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…3435373940…325

Comments

  • #1082
    Vomit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 512 ✭✭✭Vomit


    I'm voting yes. It doesn't affect me, but my fellow citizens need this vote. If people want to marry their partner, who am I to stop them? And yes, inaction could potentially stop them, so I feel duty-bound.

    It's not like they are demanding the right to harm anyone or impinge on anyone else's liberty, so, again, a yes from me.


  • #1083
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    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

    "Because he was an man" was the reason why I went on first dates with guys, including my fiancé. Thats only enough to get you a shot at the job. Its a pre-requisite for a partner, but it isnt anywhere near enough for a relationship.

    "Because he is a man" isn't the reason I am marrying him.

    I'm doing that for because of how I feel about him, how he makes me feel, and how he makes me feel about myself. I'm doing it because of the life we want to build together. I'm doing because I want to be there to support him through all the difficult times in his life, to protect him from harm as best I can. I'm doing it because I want him to be there to protect and support me. I'm doing it because quite simply I can't imagine life without him.

    Thats why I want to marry him, and what defines our relationship.

    But if you think yours can be defined by "because she is a woman", then fair play to you.


  • #1084
    spikeS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 179 ✭✭spikeS


    floggg wrote: »
    "Because he was an man" was the reason why I went on first dates with guys, including my fiancé. Thats only enough to get you a shot at the job. Its a pre-requisite for a partner, but it isnt anywhere near enough for a relationship.

    "Because he is a man" isn't the reason I am marrying him.

    I'm doing that for because of how I feel about him, how he makes me feel, and how he makes me feel about myself. I'm doing it because of the life we want to build together. I'm doing because I want to be there to support him through all the difficult times in his life, to protect him from harm as best I can. I'm doing it because I want him to be there to protect and support me. I'm doing it because quite simply I can't imagine life without him.

    Thats why I want to marry him, and what defines our relationship.

    But if you think yours can be defined by "because she is a woman", then fair play to you.

    One issue I don't like about myself is I would not date a trans woman, I see them as women but still could not date one due to the penis, is that homophobic? you said being a man got them a shot for you how would you feel about dating a trans man.


  • #1085
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Nodin wrote: »
    Theres no gay marriage in the north.
    I was surprised no one else noticed this. I asked for clarification, but none was forthcoming. I reckon his entire 'I'm down with the gays' spiel was a load of sh1t.
    reprise wrote: »
    I have given you reasons several times but you refuse to listen.

    I think the argument that for same sex couples To be allowed marry as some married couples don't have children, amongst your weakest. For my other reasons, please refer to my posts earlier in the thread.
    You misunderstand. That some heterosexual couples can't have children is not an argument for ssm. It simply shows that being unable to have children naturally is not a valid argument against ssm.
    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.

    There is some evidence of harm, in relation to polygamous relationships. A quick check on Google scholar will bring up a few articles you can read.

    It would be wrong to lump other 'types' of marriage in with ssm. This is a strategy used by anti-ssm proponents, normally in conjunction with a frantic slippery slope argument squealing about beastial and insestuous marriages.

    This is about ssm, not any other kind. If anyone want to argue for another type of marriage then they are free to do so, but it should not be hitched to this campaign.

    MrP


  • #1086
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    A live one.
    http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/01/28/we-dont-want-to-see-men-and-women-getting-married/


  • Advertisement
  • #1087
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    MrPudding wrote: »
    You misunderstand. That some heterosexual couples can't have children is not an argument for ssm. It simply shows that being unable to have children naturally is not a valid argument against ssm.

    Meh.

    I know a non-sequitur when I see it.


  • #1088
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    Meh.

    I know a non-sequitur when I see it.

    What? You can't just go about declaring everything that goes against your position a non-issue, non-sequitur, irrelevant, rabbit hole. Either debate the issue or don't, stop pretending.


  • #1089
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    What? You can't just go about declaring everything that goes against your position a non-issue, non-sequitur, irrelevant, rabbit hole. Either debate the issue or don't, stop pretending.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94002525&postcount=405
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94000482&postcount=351
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94001978&postcount=372
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94001050&postcount=347

    And there's more there dealing with the exact same issue of infertile married couples or those married couples who don't wish to have children.

    I'm happy to debate, but I don't do circus tricks on demand. I object to your tone but that's probably because I am bored stiff with the circular arguments. Thank you.


  • #1090
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94002525&postcount=405
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94000482&postcount=351
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94001978&postcount=372
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94001050&postcount=347

    And there's more there dealing with the exact same issue of infertile married couples or those married couples who don't wish to have children.

    I'm happy to debate, I don't do circus tricks on demand, I resent your tone and I tire of going around in circles. Thank you.

    None of those are in anyway an argument as to why marriage should not include gay couples. Not one.


  • #1091
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    None of those are in anyway an argument as to why marriage should not include gay couples. Not one.

    Agreed,

    I was dealing with the non-sequitur you were whining about.


  • Advertisement
  • #1092
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    Agreed,

    I was dealing with the non-sequitur you were whining about.

    Hey Reprise, why in your opinion shouldn't gay people be allowed to get married to one another? Simple question can you answer it in a simple manner?


  • #1093
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Hey Reprise, why in your opinion shouldn't gay people be allowed to get married to one another? Simple question can you answer it in a simple manner?

    Didn't you mean a simple loaded question?

    I've an open mind on the matter. I've said it all along.


  • #1094
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    Didn't you mean a simple loaded question?

    I've an open mind on the matter. I've said it all along.

    As someone with an open mind can you list the reasons you'd consider voting no. I've asked before you answered by linking to a previous comment. I'd prefer if you could articulate it here in a concise and clear way.


  • #1095
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    As someone with an open mind can you list the reasons you'd consider voting no. I've asked before you answered by linking to a previous comment. I'd prefer if you could articulate it here in a concise and clear way.

    I will decline to post my previous comments for a third time. I trust that's clear and concise enough for you.


  • #1096
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    I will decline to post my previous comments for a third time. I trust that's clear and concise enough for you.

    It isn't remotely. As I have said you have been deliberately obtuse throughout. You have spent a great portion of this day on this thread and yet now when asked for a few short sentences to lay down in concrete terms your position you won't.


  • #1097
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    It isn't remotely. As I have said you have been deliberately obtuse throughout. You have spent a great portion of this day on this thread and yet now when asked for a few short sentences to lay down in concrete terms your position you won't.

    I won't jump through hoops for you?

    You are absolutely correct there.


  • #1098
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    I won't jump through hoops for you?

    You are absolutely correct there.

    I hope none of your children are gay.


  • #1099
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    I hope none of your children are gay.

    :o


  • #1100
    Eramen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 776 ✭✭✭Eramen


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    I hope none of your children are gay.

    Homophobe!


  • #1101
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    reprise wrote: »
    :o

    So in sum total Reprise's position is...

    1. Marriage is about families, based on reproduction, on this basis gay people should be excluded...

    '...but wait Reprise what about gay families and gay couples with children? And what about marriages where there is no intention or capacity to reproduce.'

    2. Rabbit hole/non-sequitur/non-issue/i'm not listening...

    'Ah supreme reasoning Reprise.'


  • Advertisement
  • #1102
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    So in sum total Reprise's position is...

    1. Marriage is about families, based on reproduction, on this basis gay people should be excluded...

    '...but wait Reprise what about gay families and gay couples with children? And what about marriages where there is no intention or capacity to reproduce.'

    2. Rabbit hole/non-sequitur/non-issue/i'm not listening...

    'Ah supreme reasoning Reprise.'
    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    He's been going on like this for a couple of days now. I wouldn't bother.

    Even the posts he cited above as his response are just one liners which dont address the issues and which mis-charactherise completely the points he purported to respond to.

    But remember, its the debating tactics of the yes side which will be responsible if he decides to vote no :rolleyes:


  • #1103
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    reprise wrote: »
    Didn't you mean a simple loaded question?

    I've an open mind on the matter. I've said it all along.
    Hey.

    Another question reprise

    You said that you disagreed with Gerry Adams assertion that a person is born gay. So I was wondering when did you choose to be straight?

    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



  • #1104
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,344 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    There is plenty of evidence that his children would be the same if their Mother and (step-mother) were replaced by men?! Do you even read what I write?

    Or do you not read what the rest of us write? I thought I was very clear. Clear enough that you say better to skip my post than reply to it it seems.

    What was said - I am happy to repeat - is that we acknowledge that if you change ANYONEs parents they are likely to be changed by this. The sex of the parent is irrelevant in this. Any change of parent will result in a change.

    What you have failed to do - with remarkable consistency - is link this specifically to the sex of the replacement parents in any meaningful or coherent way.
    UCDVet wrote: »
    I still think it's amazing that so many people support gay marriage, but so few support polygamy.
    COYVB wrote: »
    Polygamy isn't allowed because of the absolute red tape nightmare that surrounds it, more than anything else

    That - and lack of demand. The number of people I have encountered in relationships like my own are exceedingly rare. And of those few people - very few of them have any interest in marriage anyway. And most of those that do - have not expressed this but have merely acknowledged that their relationship choice precludes it - and they have moved on.

    Lots of people frame this referendum in terms of "equality" and for good reason. I prefer to frame it in terms of evolving the institute of marriage to match the demands and requirements of the society in which it operates. And there are a genuinely significant number of people who want this and a genuine list of requirements for it.

    The same is not true of Polygamy and so there is no reason to suggest updating the marriage institution to meet such demands or requirements - because few require it (if any) - and none are seeking it.

    To repeat - it is about equality yes but it is also about evolving the concept of marriage to match an evolving society - and opening marriage up to everyone just for the sake of it so they can form whatever they want and simply call it "marriage" - when the society in which it resides does not require it - is as unworkable as it is superfluous.


  • #1105
    TheBeardedLady
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,086 ✭✭✭TheBeardedLady


    Just bloody vote yes and stop being difficult, roi? :mad:


  • #1106
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    reprise wrote: »
    I didn't read all his posts, but this thread is becoming very hostile to anyone with an opposing viewpoint and dare I say, offensive to a number of those who may agree.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94009608&postcount=519

    Just thought I'd point it out.



    "Hey Bucko, I am through begging."


  • #1107
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Or do you not read what the rest of us write? I thought I was very clear. Clear enough that you say better to skip my post than reply to it it seems.

    What was said - I am happy to repeat - is that we acknowledge that if you change ANYONEs parents they are likely to be changed by this. The sex of the parent is irrelevant in this. Any change of parent will result in a change.

    What you have failed to do - with remarkable consistency - is link this specifically to the sex of the replacement parents in any meaningful or coherent way.




    That - and lack of demand. The number of people I have encountered in relationships like my own are exceedingly rare. And of those few people - very few of them have any interest in marriage anyway. And most of those that do - have not expressed this but have merely acknowledged that their relationship choice precludes it - and they have moved on.

    Lots of people frame this referendum in terms of "equality" and for good reason. I prefer to frame it in terms of evolving the institute of marriage to match the demands and requirements of the society in which it operates. And there are a genuinely significant number of people who want this and a genuine list of requirements for it.

    The same is not true of Polygamy and so there is no reason to suggest updating the marriage institution to meet such demands or requirements - because few require it (if any) - and none are seeking it.

    To repeat - it is about equality yes but it is also about evolving the concept of marriage to match an evolving society - and opening marriage up to everyone just for the sake of it so they can form whatever they want and simply call it "marriage" - when the society in which it resides does not require it - is as unworkable as it is superfluous.

    The thing with polygamy is that you can't say that polygamous marriage could operate on even close to the same terms as our current version of marriage of provided for.

    For instance, it would be difficult to apply the same taxation rules and benefits to polygamous marriage as to we have currently.

    How, for example, would tax credits be shared? How could inheritance/gift tax allowances be applied? Can you gift property to any spouse tax free? Or just one?

    If it's any, what's to stop people just marrying to avoid paying tax - seeing as it wouldn't stop them from marrying someone else down the road. If it's only one spouse, you run into accusations of the state favouring one marriage over the other.

    Also, how would maintenance laws work? If a person has 4 spouses, who is obligate to support them? Can they go to court to pursue maintenance from all 4? Pick the richest? Their first spouse?

    How would the presumption of paternity work for a woman with 5 husbands?

    How would we apply the requirement under inheritance law to make certain minimum provisions for your spouse?

    Would social welfare be required to recognise all spouses?

    Would our immigration laws require the State to give visas to all your spouses? What about their spouses?

    In the private realm, how would life various types of insurance work? How gets the payout on a life assurance policy?

    How would employee health benefits work? If they cover spouses, would they have to cover all spouses? If so, you would likely see all such benefits withdrawn to the detriment of everybody.

    How would hospital rules work for that matter - which spouses gets to be viewed as next of kin for the purposes of making decisions etc.

    There are very good public policy reasons why the State recognises marriage, and grants various rights and privileges to married couples. I don't think any serious person would actually want to do away with that.

    However, I don't think any serious person would want us to grant them to everybody and anybody either. It would undermine the entire rational for recognising them in the first place, and seriously deplete the state coffers without offering any real gain for the state in return.

    If both spouses were free to marry others, it wouldn't really resemble anything like marriage as we know it anyway - as each spouse could have three or four other marriages to divide their time between. It wouldn't be a life long commitment - it would be an every second weekend commitment.

    So apart from it being a red herring and entirely separate issue, I don't think anybody seriously wants the state to recognise polygamous marriage on the same terms as it does marriage between couples today, because that would mean the whole host of benefits married couples enjoy today would just be entirely unworkable.


  • #1108
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,009 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Hands up who voted yes and who voted no on the poll.


  • #1109
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Hands up who voted yes and who voted no on the poll.

    Why?


  • #1110
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,708 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    floggg wrote: »
    The thing with polygamy is... that you can't say that polygamous marriage could operate on even close to the same terms as our current version of marriage of provided for.

    For instance, it would be difficult to apply the same taxation rules and benefits to polygamous marriage as to we have currently.

    How, for example, would tax credits be shared? How could inheritance/gift tax allowances be applied? Can you gift property to any spouse tax free? Or just one?

    If it's any, what's to stop people just marrying to avoid paying tax - seeing as it wouldn't stop them from marrying someone else down the road. If it's only one spouse, you run into accusations of the state favouring one marriage over the other.

    Also, how would maintenance laws work? If a person has 4 spouses, who is obligate to support them? Can they go to court to pursue maintenance from all 4? Pick the richest? Their first spouse?

    How would the presumption of paternity work for a woman with 5 husbands?

    How would we apply the requirement under inheritance law to make certain minimum provisions for your spouse?

    Would social welfare be required to recognise all spouses?

    Would our immigration laws require the State to give visas to all your spouses? What about their spouses?

    In the private realm, how would life various types of insurance work? How gets the payout on a life assurance policy?

    How would employee health benefits work? If they cover spouses, would they have to cover all spouses? If so, you would likely see all such benefits withdrawn to the detriment of everybody.

    How would hospital rules work for that matter - which spouses gets to be viewed as next of kin for the purposes of making decisions etc.

    There are very good public policy reasons why the State recognises marriage, and grants various rights and privileges to married couples. I don't think any serious person would actually want to do away with that.

    However, I don't think any serious person would want us to grant them to everybody and anybody either. It would undermine the entire rational for recognising them in the first place, and seriously deplete the state coffers without offering any real gain for the state in return.

    If both spouses were free to marry others, it wouldn't really resemble anything like marriage as we know it anyway - as each spouse could have three or four other marriages to divide their time between. It wouldn't be a life long commitment - it would be an every second weekend commitment.

    So apart from it being a red herring and entirely separate issue, I don't think anybody seriously wants the state to recognise polygamous marriage on the same terms as it does marriage between couples today, because that would mean the whole host of benefits married couples enjoy today would just be entirely unworkable.


    I'm not sure whether you realise the irony or not, but all of the above questions were asked of marriage concerning LGBT people before people actually started talking about it and came up with answers. I have no doubt that if there were a demand for it, we could come up with workable solutions to all those questions that society could accomodate for recognition of polygamous marriages too.

    You're right though, the whole polygamy discussion has nothing to do with marriage equality that is concerned with recognising that people, every individual citizen of the State who are LGBT, should have the same equal opportunities and protections, rights and responsibilities that the State and society confers on heterosexual people, through the institution of marriage.


  • Advertisement
  • #1111
    MonkeyTennis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,095 ✭✭✭MonkeyTennis


    I have this nagging voice in my mind telling me that people should be treated equally and with respect . I just cant shake it.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement