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

Daith · 28-01-2015 02:53PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I think you may have missed the point I was making

You haven't made any points?

COYVB · 28-01-2015 02:54PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I fail to see the point of this post? Firstly, in Ireland no one can be "forced" to marry and secondly as I'm obviously heterosexual bringing a man into it is even more pointless.

The point is that gays being able to marry doesn't affect you, since you are neither gay, nor seeking to marry a man. It doesn't affect your way of life. It doesn't affect your religion, which most likely bans gay activity ensuring that according to your beliefs gay couples will be punished anyway.

It affects no part of your life, and yet you're STILL going to actively attempt to prevent it from being allowed

Ctrl Alt Delete · 28-01-2015 02:55PM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

How noble of you to respect human beings. Opinions are unworthy of respect. They are to be attacked, forever, so that only the valid stands. Get used to that, because we're not going to stop.

I wouldnt call it noble i'd would call common human decency.

You do realize right that naturally gays will of course gain equality including marriage in this country (even if not this referendum).

I'd be fair suprised to find someone who doesnt think it won't come to Ireland.

Daith · 28-01-2015 02:56PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

You do realize right that naturally gays will of course gain equality including marriage in this country (even if not this referendum).

Just that you won't support it in this referendum?

eviltwin · 28-01-2015 02:57PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I wouldnt call it noble i'd would call common human decency.

You do realize right that naturally gays will of course gain equality including marriage in this country (even if not this referendum).

I'd be fair suprised to find someone who doesnt think it won't come to Ireland.

So why make them wait? This is huge for gay people and their loved ones. You say you support gay rights, well prove it then!

B.A._Baracus · 28-01-2015 02:58PM

I can't be the only one who thinks these threads are nothing more than alot of people hoping.... begging... waiting for another user to come and say "I am voting no because XYZ" - Then for everyone to pounce on that poster at once

Like isn't this the 4th or 5th thread with a poll within the last year in After Hours.

Ctrl Alt Delete · 28-01-2015 02:59PM

eviltwin wrote: »

You obviously do see gay people as different. Going back to your gay friends, they aren't just some abstract group, you actually know these people, you must acknowledge each and every one of them is an individual with their own strengths and weaknesses independent of their sexuality. I don't see how then you can look beyond that and only focus on one part of their life. It just seems extremely judgemental and unfair.

I don't focus on one aspect of my gay friends however and I'm sure I don't need to explain but there are those that allow being homosexual "define" them (you know the queens / OTT type that piss off many a person in a bar.

So if they want to be defined that way I will oblige.

On the other hand, other gay friends are gay, they barely mention it and are open in public about it but don't ram it down your throat about their sexuality.

Slightly convaluted point but hopefully you understand what Im getting at

eviltwin · 28-01-2015 03:00PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I don't focus on one aspect of my gay friends however and I'm sure I don't need to explain but there are those that allow being homosexual "define" them (you know the queens / OTT type that piss off many a person in a bar.

So if they want to be defined that way I will oblige.

On the other hand, other gay friends are gay, they barely mention it and are open in public about it but don't ram it down your throat about their sexuality.

Slightly convaluted point but hopefully you understand what Im getting at

No not really. What is it about your friends that you don't think they will make suitable parents?

Ave Sodalis · 28-01-2015 03:01PM

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I can't be the only one who thinks these threads are nothing more than alot of people hoping.... begging... waiting for another user to come and say "I am voting no because XYZ" - Then for everyone to pounce on that poster at once

Like isn't this the 4th or 5th thread with a poll within the last year in After Hours.

I think it's more like people talking about their choices and then some people coming up with silly reasons to vote no and expecting others to grovel in order to change their vote

28-01-2015 03:02PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

You are 100% right in your rationale two is better than 1

We are agreed on that for sure then. But actually I was not just making the 2 is better than 1 point in terms of parenting. I think we all agree two parents sharing the task is better than 1.

But the point I was really making was then when the adoption agency is placing a child - IF there are two parents there it is better that know this information - rather than evaluating the case based on half the information.

In other words: Without gay marriage we have gay adopting couples already - but the adoption agencies do not have the full information while evaluating the case. WITH gay marriage we have exactly the same thing - but better informed agencies. So it is win-win and I see no reason why your choice to a "no" vote will therefore be the right one?

This is before you get into the idea that a child might grow up with gay parents from adoption - but without marriage if the actual adopting parent were to die - the unmarried gay partner - who the child likely sees as being a full parent - will have no rights to the child and it would be possibly taken away. How is this a good thing?

Given therefore that gay couples already adopt - a "no" vote will do literally nothing good - where a "yes" vote would. So in the light of this - does your position not therefore require some re-thought?

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Call it trolling , ignorant, call it whatever you want

I do not recall having called it anything - I have merely corrected your errors and highlighted the fallacious reasoning behind your position. I do attempt to do this without labeling or name calling of any sort - I think you will notice

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

, my upbringing in terms of family values, teachings and yes even religious views means I fundamently disagree with same sex marriage according to my personal values.

But no one is requring you enter into a same sex marriage. You can allow others to do so without compromising your personal values. However by voting like you intend to - the "my personal values" card is not a move you can make any more. Because it is not personal anymore. You are enforcing your personal values on others.

If your personal values are against gay marriage - then simply do not marry someone of the same sex. Problem solved. My personal values are against drinking until I get very drunk. Does not mean I feel I should stop anyone else doing it. "My personal values" sounds good on paper - but when you unpack it it says a lot less than you might think - and a lot more than you might want. It is essentially a cop out.

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

And frankly the pro side will have to engage with people like me with no fully rational reason en masse to win this referendum.

And how does one "engage" with people if their position is essentially "Just because"? There is an old saying that goes "You can not reason someone out of a position they did not first reason themselves into".

COYVB wrote: »

What exactly are the issues "with regard to the adoption of children" that the poster has? has anyone asked?

I did. No answer was forthcoming.

Annasopra · 28-01-2015 03:02PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I don't focus on one aspect of my gay friends however and I'm sure I don't need to explain but there are those that allow being homosexual "define" them (you know the queens / OTT type that piss off many a person in a bar.

So if they want to be defined that way I will oblige.

On the other hand, other gay friends are gay, they barely mention it and are open in public about it but don't ram it down your throat about their sexuality.

Slightly convaluted point but hopefully you understand what Im getting at

No. Havent a clue what you are on about.

Ave Sodalis · 28-01-2015 03:06PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I don't focus on one aspect of my gay friends however and I'm sure I don't need to explain but there are those that allow being homosexual "define" them (you know the queens / OTT type that piss off many a person in a bar.

So if they want to be defined that way I will oblige.

On the other hand, other gay friends are gay, they barely mention it and are open in public about it but don't ram it down your throat about their sexuality.

Slightly convaluted point but hopefully you understand what Im getting at

I've never seen anyone ram their sexuality down someone's throat except a few straight people, but maybe you don't define that as harshly trying to convert someone to their ways.

Either way, what has this to do with marriage? Are you saying no because you don't like overly flamboyant gays? I hope not because they're going to exist whether they're married or not.

What about people who allow their religion to define them? What about people who allow their looks to define them? Should they be allowed to marry?

spikeS · 28-01-2015 03:06PM

Deleted User wrote: »

We are agreed on that for sure then. But actually I was not just making the 2 is better than 1 point in terms of parenting. I think we all agree two parents sharing the task is better than 1.

Single parents can be just as good if not better then a couple, it's pretty hateful to say single parents make worse parents

MrPudding · 28-01-2015 03:07PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Plenty, to be honest in principle I have no problems with equal rights for gay couples and indeed have close friends who are struggling with many aspects of equality after herself and herself got married up North so I do understand the various complexities gay couples have in terms of recognition of many different things with the State.

But heres the thing, as I have many close gay friends of both sexes I do not agree with the doors and issues that it will open up in the future particularly with regard to adoption of children.

And yes I know obviously its possible for 2 women to have a child (as my friends above have done) but thats biological advantage to women same sex couples.

Could you clarify what you mean by the bit I have bolded please?

MrP

28-01-2015 03:07PM

spikeS wrote: »

Single parents can be just as good if not better then a couple, it's pretty hateful to say single parents make worse parents

Lucky I never said any such thing then - is it not. And you might want to read my other posts on this very thread on the subject of single parents before you jump to any other conclusions.

seamus · 28-01-2015 03:08PM

You've continually failed to explain why you believe that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry Ctrl Alt Delete, so I'm going to go ahead and assume it's just plain old prejudice.

If it wasn't, you would be able to explain your reasoning beyond "personal values".

seenitall · 28-01-2015 03:09PM

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I can't be the only one who thinks these threads are nothing more than alot of people hoping.... begging... waiting for another user to come and say "I am voting no because XYZ" - Then for everyone to pounce on that poster at once

Like isn't this the 4th or 5th thread with a poll within the last year in After Hours.

I'd say that poster, and others of similar opinions to his, are having a grand old time on this thread, and other related threads.

There is not much pouncing required.

Tasden · 28-01-2015 03:09PM

spikeS wrote: »

Single parents can be just as good if not better then a couple, it's pretty hateful to say single parents make worse parents

I think it was just in terms of practicalities and such. Two incomes, two pairs of hands, two people to love the child...

I think that everyone would agree that two loving and capable parents is the ideal, and most of us would agree that the gender of those parents is irrelevant

spikeS · 28-01-2015 03:10PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Lucky I never said any such thing then - is it not. And you might want to read my other posts on this very thread on the subject of single parents before you jump to any other conclusions.

You said two parents are better then one, this is not true and plenty of single parents do a great job raising their kids

28-01-2015 03:11PM

Tasden wrote: »

I think that everyone would agree that two loving and capable parents is the ideal, and most of us would agree that the gender of those parents is irrelevant

I must say though - I do get quite a laugh out of the people against homosexual marriage who bring up the "Two parents are better than one" argument which is at best irrelevant.

What freaks them out then is that I tell them about my situation where there is actually three parents - and point out that they are clearly arguing that my case is even more ideal again.

Depending on their prejudices - this can quite often sent them off into all kinds of contortions of spluttering and back peddling

Puts a smile on my face at least.

floggg · 28-01-2015 03:11PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I might be a rare example I dont know LOL. But in my eyes I see gay people as no different (I dont even see the need of pride per se). Volunteered couple of times actually for Pride (last one I volunteered at was when some numptys cuffed themselves to a bus or two).

But it still doesn't change my personally ingrained opinion about my thoughts / beliefs on the institutes of marriage and children.

But just like I respect gays , you have to show equal respect to my opinion (regardless of whether you think its right or wrong).

As a point of clarification, we have to respect your right to an opinion and express it. An opinion has to earn respect though.

eviltwin · 28-01-2015 03:12PM

spikeS wrote: »

You said two parents are better then one, this is not true and plenty of single parents do a great job raising their kids

It's a lot easier mentally and physically to share parenting. It's a full time job and if you don't have someone to share the responsibility it can take its toll. Any single parent I know is doing great but it's easier the more support you have.

spikeS · 28-01-2015 03:12PM

Tasden wrote: »

I think it was just in terms of practicalities and such. Two incomes, two pairs of hands, two people to love the child...

I think that everyone would agree that two loving and capable parents is the ideal, and most of us would agree that the gender of those parents is irrelevant

If we are going to that extreme, would two different gender outlooks not also outweigh a single gender outlook upbringing.

I don't think it's right to say single parents are the worst, no parenting is an ideal

COYVB · 28-01-2015 03:13PM

spikeS wrote: »

I don't think it's right to say single parents are the worst

Nobody said that

Ave Sodalis · 28-01-2015 03:14PM

spikeS wrote: »

You said two parents are better then one, this is not true and plenty of single parents do a great job raising their kids

It is alot easier when there is two parents to raise a child and you can talk to just about any single parent, they'd be delighted if they got a helping hand raising the children when it's off the right person. This is coming from a child of a single mother. My childhood would have been alot worse if my father and mother actually got married, but would have been alot easier if my mother found someone at an earlier stage that she wanted to spend the rest of her life with. She's a better mother than a lot of parents together, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't have been easier if she had a partner.

Tasden · 28-01-2015 03:15PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I must say though - I do get quite a laugh out of the people against homosexual marriage who bring up the "Two parents are better than one" argument which is at best irrelevant.

What freaks them out then is that I tell them about my situation where there is actually three parents - and point out that they are clearly arguing that my case is even more ideal again.

Depending on their prejudices - this can quite often sent them off into all kinds of contortions of spluttering and back peddling Puts a smile on my face at least.

Well as a single parent struggling to juggle it all atm, myself and my child would welcome two more people to help! :pac:

Ctrl Alt Delete · 28-01-2015 03:15PM

eviltwin wrote: »

No not really. What is it about your friends that you don't think they will make suitable parents?

Nothing outside of same concerns I'd have for some hetero couples I have already stated earlier that parents being gay isn't going to negatively affect children

Ave Sodalis · 28-01-2015 03:16PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Nothing outside of same concerns I'd have for some hetero couples I have already stated earlier that parents being gay isn't going to negatively affect children

Then why deny them marriage?

28-01-2015 03:16PM

spikeS wrote: »

You said two parents are better then one, this is not true and plenty of single parents do a great job raising their kids

As I said - you would do well to read back on my other posts on the subject before jumping to any more wrong conclusions about what I mean by this. You are not disagreeing with me at all.

My position on the matter is clear. We know what the ideal for a childs upbringing are. And we know that _any_ configuration of parents are equally capable of attaining everything on that list. Be it a single parent - a pair of parents of any sex - or multiple parents like in my situation - or whatever.

But we can acknowledge this perfectly cogent fact while not balking at pointing out that in general the more parents there are - the more likely they are to be capable of meeting the demands on time and resources. It is in that way - and that way only that I would suggest any one configuration is "better" than another.

But as I pointed out myself - and you do too - that does not mean this is a fact about single parents as a whole. I have a single parent in my family for example who due to his career and priorities actually has more time and money available for his children than two of my friends who are married on call doctors - and they have hardly any time for their kids and it is sad to see.

In short - a generalisation about a group as a whole - is not a commentary on the attributes of any one member of that set. And as I pointed out the argument is a non argument because if 2 parents in this way were to be better than 1 - then 3 is better than 2 - and 4 is better than 3 - and so on. Which shows you how irrelevant the point is to begin with.

jobbridge4life · 28-01-2015 03:16PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Nothing outside of same concerns I'd have for some hetero couples I have already stated earlier that parents being gay isn't going to negatively affect children

So now you are contradicting your own (and only) stated reason for voting no.

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

Comments