    That to you is what marriage is, it is not what marriage is to me. I have a relation who got married in the registry office abroad. I had to pretend I was happy and all that when told as she told no one, but deep down I was thinking to me that wasn't marriage. To her it is, and so in her own eyes she is married, so fine.

    Jingle_Balls wrote: »
    So, you don't believe in a marriage with state involvement, but it's cool for the church to do it and define it? What about people of different religions? Does that exclude them?

    I do appreciate your honesty in admitting the religious belief behind your choices

    It should be fine for the church/religious groups, secular groups, gay groups, polygamy groups or whoever you want to define it for their own people and people choose what is marriage to them. Not the state defining it for everyone like it has some God given right to.
    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    There's nothing stopping you from having a church marriage and not personally recognising any other marriages. I don't understand why you think this definition of marriage should be forced upon the entire state, however.

    Sorry but the definition of marriage is forced on everyone by the state. My views allows far more freedom, so if I got married in the church, you may think it is not marriage, but you may get married in lets say a humanist ceremony and that to you is marriage., and everyone is happy, and everyone has more freedom, and we wouldn't need referendums to allow same sex marriage, because the people would own marriage, not the state so same sex marriage wouldn't be an issue.
    The state just defines it for everyone like it is the God we must listen to, and it gives no choice.


  • Options
    #169
    AnonoBoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭AnonoBoy


    With a pencil most likely.


  • Options
    #170
    Slot Machine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 126 ✭✭Slot Machine


    jimboblep wrote: »
    I havent fully decided how im going to vote but its this very attitude that you are displaying by trying to get a little dig in at me which has led me to even contemplate a no vote

    Well in fairness you sound like your only business in the thread is to be contrarian and generally stir the ****.

    I've seen this exact thing happen in previous threads: snarkily insinuating that only one side has to play nice with you to win your vote. Frankly, I doubt you're even going to vote if this is how seriously you're treating the matter.


  • Options
    #171
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    RobertKK wrote: »
    The problem is, it is the state defining your marriage, not you defining what your marriage is.
    That to you is what marriage is, it is not what marriage is to me. I have a relation who got married in the registry office abroad. I had to pretend I was happy and all that when told as she told no one, but deep down I was thinking to me that wasn't marriage. To her it is, and so in her own eyes she is married, so fine.
    No, the state is simply verifying the marriage in the eyes of the state/law. It isn't defining it. It's simply a contract.



    It should be fine for the church/religious groups, secular groups, gay groups, polygamy groups or whoever you want to define it for their own people and people choose what is marriage to them. Not the state defining it for everyone like it has some God given right to.
    And what exactly do we do about polygamous divorces? A complete mess from a legal standpoint. I get what you're saying, and in a perfect world it would be lovely, but it's a massive oversimplification to just say we can toss out state involvement in marriage.


    Sorry but the definition of marriage is forced on everyone by the state. My views allows far more freedom, so if I got married in the church, you may think it is not marriage, but you may get married in lets say a humanist ceremony and that to you is marriage., and everyone is happy, and everyone has more freedom, and we wouldn't need referendums to allow same sex marriage, because the people would own marriage, not the state so same sex marriage wouldn't be an issue.
    The state just defines it for everyone like it is the God we must listen to, and it gives no choice.
    More freedom, yes, but also much less protection. I feel like you haven't thought this through fully.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,044 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    reprise wrote: »
    Ok, try this:

    Marraige is a contract between two non-related people of opposing gender primarily focused on underpinning the family unit.

    Pulling asunder that which constitutes marriage - nullifies and/or trivialises marriage.

    There you go. No homophobia - no hatred - no hysteria - no Iona - no heckling and no hysteria.

    If you rered the post, I listed three grounds for obkection, none of which feaatured the word "hysteria", "hared", "Iona" or "heckling".

    I'd consider your startmetns to be objections on moral gorunds (although uncertain, because you'd need to elaborate on why).

    The first one - could be argued that this is being interpreted that people who dont intend to have children or cant have children should be from forbidden to marry - says who?
    The second one - who gets to say what constitutes marriage? Why?

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Options
    #173
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,548 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    RobertKK wrote: »


    Sorry but the definition of marriage is forced on everyone by the state. My views allows far more freedom, so if I got married in the church, you may think it is not marriage, but you may get married in lets say a humanist ceremony and that to you is marriage., and everyone is happy, and everyone has more freedom, and we wouldn't need referendums to allow same sex marriage, because the people would own marriage, not the state so same sex marriage wouldn't be an issue.
    The state just defines it for everyone like it is the God we must listen to, and it gives no choice.

    The reason it needs to go through the state is for legal reasons, them reasons being the only reason I'd consider even getting married. In an ideal world, you wouldn't have to get married for those reasons but you do. We have to work with what we're given unfortunately.


  • Options
    #174
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    RobertKK wrote: »
    The problem is, it is the state defining your marriage, not you defining what your marriage is.
    That to you is what marriage is, it is not what marriage is to me. I have a relation who got married in the registry office abroad. I had to pretend I was happy and all that when told as she told no one, but deep down I was thinking to me that wasn't marriage. To her it is, and so in her own eyes she is married, so fine.

    I don't really understand the point you are making.

    If you support a church wedding as the only real wedding then are you not letting the church define what your marriage is, is the fact the church has expectations of married couples not defining your marriage.

    All we did was turn up on a day and say our vows - which we wrote by the way. We didn't have to promise to have children or to stay together forever or anything like that. The state didn't tell me what my marriage should be, we define our marriage every day. The state simply witnessed and facilitated it so that an offical record exists to show that he is my husband and I am his wife.

    I respect those who choose to marry in a church but not everyone can, not everyone wants to. Why should only a Catholic marriage be valid in a country where we have people of all faiths and none. In your example I wouldn't have been able to get married at all as I'm not eligible to marry in a church. The state at least gave me that option.


  • Options
    #175
    Venus In Furs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,028 ✭✭✭Venus In Furs


    reprise wrote: »
    Ok, try this:

    Marraige is a contract between two non-related people of opposing gender primarily focused on underpinning the family unit.

    Pulling asunder that which constitutes marriage - nullifies and/or trivialises marriage.
    Grand IMO to say that, even if I feel the status quo should be changed; it's honest rather than the "Bisexuals won't be able to marry two people", "I'm voting no just to spite yes voters who annoy me" stuff.
    Blahblah2012 wrote: »
    What is the necessity to make gay marriage = straight marriage?
    Because quite simply...they aren't the same! That doesn't mean the relationships aren't of equal importance and relevance to the people involved and their families and should be viewed the same in law.
    There should be a distinction because in practical terms there is.
    Seeking equal rights doesn't mean also thinking hetero and homosexual marriages are the same. Although, same-sex and inability to have a child together (not that marriage always = children)... I don't see any other differences tbh.


  • Options
    #176
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    reprise wrote: »
    Marraige is a contract between two non-related people of opposing gender primarily focused on underpinning the family unit.

    What about people who get married but don't have children and have no intention of ever having children by your definition they aren't underpinning the family unit. Does that mean that their union is not quite a proper marriage?

    Edit - Also these days what is a definition of a family unit?


  • Options
    #177
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Don't speak for me. I'm married and have a traditional family. Whether gay couples can get married has nothing to do with that. I won't feel my marriage is threatened or in anyway diluted by the fact Paddy and Mick can get married. If anything more people getting married strengthens marriage.

    I am not speaking for you. I was merely providing a non-trivial argument for the no side that wasn't homophobic or ranting.
    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Opposite sex couples who can't or don't wish to have children. Your move.

    Accidents will happen. People change their minds.
    sup_dude wrote: »
    The bolded parts are debatable.

    They won't debate themselves.


  • Options
    #178
    Blahblah2012
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 397 ✭✭Blahblah2012


    Venus In Furs wrote: »

    Seeking equal rights doesn't mean also thinking hetero and homosexual marriages are the same. Although, same-sex and inability to have a child together (not that marriage always = children)... I don't see any other differences tbh.

    Not true. This referendum WILL make same sex marriage = mixed sex marriage.....when clearly they are not.

    Are same sex couples embarrassed of the fact they are different from mixed sex couples or what is the fascination/obsession with being classified the same?


  • Options
    #179
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,548 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    I am not speaking for you. I was merely providing a non-trivial argument for the no side that wasn't homophobic or ranting.



    Accidents will happen. People change their minds.



    They won't debate themselves.

    But wasn't well thought out, nor justified.

    Accidents happen. What about people who can't have children? Are their marriages lesser than those who can? As for the opposing gender, this is what this and many other threads are talking about.


  • Options
    #180
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    reprise wrote: »
    I am not speaking for you. I was merely providing a non-trivial argument for the no side that wasn't homophobic or ranting.

    I'd like more explanation of that point. Tell me why I should vote no. Tell me why my marriage is under threat is the referendum passes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Yes of course accidents happen but if marriage exists as a foundation for the family unit surely those who do not wish or are not able to have Children should also be denied permission to marry.

    *I don't actually think this of course, but it seems like the logical path to take from your argument.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement