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

1…3334363839…325

Comments

  • #1052
    UCDVet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,894 ✭✭✭UCDVet


    floggg wrote: »
    Married straight people - do you honestly list being of the opposite gender to your spouse as high on the list of what's important to your relationship?

    Not directly, no.

    But a physical attraction is rather important.


  • #1053
    Zen65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Is there some reason those who want polygamy can't campaign for it?
    Are they too tired or something?

    I imagine their first wives won't let them! :)


  • #1054
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    reprise wrote: »
    Not the meaning I got at all. I don't know where you got the impression he felt heterosexual relationships were superior and you are losing the run of yourself with your rant thereafter. He does mention the uniqueness of the relationship and it's place in the constitution, and in marriage which IMO implicitly endorses resultant family where that occurs.

    Really?
    Human nature finds expression in either male or female. Marriage – as the intimate union of man and woman – is the unique expression and embodiment of the wholeness of human nature and is therefore given a distinct status in our Constitution in accordance with this reality. Neither man, nor woman, fully captures what it is to be human but in their union, including a sexual union, man and woman capture something about the wholeness and integrity of human nature in its entirety.
    The pressure for same-sex marriage is self-defeating. In seeking equality with something unlike yourself, by changing it in order to join it, the thing that you join is no longer what you were trying to join in the first place.

    Gay people can never truly enjoy the human experience inherent in heterosexual relationships and cannot be considered the same as heterosexual relationships, but that doesn't mean our not quite human relationships are inferior.

    Please


  • #1055
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    floggg wrote: »
    Again, where is it said that gender is what makes marriage what it is?

    Married straight people - do you honestly list being of the opposite gender to your spouse as high on the list of what's important to your relationship?

    For real??????

    I'm trying to imagine my wife's reaction if I told her it wouldn't have bothered me if she had been a man! :)


  • #1056
    UCDVet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,894 ✭✭✭UCDVet


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Absolutely. I shouldn't be allowed to have one wife because my brother isn't allowed two.

    Is there some reason those who want polygamy can't campaign for it?
    Are they too tired or something?

    Sorry - please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying "Gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because of polygamy isn't". I do wish more people would talk about, support, and campaign for the rights of EVERYONE to marry.

    Imagine living in a country where slavery is legal. And people are fighting to outlaw it. But only for people with red hair.

    I mean, sure, people with red hair shouldn't be slaves....but nobody should.

    Age limits make sense, we have laws that protect child/prevent them from entering certain types of contracts. But if any group of consenting adults want to get married - they should be able to. Any limitation on that is wrong.

    Now, I understand the pragmatic argument. 'We can only change so much, so fast' - but I actually know people who support gay marriage but DO NOT support polygamy. So it's not that they don't think it makes sense to campaign for both, they are actively against the rights of some adults to marry certain other adults, based on criteria they feel is appropriate. IE exactly what the anti-gay marriage crowd does.


  • Advertisement
  • #1057
    kerry4sam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,127 ✭✭✭✭kerry4sam


    Ozymandius2011 wrote: »
    How do you plan on voting in the referendum on same-sex marriage. I will vote yes for the following reasons:

    - I myself am a gay man and I want equality for Irish citizens regardless of sexual orientation before the law. Civil partnerships are not marriage. They differ from straight marriage in over 100 ways, including lack of inheritance rights which could potentially leave a civil partner homeless.

    - Recent developments in the EU and US risk Ireland being left behind by the tide of human progress if we vote no. It would also be very damaging to our image as a country that respects human rights.

    - Remarks by Iona members have further alienated me from their cause. On Morning Ireland a few days ago, Breda O'Brien compared same-sex marriage to a mother marrying her daughter. This reminds me of the rhetoric of the Christian Right in the US Deep South.

    - The issue of children is separate because the new Family and Relationships Bill will legalise adoption by gay couples.

    How will I vote: I am voting YES! for one main reason...
    I just want Equality for my family & friends. I want them to have the same rights that I currently have & this will make it one step closer.

    That's my main reason as to why I'll be voting YES!
    kerry4sam


  • #1058
    UCDVet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,894 ✭✭✭UCDVet


    COYVB wrote: »
    Polygamy isn't allowed because of the absolute red tape nightmare that surrounds it, more than anything else

    That's hardly a reason to deny people the right to marry someone of their choosing. Also, I remember a lot of anti-gay marriage folk saying the same thing when gay marriage was less popular.

    'Any two men can pretend to be married and game the system and it'll create all sorts of problems with our existing system.' I mean, nevermind that a man and woman could already make such arrangements, but my point is, the argument that it would disrupt our bookkeeping or allow people to exploit the system was used against gay marriage.

    I can't fathom any reason why we can't record N spouses instead of 1 spouse. We have the technology.


  • #1059
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    floggg wrote: »
    Really?



    Gay people can never truly enjoy the human experience inherent in heterosexual relationships and cannot be considered the same as heterosexual relationships, but that doesn't mean our not quite human relationships are inferior.

    Please

    I think you are reading far too much into what wasn't said and clearly wasn't the point.


  • #1060
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    UCDVet wrote: »
    Sorry - please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying "Gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because of polygamy isn't". I do wish more people would talk about, support, and campaign for the rights of EVERYONE to marry.

    Imagine living in a country where slavery is legal. And people are fighting to outlaw it. But only for people with red hair.

    I mean, sure, people with red hair shouldn't be slaves....but nobody should.

    Age limits make sense, we have laws that protect child/prevent them from entering certain types of contracts. But if any group of consenting adults want to get married - they should be able to. Any limitation on that is wrong.

    Now, I understand the pragmatic argument. 'We can only change so much, so fast' - but I actually know people who support gay marriage but DO NOT support polygamy. So it's not that they don't think it makes sense to campaign for both, they are actively against the rights of some adults to marry certain other adults, based on criteria they feel is appropriate. IE exactly what the anti-gay marriage crowd does.

    I get what you're saying. I personally think it's more like campaigning for slaves in one country working all day every day for nothing, and leaving out slaves that get holidays and pocket money in another country.

    I think polygamy is a seperate argument though, and should be kept seperate. Those who want to get married to multiple people should go out and campaign for it. Not all who are gay want polygamy, not all who want polygamy are gay. In fact, they aren't really related except not being allowed to marry.


  • #1061
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    COYVB wrote: »
    neither are human constructs

    They really are.
    COYVB wrote: »
    And none of those things banned by the church should factor into a secular state such as Ireland is supposed to be

    That's a very weak argument in a country with contraception and divorce for example and suggests a stranglehold that's gone.
    COYVB wrote: »
    First sensible thing you've said all thread

    As I said, you are entitled to your opinion, ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #1062
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    UCDVet wrote: »
    Not directly, no.

    But a physical attraction is rather important.

    Obviously, but I would imagine simply being of the gender you are attracted to isn't enough.

    But if you were to write your wedding vows again in the morning, you wouldn't be likely to note their gender as something which defined the relationship. It would be the emotional connection between you, the support you provide each other, and your shared hopes and dreams.


  • #1063
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    UCDVet wrote: »
    Sorry - please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying "Gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because of polygamy isn't". I do wish more people would talk about, support, and campaign for the rights of EVERYONE to marry.

    Imagine living in a country where slavery is legal. And people are fighting to outlaw it. But only for people with red hair.

    I mean, sure, people with red hair shouldn't be slaves....but nobody should.

    Age limits make sense, we have laws that protect child/prevent them from entering certain types of contracts. But if any group of consenting adults want to get married - they should be able to. Any limitation on that is wrong.

    Now, I understand the pragmatic argument. 'We can only change so much, so fast' - but I actually know people who support gay marriage but DO NOT support polygamy. So it's not that they don't think it makes sense to campaign for both, they are actively against the rights of some adults to marry certain other adults, based on criteria they feel is appropriate. IE exactly what the anti-gay marriage crowd does.

    I apologise for misinterpreting you - polygamy is one of the most common 'whatabouts' bandied about in these discussions.

    I have no issue with polygamy as long as it is between consenting adults - and to be honest most of those 'second' and 'third' wives I have known in polygamist marriages were there because their father's told them to marry this man and that would be an issue for me.

    However, in this context to introduce it as a topic is a complete distraction because no-one is really asking for it. The campaign for SSM within the existing monogamous parameters has been going on for years, legal challenges have been mounted, concessions made in the form of civil partnership.

    If people desire polygamous marriage - let them campaign for it but I would object to any attempts to piggyback on the SSM campaign.

    They are two different issues.


  • #1064
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    UCDVet wrote: »
    I can't fathom any reason why we can't record N spouses instead of 1 spouse. We have the technology.
    FWIW, I don't believe there is any reason why it shouldn't be, but you have to acknowledge that it adds an entirely new dimension to the debate.

    There also is arguably no discrimination going on. You're not being denied the right to marry, just the right to be married to multiple people at once.

    Although they both involve the discussion around what marriage is, the two aren't two similar arguments. One is a debate about who, the other is about how many.


  • #1065
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    That's a very weak argument

    I don't think you should complain about weak arguments until you strengthen your own, considering you've gone back to ignoring it.
    Nodin wrote: »
    Why?


  • #1066
    COYVB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,660 ✭✭✭COYVB


    UCDVet wrote: »
    That's hardly a reason to deny people the right to marry someone of their choosing. Also, I remember a lot of anti-gay marriage folk saying the same thing when gay marriage was less popular.

    'Any two men can pretend to be married and game the system and it'll create all sorts of problems with our existing system.' I mean, nevermind that a man and woman could already make such arrangements, but my point is, the argument that it would disrupt our bookkeeping or allow people to exploit the system was used against gay marriage.

    I can't fathom any reason why we can't record N spouses instead of 1 spouse. We have the technology.

    It's far from the same thing. You've got child allowance, family income calculations, tax reasons, out of work benefits - the whole thing would be a complete mess. Hubby breaks his leg and is out of work and all 4 wives now need to be looked after too - disaster. Means testing for benefits would be a nightmare; whose income counts, whose doesn't? Does a wife in a family of one husband and 5 wives qualify for unemployment because she's out of work, but the others are pulling in reasonable money? What happens in a divorce? Who gets the kids if they were co-raised among 5 parents? How many of the ex-spouses have to pay child support? That's not even scratching the surface of it in reality

    I get that you're playing devil's advocate, and I'm all for that, but it's a very complicated angle in a welfare state. Scrub welfare and state assistance and I'm all down for it among consenting adults though.

    A gay couple won't put any more stress on the welfare than a straight couple, but a polygamous couple most definitely could. It could be worth investigating, but it'd take a long time to come up with a workable system.


  • #1067
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    reprise wrote: »
    For real??????

    I'm trying to imagine my wife's reaction if I told her it wouldn't have bothered me if she had been a man! :)

    Obviously being of the gender that you are attracted to is a pre-requisite of you both falling in love, but does that simple fact define your love? Is it the most important thing in your relationship? The reason you are together?

    As I said above, would you include it in your marriage vows if you re-wrote them in the morning?


  • #1068
    COYVB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,660 ✭✭✭COYVB


    reprise wrote: »
    They really are.

    You're straight up claiming there are no societal structures in nature? Are you serious? Wow. Go watch some nature documentaries
    reprise wrote: »
    That's a very weak argument in a country with contraception and divorce for example and suggests a stranglehold that's gone.

    A stranglehold that's gone, and yet you're still sticking to the church's definition of marriage and none other


  • #1069
    COYVB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,660 ✭✭✭COYVB


    floggg wrote: »
    Obviously being of the gender that you are attracted to is a pre-requisite of you both falling in love, but does that simple fact define your love? Is it the most important thing in your relationship? The reason you are together?

    As I said above, would you include it in your marriage vows if you re-wrote them in the morning?

    This is a strange approach to the argument for someone who is gay...

    Surely only a stones throw from "if gender doesn't matter, only the feelings, why do you classify yourself as gay?"


  • #1070
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    COYVB wrote: »
    This is a strange approach to the argument for someone who is gay...

    Surely only a stones throw from "if gender doesn't matter, only the feelings, why do you classify yourself as gay?"

    Ah no, I kinda get what floggg is saying. I mean gender determines who I'm attracted to so I'd never end up going out with a woman, but I didn't fall in love with my boyfriend because he's a man.


  • #1071
    COYVB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,660 ✭✭✭COYVB


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Ah no, I kinda get what floggg is saying. I mean gender determines who I'm attracted to so I'd never end up going out with a woman, but I didn't fall in love with my boyfriend because he's a man.

    You fell in the kind of love you're in because he's a man. If my wife was a guy she wouldn't be my wife, she'd be a close friend


  • Advertisement
  • #1072
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,009 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    @Reprise.... I posted this to Ctrl Alt Delete earlier today (about 4PM - page 59) but he left the thread without answering it. I'm wondering if it seem's relevant to your position on access to marriage of the civil type... in light of the fact that there are existing same-sex families here complete with children, on the same lines as straight married families here (the only difference being that the state has a constitutional bar on allowing same-sex couples access to civil marriage) can you tell me why you oppose the extension of that right to same-sex couples?

    Same-sex family units complete with children are not something theoretical, not something that will come-to-be the future if a change was made to our constitutional version of marriage. They exist now. In the light of that fact, do you think that continuing the access-to-civil-marriage-ban on same-sex parented families is legitimate? What dangers do you envisage for the nation's child-population would come from equalizing access to civil marriage to same-sex couples on a par with straight couples?

    I'm also including an extra question for you on whether you view marriage as being totally linked to the procreation of children in the usual manner (without assistance or sperm/egg donation from a third party) and see that usual manner of procreation as an essential part of the marriage equation?


  • #1073
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    COYVB wrote: »
    You fell in the kind of love you're in because he's a man. If my wife was a guy she wouldn't be my wife, she'd be a close friend

    But you could say that about anything really. Gender defines attraction, not so much love. I mean, if my boyfriend was extremely thin then he'd be a friend too. If I was to write a list of things I love about my boyfriend, "because you're a man" wouldn't have even come into my head. I think that's more like what the poster was talking about.


  • #1074
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    COYVB wrote: »
    You're straight up claiming there are no societal structures in nature? Are you serious? Wow. Go watch some nature documentaries

    No problem , I'd say the soaps are amazing.
    COYVB wrote: »
    A stranglehold that's gone, and yet you're still sticking to the church's definition of marriage and none other

    Unless I am drastically missing something, I am "sticking" to the states version of marriage too.


  • #1075
    COYVB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,660 ✭✭✭COYVB


    sup_dude wrote: »
    But you could say that about anything really. Gender defines attraction, not so much love. I mean, if my boyfriend was extremely thin then he'd be a friend too. If I was to write a list of things I love about my boyfriend, "because you're a man" wouldn't have even come into my head. I think that's more like what the poster was talking about.

    Why have you chosen your bf as your partner though? "Because he's a man" would be top of the list - purely because if he wasn't a man you'd never have considered him as a partner


  • #1076
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    COYVB wrote: »
    Why have you chosen your bf as your partner though? "Because he's a man" would be top of the list - purely because if he wasn't a man you'd never have considered him as a partner

    No, because I'm not attracted to women. "Because he has big shoulders" is also another reason I'm attracted to him but it's not a reason I fell in love with him. It's just the difference between attraction and love.


  • #1077
    COYVB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,660 ✭✭✭COYVB


    reprise wrote: »
    No problem , I'd say the soaps are amazing.

    Not really helping your argument. Google the social structure of ants, or gorillas or whales or wolves or dolphins... I could go on all day. You're very ignorant.
    reprise wrote: »
    Unless I am drastically missing something, I am "sticking" to the states version of marriage too.

    They have religion in america too


  • #1078
    COYVB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,660 ✭✭✭COYVB


    sup_dude wrote: »
    No, because I'm not attracted to women. "Because he has big shoulders" is also another reason I'm attracted to him but it's not a reason I fell in love with him. It's just the difference between attraction and love.

    And because you're not attracted to women, but you're not asexual, you are attracted to...


  • #1079
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    COYVB wrote: »
    And because you're not attracted to women, but you're not asexual, you are attracted to...

    I think I must be explaining it very badly.

    Gender is just to do with attraction, same as big shoulders and maybe bright eyes. Hypothetically, if a man didn't have these, I wouldn't be attracted to him. Similarly if he wasn't a man, I wouldn't be attracted to him.

    However, if he did have big shoulders and bright eyes, these wouldn't be the reasons I fell in love with him. Similarly, if he is a man, it wouldn't be the reason I fell in love with him.


  • #1080
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    COYVB wrote: »
    Not really helping your argument. Google the social structure of ants, or gorillas or whales or wolves or dolphins... I could go on all day. You're very ignorant.

    You have no sense of humour.

    COYVB wrote: »
    They have religion in america too

    I take it back.

    ho

    ho.


  • Advertisement
  • #1081
    spikeS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 179 ✭✭spikeS


    sup_dude wrote: »
    I think I must be explaining it very badly.

    Gender is just to do with attraction, same as big shoulders and maybe bright eyes. Hypothetically, if a man didn't have these, I wouldn't be attracted to him. Similarly if he wasn't a man, I wouldn't be attracted to him.

    However, if he did have big shoulders and bright eyes, these wouldn't be the reasons I fell in love with him. Similarly, if he is a man, it wouldn't be the reason I fell in love with him.

    Attraction is a personal thing, like I am not attracted to transsexuals I would never date one I know they are women but they just aren't for me.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement