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

spikeS · 29-01-2015 04:51PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

Sometimes I imagine a world where voters are too thick to get to the polling station.

I imagine a world where we don't need to and the government just passed equality without the need for people to vote

Ctrl Alt Delete · 29-01-2015 04:53PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The phrase "Sanctity of marriage" sounds nice on paper. It really at first glance sounds like the person using it is saying something. When you unpack it however there is nothing there but air.

Sure nice post deconstruct there but to be blunt again I believe in the importance and inviolability of marriage or to use another word sanctity

The fact that I believe marriage should be between man and wife only means that same sex marriage would most definitely violate that belief.

It's not my fault if all you see are a string of words and cant understand that. Also, seeing as alot of people quote me its easy to miss questions in such a fast moving thead

Ctrl Alt Delete · 29-01-2015 04:58PM

K4t wrote: »

I would rather scrap the whole debate (including the YES side argument of which is simply equal rights and needs no argument) if it meant it would also stop a platform being given to those who would actively oppose equal rights and and spread their crazy ideas on morality(you don't seem to understand the difference between a platform and freedom of expression and speech) and allow people to make up their own minds on an issue like equal rights. You know all too well that this would suit the YES side as people would be allowed to think for themselves and as human beings in 2015 would I am convinced side with their fellow human beings.

You don't seem to understand the simple process of democracy and / or referenda let alone the actual processes involved in changing the constitution.

What you seek is censorship to suit your agenda and if you are too blinded , silly or biased to see that and how it undermines what the fundamental point of this referendum is about then that is yours problem and certainly not mine.

Like I said please , PLEASE do feel free to get involved in debates on TV and radio.

jobbridge4life · 29-01-2015 04:58PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

f.

It's not my fault if all you see are a string of words and cant understand that.

It is your fault but no one fails to understand you. A statement like 'my personal views make me believe that gay marriage is wrong' is meaningless and evasionary. It is the nature of these personal views and the reasons or manner in which they prevent you supporting equal marriage that is of interest.

jobbridge4life · 29-01-2015 05:00PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

You don't seem to understand the simple process of democracy and / or referenda let alone the actual processes involved in changing the constitution.

What you seek is censorship to suit your agenda and if you are too blinded , silly or biased to see that and how it undermines what the fundamental point of this referendum is about then that is yours problem and certainly not mine.

Like I said please , PLEASE do feel free to get involved in debates on TV and radio.

The referendum is about a majority being asked to decide whether to recognize the human rights of a minority. This is a dangerous precedent. Imagine a vote tomorrow about whether to allow people of african descent Irish citizenship.

OldNotWIse · 29-01-2015 05:01PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Sure nice post deconstruct there but to be blunt again I believe in the importance and inviolability of marriage or to use another word sanctity

The fact that I believe marriage should be between man and wife only means that same sex marriage would most definitely violate that belief.

It's not my fault if all you see are a string of words and cant understand that. Also, seeing as alot of people quote me its easy to miss questions in such a fast moving thead

How would same sex marriage violate the sanctity of marriage as it exists? If the two guys next door to you tie the knot, will that affect your marriage? I've yet to see anyone baging on about the "sanctity of marriage" worry themselves about pre-marriage sex, extra-marital affairs, divorce etc :rolleyes:

bodice ripper · 29-01-2015 05:02PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Sure nice post deconstruct there but to be blunt again I believe in the importance and inviolability of marriage or to use another word sanctity

The fact that I believe marriage should be between man and wife only means that same sex marriage would most definitely violate that belief.

It's not my fault if all you see are a string of words and cant understand that. Also, seeing as alot of people quote me its easy to miss questions in such a fast moving thead

your reliegious views should have no bearing on other people's lives.

Ctrl Alt Delete · 29-01-2015 05:02PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Then why enter a discussion thread?

Also there is no equivalency between people inquiring about your position on a referendum vote and demanding to know the origins of someones sexuality. That is ludicrous.

Of course there is, for example I am heterosexual. (Don't answer because either way i don't care) but are you gay ? Because if you are that is more than likely (if not fully likely) the reason you are pro yes is it not?

jobbridge4life wrote: »

In addition you can't seriously suggest that gay people chose to be gay...

The reason I listed all three is because honestly its something I have given very little time on pondering. I'm not being flippant saying that either.

But choosing to be gay no it's more likely nature and sometimes possibly nurture.

Ave Sodalis · 29-01-2015 05:04PM

sup_dude wrote: »

Hypocritical in what way? What double standards? I'm not even gay! I've no idea what you're talking about.

I'd like these answered please CTRL

Daith · 29-01-2015 05:04PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

The fact that I believe marriage should be between man and wife only means that same sex marriage would most definitely violate that belief.

That's fine. I find that belief in general to be bigoted, anti-equality and discriminatory but support your right to have that opinion.

As long as you're still not suggesting you're pro-gay equality that's cool.

Ctrl Alt Delete · 29-01-2015 05:07PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

The referendum is about a majority being asked to decide whether to recognize the human rights of a minority. This is a dangerous precedent. Imagine a vote tomorrow about whether to allow people of african descent Irish citizenship.

According to others here the majority are in favor so I dont see a major issue.

It's not a dangerous precendent, because guess what that precendent was set LONG ago the majority is always going to be asked to decide on the minority.

Though its a mute semantic point but the minority isn't the minority if it won, it was the majority deciding on itself.

Ctrl Alt Delete · 29-01-2015 05:07PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

It is the nature of these personal views and the reasons or manner in which they prevent you supporting equal marriage that is of interest.

But why because you will never change my intention to vote no and is the same as me trying to understand why someone is gay.

Its a pure exercise in futility

Zubeneschamali · 29-01-2015 05:08PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I hold the belief that man & woman should marry and have children end of discussion period.

So my widowed father should not have married my widowed stepmother? They were too old for any more kids, and their own kids were grown.

We should have a referendum to stamp out that kind of aberrant marriage.

Lyaiera · 29-01-2015 05:08PM

I'd choose to be bisexual if I could.

Daith · 29-01-2015 05:09PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

It's not a dangerous precendent, because guess what that precendent was set LONG ago the majority is always going to be asked to decide on the minority.

Not at all? Did the majority decide about decriminalization of homosexuality?

Ctrl Alt Delete · 29-01-2015 05:10PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

your reliegious views should have no bearing on other people's lives.

And you would do well to understand that it is not a religious view and the word sanctity does not just relate to religious, maybe sacrosanct would suit you better if I used that word?

Ctrl Alt Delete · 29-01-2015 05:12PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So my widowed father should not have married my widowed stepmother?

man and wife so no problem in my view

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They were too old for any more kids, and their own kids were grown.

I didnt use the word procreate did I ?

OldNotWIse · 29-01-2015 05:13PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

man and wife so no problem in my view

I didnt use the word procreate did I ?

Did you mean "husband and wife"

Also, you said "have children" which means the same as procreate, does it not?

seamus · 29-01-2015 05:13PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

But why because you will never change my intention to vote no and is the same as me trying to understand why someone is black.

Its a pure exercise in futility

Have a look at that statement there and realise how utterly off the wall your thought process is.

Zubeneschamali · 29-01-2015 05:14PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

But why because you will never change my intention to vote no

Actually, people change their minds all the time.

In 1986, Divorce was rejected 63.5 to 36.5. In 1996, divorce was adopted, 50.3% to 49.7%. That's a 14% swing in just 10 years - people really did change their minds.

Ave Sodalis · 29-01-2015 05:15PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I didnt use the word procreate did I ?

But gays will be able to adopt as a couple before this referendum so your point here is... well... pointless.

Also, I'd still like an answer before I go ahead and assume there is no answer and you just accused me of things for the sake of it.

Ctrl Alt Delete · 29-01-2015 05:15PM

seamus wrote: »

Have a look at that statement there and realise how utterly off the wall your thought process is.

I didnt make that statement though. We all know about genetics and origins of people of all colours.

But please feel free to quote me then change what I said and say its off the wall :rolleyes:

spikeS · 29-01-2015 05:16PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Actually, people change their minds all the time.

In 1986, Divorce was rejected 63.5 to 36.5. In 1996, divorce was adopted, 50.3% to 49.7%. That's a 14% swing in just 10 years - people really did change their minds.

I would say it was the older generation dying out and a younger liberal generation getting to vote

Zubeneschamali · 29-01-2015 05:16PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

man and wife so no problem in my view I didnt use the word procreate did I ?

You said "marry and have children". If you don't care that they are not the children of the marriage, SSM couples can have those, too.

Zubeneschamali · 29-01-2015 05:16PM

spikeS wrote: »

I would say it was the older generation dying out and a younger liberal generation getting to vote

14% in 10 years? Nope.

tayto lover · 29-01-2015 05:16PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Actually, people change their minds all the time.

In 1986, Divorce was rejected 63.5 to 36.5. In 1996, divorce was adopted, 50.3% to 49.7%. That's a 14% swing in just 10 years - people really did change their minds.

Many people change their minds because they educate themselves on the subject and put their previous biased views aside. I've done it on several issues.

bodice ripper · 29-01-2015 05:18PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

And you would do well to understand that it is not a religious view and the word sanctity does not just relate to religious, maybe sacrosanct would suit you better if I used that word?

Sanctity does pertain to the religious, as does sacrosanct. How about you stick to words you actually understand?

Ctrl Alt Delete · 29-01-2015 05:19PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Actually, people change their minds all the time.

In 1986, Divorce was rejected 63.5 to 36.5. In 1996, divorce was adopted, 50.3% to 49.7%. That's a 14% swing in just 10 years - people really did change their minds.

I do believe I made a detailed post yesterday about societies gradual change in opinion and the variance in speeds at which opinions change and can be quoted multiple times as saying same sex marriage will come to Ireland but it may not be this referendum.

When I tried to bring up that it was previously criminal to be gay in this country to show the progress already made on equality I was rounded on fast.

Daith · 29-01-2015 05:19PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

Sanctity does pertain to the religious, as does sacrosanct. How about you stick to words you actually understand?

Apparently the meaning of the word changed from just pertaining to religion. Like some other word?

Daith · 29-01-2015 05:20PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

When I tried to bring up that it was previously criminal to be gay in this country to show the progress already made on equality I was rounded on fast.

People disagreed with you.

Again though, what's the difference between you and the family values guy on VinB?

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

Comments