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

lazygal · 29-01-2015 11:54AM

MonkeyTennis wrote: »

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

Go and have a word with David Quinn and his friends Breda and Patricia. They'll set you straight.

Sonics2k · 29-01-2015 11:58AM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

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?

Ah yes, I remember my Sexuality Selection Day. Just like it was yesterday.

Dark was the sky and chill was the wind,
But the bisexuals cried so they put up a tent.

Across the moors did ride a flamboyant man in drag,
draped in satin and sparkles he leapt on to the platform.

And so he said
"Sonics, the glorious day of sex and arousal has arrived,
Cum (gleeful smirk) to me and drink from the Cup of Choice."

Before me I saw two cups, one featuring The Stig, a woman in a bikini and a picture of Eric Cantona. This was the Straight.
The other sparkled with pictures of Dr Frank-N-Furter and Ru-Paul. This was the Gay.

I made my choice and.....

Oh wait no, hang on a second, that never happened. My bad sorry, just turns out I was born straight and some are born gay.

techdiver · 29-01-2015 12:15PM

I see the no side have 2 distinct camps.

1. The openly homophobic bigot who opposes gay marriage because he is homophobic/religious nut-job.

2. The homophobic bigot who hide behind the "children" argument (e.g. Iona institute) so as to blur the argument and sway weak minded voters in their direction.

Group 2 are the "clever" ones and also the most dangerous, as they will sway votes in their direction due to the fact that they are permitted to spew bull**** about unrelated issues on air. The fact that moderators in various debates allow them to go so far off topic and spend the majority of the time debating something that has nothing to do with the referendum at hand is amazing.

Group 1 will actually aid the yes vote I believe, as they tend to be the unlike-able usual suspects, who are about as enlightened as a neolithic man.

shruikan2553 · 29-01-2015 12:18PM

techdiver wrote: »

I see the no side have 2 distinct camps.

1. The openly homophobic bigot who opposes gay marriage because he is homophobic/religious nut-job.

2. The homophobic bigot who hide behind the "children" argument (e.g. Iona institute) so as to blur the argument and sway weak minded voters in their direction.

Group 2 are the "clever" ones and also the most dangerous, as they will sway votes in their direction due to the fact that they are permitted to spew bull**** about unrelated issues on air. The fact that moderators in various debates allow them to go so far off topic and spend the majority of the time debating something that has nothing to do with the referendum at hand is amazing.

Group 1 will actually aid the yes vote I believe, as they tend to be the unlike-able usual suspects, who are about as enlightened as a neolithic man.

There are also those who just dont know better. There are people claiming on a debate that there are issues with children. Surely they wouldnt allow someone to lie in a debate? It turns out they do and its expected to be seen as equal.

Theres a bit of this from the like of Iona to just try to confuse people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwdba9C2G14

floggg · 29-01-2015 12:24PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

It's not really irony at all.

All of those things are capable of being applied on equal terms to gay couples.

They aren't capable of being applied on equal terms to polygamy.

Even ignoring the question of whether polygamy is an equality issue, equality law doesn't require the state to grant equality in all circumstances. Inequality can be constitutionally permissible where it is necessary to achieve an objectively justifiable purpose, and the measures adopted are proportionate means of achieving that purpose.

In the case of marriage equality for same sex couples nobody has been able to point to any objective justification for denying it. The closet to compelling is tax, which is never argued, and which isn't compelling at all given the state grants the same benefits to others in almost identical situations.

In the case of polygamy though, there are a myriad of reasons why the state would be justified in confining a marriage to couples only, as I have pointed out above. They go far beyond tax, though the tax reasons are also weighty (a polygamous marriage cannot be considered as almost identical to a married couple for tax purposes).

So if you wanted to argue polygamy on equality grounds, it would likely also lose.

In any event, who here actually wants to enter into a polygamous marriage?

As far as I know there is only one poster here in a polygamous/polyamorous relationship and he certainly isn't calling for it.

So it really doesn't seem to me to be a genuine position, or that anybody advancing it has put any serious thought into it.

However if UCDVet or anybody else is serious in their demand for it, start a thread on it and let's discuss.

One eyed Jack · 29-01-2015 12:46PM

floggg wrote: »

It's not really irony at all.

All of those things are capable of being applied on equal terms to gay couples.

They aren't capable of being applied on equal terms to polygamy.

That sentence for me right there is interesting, and I'll explain why. From my perspective, the right of a citizen of this country to marry should be a fundamental right regardless of their sex. I'd argue it that way because it's conferring that right upon the individual, regardless of their sex. Only when they become a union through marriage would they be entitled to the rights that the State confers upon them through recognition of the institution of marriage.

Even ignoring the question of whether polygamy is an equality issue, equality law doesn't require the state to grant equality in all circumstances. Inequality can be constitutionally permissible where it is necessary to achieve an objectively justifiable purpose, and the measures adopted are proportionate means of achieving that purpose.

Don't worry, I don't see polygamy as an equal rights issue so I would never argue it that way. I'd be wary too though of arguing that discrimination (what you call inequality) is ever acceptable. It's not, and I'm not a fan of positive discrimination to achieve equality by design either (or, constitutionally permissible inequality, if you prefer).

In the case of marriage equality for same sex couples nobody has been able to point to any objective justification for denying it. The closet to compelling is tax, which is never argued, and which isn't compelling at all given the state grants the same benefits to others in almost identical situations.

In the case of polygamy though, there are a myriad of reasons why the state would be justified in confining a marriage to couples only, as I have pointed out above. They go far beyond tax, though the tax reasons are also weighty (a polygamous marriage cannot be considered as almost identical to a married couple for tax purposes).

So if you wanted to argue polygamy on equality grounds, it would likely also lose.

In any event, who here actually wants to enter into a polygamous marriage?

As far as I know there is only one poster here in a polygamous/polyamorous relationship and he certainly isn't calling for it.

So it really doesn't seem to me to be a genuine position, or that anybody advancing it has put any serious thought into it.

However if UCDVet or anybody else is serious in their demand for it, start a thread on it and let's discuss.

Well I won't be starting a thread on it at least as I'm not a professional wind-up merchant who tries to wedge it into threads on marriage equality. I was surprised you addressed it at all tbh! I know why you did (to explain why it was difficult to legislate for), but it's allowing the thread to be dragged off-topic rather than just killing the polygamy red herring already.

aloyisious · 29-01-2015 12:50PM

sup_dude wrote: »

Why?

Ok, I'll reword it.... hands up who voted NO.

Ave Sodalis · 29-01-2015 12:53PM

aloyisious wrote: »

Ok, I'll reword it.... hands up who voted NO.

Why?

I mean, to what effect? Name and shame? They've a right to vote no. I've never seen a valid reason for voting no, and I will argue against any silly reason but they still have a right to vote no and I don't see the point in "outing" those who do.

floggg · 29-01-2015 01:05PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That sentence for me right there is interesting, and I'll explain why. From my perspective, the right of a citizen of this country to marry should be a fundamental right regardless of their sex. I'd argue it that way because it's conferring that right upon the individual, regardless of their sex. Only when they become a union through marriage would they be entitled to the rights that the State confers upon them through recognition of the institution of marriage.

Don't worry, I don't see polygamy as an equal rights issue so I would never argue it that way. I'd be wary too though of arguing that discrimination (what you call inequality) is ever acceptable. It's not, and I'm not a fan of positive discrimination to achieve equality by design either (or, constitutionally permissible inequality, if you prefer).

Well I won't be starting a thread on it at least as I'm not a professional wind-up merchant who tries to wedge it into threads on marriage equality. I was surprised you addressed it at all tbh! I know why you did (to explain why it was difficult to legislate for), but it's allowing the thread to be dragged off-topic rather than just killing the polygamy red herring already.

On your first comment, I don't see any difference in what we were saying, but maybe you took issue with my language.

On the second, "inequality" was maybe not the best way of phrasing it, but I was trying to explain why pitching polygamy as an equality issue didnt really achieve the result those "advocating" it wanted. But it is well established that absolute equality is not required by law, and that there will be circumstances where differing treatment is justified.

As for whether I should have addressed it, I tried to avoid commenting on it thus far as it is a compete red herring. But since it wouldnt go away and people were debating it, I found my self getting sucked into the debate in a moment of weakness.

One eyed Jack · 29-01-2015 01:23PM

floggg wrote: »

On your first comment, I don't see any difference in what we were saying, but maybe you took issue with my language.

No it's not your language at all. It's the way you're arguing fundamental rights for couples, as opposed to what I would argue are fundamental rights for individuals - that every individual citizen of the state has the opportunity to enter into marriage once they meet the other legal conditions of marriage such as the age of 18 (precluding exemption orders), etc. The State confers rights and special protections then upon the couple as a result of them being married, in recognition of the fact that they are now married.

What I'm saying is that every citizen regardless of their sex, gender or sexual orientation should have the right to choose whether they want to enter into marriage (or a marital contract, as distinct from a civil partnership). It's an argument that is focused on the fundamental rights of the individual, as opposed to the rights conferred upon them by right (not rites!) of the institution of marriage.

EDIT: This is the actual wording proposed -

The wording proposes to amend the Constitution by inserting a new section stating: “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.”

On the second, "inequality" was maybe not the best way of phrasing it, but I was trying to explain why pitching polygamy as an equality issue didnt really achieve the result those "advocating" it wanted. But it is well established that absolute equality is not required by law, and that there will be circumstances where differing treatment is justified.

Ahh right, I get it now. I can understand that recognising that people would have different rights to other people (for example arguing for men to have the right of access to abortion would just be silly!)

As for whether I should have addressed it, I tried to avoid commenting on it thus far as it is a compete red herring. But since it wouldnt go away and people were debating it, I found my self getting sucked into the debate in a moment of weakness.

Story of my life! :pac:

jobbridge4life · 29-01-2015 01:27PM

sup_dude wrote: »

Why?

I mean, to what effect? Name and shame? They've a right to vote no. I've never seen a valid reason for voting no, and I will argue against any silly reason but they still have a right to vote no and I don't see the point in "outing" those who do.

Well perhaps this is Aloyisious way of encouraging more of that said to engage in the discussion? It does get more than a little boring and frustrating chasing around in circles with the same intransigent no posters and then that can look like hounding and ganging up.

Ave Sodalis · 29-01-2015 01:31PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Well perhaps this is Aloyisious way of encouraging more of that said to engage in the discussion? It does get more than a little boring and frustrating chasing around in circles with the same intransigent no posters and then that can look like hounding and ganging up.

Except you could list the arguments and all it's going to achieve is going over the same thing again and again and people getting more and more frustrated. I mean, yeah if someone has something different to add to the table, or if someone has a well thought out, reasonable argument, by all means go ahead. But that's very unlikely, going by this thread and previous threads. You're just going to have more people looking for the Yes side to grovel, or saying homosexuality is a sin, or "won't someone please think of the children" and so on.

K4t · 29-01-2015 01:37PM

techdiver wrote: »

The fact that moderators in various debates allow them to go so far off topic and spend the majority of the time debating something that has nothing to do with the referendum at hand is amazing.

The fact that RTE feel obliged to have representation for those who oppose equal rights, such as religious organisations like Iona, in the first place is embarrassing. Let them go find their own medium, it is not tolerant or fair or democratic or however you want to disguise it to give these people one side of a debate on the issue of civil rights. Let them go down to their local churches and promote their beliefs.

sup_dude wrote: »

Why?

I mean, to what effect? Name and shame? They've a right to vote no. I've never seen a valid reason for voting no, and I will argue against any silly reason but they still have a right to vote no and I don't see the point in "outing" those who do.

Of course they have a right to vote No, nobody is arguing otherwise, but boards is a private website and not obliged to provide them with a secret ballot to express their views. I'd prefer to know the posters who do and do not support equal rights. Nothing wrong with that.

spikeS · 29-01-2015 01:50PM

sup_dude wrote: »

Except you could list the arguments and all it's going to achieve is going over the same thing again and again and people getting more and more frustrated. I mean, yeah if someone has something different to add to the table, or if someone has a well thought out, reasonable argument, by all means go ahead. But that's very unlikely, going by this thread and previous threads. You're just going to have more people looking for the Yes side to grovel, or saying homosexuality is a sin, or "won't someone please think of the children" and so on.

Yeah the last few pages have being the yes side sealioning the one or two no posters that said they would vote no.

We need to stop harassing the no voters call them out once then drop if they won't give an answer. You cannot change a bigots mind by harassing them

spikeS · 29-01-2015 01:53PM

K4t wrote: »

The fact that RTE feel obliged to have representation for those who oppose equal rights, such as religious organisations like Iona

I don't think they feel obliged I think they are legally obliged as they are funded by tax payers, TV3 might be able to put on what representation they feel like but RTE cannot

techdiver · 29-01-2015 01:53PM

K4t wrote: »

The fact that RTE feel obliged to have representation for those who oppose equal rights, such as religious organisations like Iona, in the first place is embarrassing. Let them go find their own medium, it is not tolerant or fair or democratic or however you want to disguise it to give these people one side of a debate on the issue of civil rights. Let them go down to their local churches and promote their beliefs.

Even though I disagree with what they say, I still believe all viewpoints should be given airtime (no matter how unpalatable). Where I draw the line is permitting these people to muddy the waters with scare tactics about unrelated issues or dressing opinion as fact.

What I say is give them enough rope to hang themselves, but ensure the rope is not used to lasso weak minded voters.

aloyisious · 29-01-2015 01:56PM

sup_dude wrote: »

Why?

I mean, to what effect? Name and shame? They've a right to vote no. I've never seen a valid reason for voting no, and I will argue against any silly reason but they still have a right to vote no and I don't see the point in "outing" those who do.

Ta sup_dude... OK, hands up. I got irked on the reason why the thread (the vote) had been side-lined; by a debate over the much-quoted issue of "the children" and no replies were forthcoming from those opposing equal marriage to questions put to them on their stated stance on that angle. I am not opposing the right of a citizen to a free vote.

I am asking them to come out and stop using the "will no one think of the children" angle if they cannot put forward an answer in black and white as to why they think children will be put at risk by equal marriage and same-sex parented families. I do not believe they are being honest in what they give as their stated reason for opposing equal marriage when they give children as the cause.

The above is an honest reply to sup_dude, and not for use as a tool to side-line the vote. I won't respond to any "questions" put to me about it and hope people won't fall for others using it to side-line the "vote" boxes on page one of this thread any further.

hurlsey · 29-01-2015 01:56PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

They took their time banning it too as Yale historian John Boswell discovered the Church was perfectly happy to officiate at the union of two men

Quote:
Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

Boswell's 1979 article can be found here: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.asp

I always knew LGB were acceptable up until a point where "The Church(s)" effectively banned it(laughable as it's not a choice) but this^, I never knew this and just adds further credence to my belief, that while I "believe" there "may" be a god all religious institutions are IMHO irrelevant!!

Yet another stick to counter the bigoted right wing religious nuts(of any denomination)

spikeS · 29-01-2015 01:59PM

hurlsey wrote: »

I always knew LGB were acceptable up until a point where "The Church(s)" effectively banned it(laughable as it's not a choice) but this^, I never knew this and just adds further credence to my belief, that while I "believe" there "may" be a god all religious institutions are IMHO irrelevant!!

Yet another stick to counter the bigoted right wing religious nuts(of any denomination)

Any reason you dropped the T from LGBT?

hurlsey · 29-01-2015 02:01PM

spikeS wrote: »

Any reason you dropped the T from LGBT?

Well given it was centuries ago I assume people could be transvestites if it was their choosing but transsexual would have been impossible(I'd imagine)

spikeS · 29-01-2015 02:04PM

hurlsey wrote: »

Well given it was centuries ago I assume people could be transvestites if it was their choosing but transsexual would have been impossible(I'd imagine)

Transsexuals have been around for centuries, you don't need hormones and surgery to be a transsexual

bilerico.com/2008/02/transgender_history_trans_expression_in.php

And also the the T is for transgengder the catch all term which covers cross dressers to transsexuals

hurlsey · 29-01-2015 02:10PM

spikeS wrote: »

Transsexuals have been around for centuries, you don't need hormones and surgery to be a transsexual

You'll have to forgive my ignorance but I thought a transsexual was someone you use to be a sex e.g. A woman who is now a man or vice versa??

K4t · 29-01-2015 02:10PM

spikeS wrote: »

I don't think they feel obliged I think they are legally obliged as they are funded by tax payers, TV3 might be able to put on what representation they feel like but RTE cannot

Of course they're not legally obliged to. They could if they wanted give sole representation to the Iona institute and NO voters. That would be ludicrous obviously, but at the same time they are not legally obliged to give representation to them at all. It is really is PC gone mad when we feel that we are obliged to give representation to those who oppose equal rights in the interest of fairness.

techdiver wrote: »

Even though I disagree with what they say, I still believe all viewpoints should be given airtime (no matter how unpalatable). Where I draw the line is permitting these people to muddy the waters with scare tactics about unrelated issues or dressing opinion as fact.

What I say is give them enough rope to hang themselves, but ensure the rope is not used to lasso weak minded voters.

If they want airtime, nobody is stopping them from setting up their own loony tunes station and spewing their warped beliefs. If people agree with them they'll do well and gain many followers. They have not earned a right to be represented whenever the issue arises of equal rights.

floggg · 29-01-2015 02:11PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No it's not your language at all. It's the way you're arguing fundamental rights for couples, as opposed to what I would argue are fundamental rights for individuals - that every individual citizen of the state has the opportunity to enter into marriage once they meet the other legal conditions of marriage such as the age of 18 (precluding exemption orders), etc. The State confers rights and special protections then upon the couple as a result of them being married, in recognition of the fact that they are now married.

What I'm saying is that every citizen regardless of their sex, gender or sexual orientation should have the right to choose whether they want to enter into marriage (or a marital contract, as distinct from a civil partnership). It's an argument that is focused on the fundamental rights of the individual, as opposed to the rights conferred upon them by right (not rites!) of the institution of marriage.

EDIT: This is the actual wording proposed -

Ahh right, I get it now. I can understand that recognising that people would have different rights to other people (for example arguing for men to have the right of access to abortion would just be silly!)

Story of my life! :pac:

No, it really was just my language. Obviously rights are only granted to individuals - a "couple" doesn't have personhood as they would say in the states.

I was just speaking in lay mans terms, and wasn't trying to make a wider point.

Ave Sodalis · 29-01-2015 02:13PM

hurlsey wrote: »

You'll have to forgive my ignorance but I thought a transsexual was someone you use to be a sex e.g. A woman who is now a man or vice versa??

Not exactly. It's more that you were born into the wrong body as opposed to just wanting to change.

spikeS · 29-01-2015 02:13PM

hurlsey wrote: »

You'll have to forgive my ignorance but I thought a transsexual was someone you use to be a sex e.g. A woman who is now a man or vice versa??

Edit my first post for a bit more info but,

A transsexual is a female born in a man's body or male born in a female body, a transsexual does need to take hormones or have any surgery to be trans.

I have a ftm friend and he is not planning hormones or surgery but he is still a man.

Daith · 29-01-2015 02:25PM

K4t wrote: »

They have not earned a right to be represented whenever the issue arises of equal rights.

They don't need to have earned it. A referendum must be balanced.

However I think media should look for others that are not Iona. Do they represent the entire No side?

K4t · 29-01-2015 02:36PM

Daith wrote: »

They don't need to have earned it. A referendum must be balanced.

However I think media should look for others that are not Iona. Do they represent the entire No side?

They have the right to vote and influence others as best they can. Nobody is obliged to give them a platform in the interest of balance. If the Iona institute didn't exist and nobody wanted to argue for a NO vote, would the YES side be obliged to argue against a YES vote every time they are given airtime in the interest of balance? The answer is no. It would be ridiculous. People make up their own minds in a referendum, especially one on equal rights. 1 Man/Woman 1 vote.

spikeS · 29-01-2015 02:38PM

K4t wrote: »

They have the right to vote and influence others as best they can. Nobody is obliged to give them a platform in the interest of balance. If the Iona institute didn't exist and nobody wanted to argue for a NO vote, would the YES side be obliged to argue against a YES vote every time they are given airtime in the interest of balance? The answer is no. It would be ridiculous. People make up their own minds in a referendum, especially one on equal rights. 1 Man/Woman 1 vote.

RTE is a publicly funded station they have to legally give a balanced discussion, they could chose to have zero discussion if they did not want to give iona air.

COYVB · 29-01-2015 02:43PM

spikeS wrote: »

RTE is a publicly funded station they have to legally give a balanced discussion

The law in Ireland doesn't extend to balanced TV discussions afaik - the courts have a bit more to be worrying about than that

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

Comments