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

Ave Sodalis · 29-01-2015 05:20PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

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.

You weren't "rounded on" at all. It was pointed out to you that some people insist on keeping progress to a minimum. Yourself included.

Ctrl Alt Delete · 29-01-2015 05:21PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

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

When you are going to accuse someone of not understanding what they say at least make sure you have the basic intelligence to check the actual meaning first (even if big words over 5 letters are hard for you) :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

sanctity - 2. ultimate importance and inviolability EG "the sanctity of human life"

sacrosanct - adjective (especially of a principle, place, or routine) regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with.

synonyms: respected, inviolable, inviolate, unimpeachable, unchallengeable, invulnerable, untouchable, inalienable, set apart, protected, defended, secure, safe, unthreatened "the rights of parents are sacrosanct for this government"

sup_dude wrote: »

You weren't "rounded on" at all. It was pointed out to you that some people insist on keeping progress to a minimum. Yourself included.

See the above types of posted started yesterday as well. Like I said yesterday it doesnt particularly bother me its expectant when you discuss some in the sphere of the gay agenda you come under attack both subtle and not so subtle

Daith · 29-01-2015 05:22PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

sanctity - 2. ultimate importance and inviolability EG "the sanctity of human life"

When you are going to accuse someone of not understanding what they say at least make sure you have the intelligence to check the actual meaning first (even if big words over 5 letters are hard for you) :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Word Origin
C17: from Latin sacrōsanctus made holy by sacred rite, from sacrō by sacred rite, from sacer holy + sanctus, from sancīre to hallow

So the word has religious meaning but changed over time. Just like marriage!

Zubeneschamali · 29-01-2015 05:23PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

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.

Society doesn't have opinions. People have opinions.

As spikeS notes, there is an effect where old folks die and take some prejudices with them, my parents generation had some really shocking, unapologetic racists who were otherwise as nice as pie.

But actual people do change their minds. Someday you will be embarrassed by your no vote and your black president analogy, both.

floggg · 29-01-2015 05:26PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

It is discrimination. It is legally enforced discrimination but discrimination none the less.

Indeed.

Was apartheid non-discriminatory just because it was sanctioned by law?

C+A+D - you aren't singling individual gay people out to discriminate against, you are singling all gay people out as a class.

You are voting to maintain rather than introduce the discrimination, but that doesn't change the fact that you think gay people as a class are undeserving of equality in this sphere.

I have to say I am fascinated by your stance. From all of your posts (particularly your Obama analogu) I get the sense you know your position is not entirely right, but you are unable to move post it.

I cam imagine in 20 years time even you will be wondering what the big deal was.

bodice ripper · 29-01-2015 05:26PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

sanctity - 2. ultimate importance and inviolability EG "the sanctity of human life"

When you are going to accuse someone of not understanding what they say at least make sure you have the intelligence to check the actual meaning first (even if big words over 5 letters are hard for you) :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Sanctity 2. 1 was religious, wasn't it? If you are eager to point out that your view isnt religious, its probably an idea to avoid descriptors that are religious in nature, and then choose another religious word as an alternative. But hey, this referendum isn't about teaching you how to read...

jobbridge4life · 29-01-2015 05:27PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

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.

The majority/minority in this case refers to sexual orientation. The majority being heterosexual the minority being LGB.

It is absolutely a precedent and a dangerous one and you don't need to take my word for it there is plenty of legal scholars who have given great consideration to this point, google is your friend.

'It is unpopular minorities whom charters and bills of rights exist to protect. In almost any society, the majority… can look after itself.'

Prescient words from the late great Baron Tom Bingham.

floggg · 29-01-2015 05:28PM

K4t wrote: »

It is only an issue because a minority would seek to deny a group of people equal rights. There is no need for a debate. The majority believe in equal rights and so the referendum should pass tomorrow. If after that the minority opinion subsequently changes in favour of banning SSM and spreads and becomes the popular belief in the country then it will spread to political parties and another referendum can take place in proposal of banning SSM and it will pass. And we'll be back to square one.

Marriage equality should not even be regarded as an issue in 2015 Ireland. We should not be giving it a platform if it means the conversation has to be balanced by conservative nutjobs. We should vote and let the polls do the talking.

You cant have a vote without having a debate and ensuring people are informed.

And if it doesn't pass, best believe it will still be an issue. Same goes if it's ever repealed.

Inequality will always be an issue as long as it exists.

Ctrl Alt Delete · 29-01-2015 05:28PM

sup_dude wrote: »

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

Hang on adoption is now defined the same as procreation now ????

The very act of adoption is an oxymoron of the word procreation.

Nothing wrong with adoption mind you

spikeS · 29-01-2015 05:28PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

The majority/minority in this case refers to sexual orientation. The majority being heterosexual the minority being LGB.

It is absolutely a precedent and a dangerous one and you don't need to take my word for it there is plenty of legal scholars who have given great consideration to this point, google is your friend.

'It is unpopular minorities whom charters and bills of rights exist to protect. In almost any society, the majority… can look after itself.'

Prescient words from the late great Baron Tom Bingham.

Again why are people removing the T from LGBT?

Ctrl Alt Delete · 29-01-2015 05:30PM

bodice ripper wrote: »

Sanctity 2. 1 was religious, wasn't it? If you are eager to point out that your view isnt religious, its probably an idea to avoid descriptors that are religious in nature, and then choose another religious word as an alternative. But hey, this referendum isn't about teaching you how to read...

No because you were too eager to assume it was religious based view.

I'm actually feeling awfully gay today

No not homosexual did you not realize words can have more than one meaning? ?

aloyisious · 29-01-2015 05:30PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

civil partnership is the same thing no ?

If it was, it wouldn't be called civil partnership.

On the issue of how things may pan out in the referendum vote, don't think the result is done and dusted and there'll be a majority YES vote. Those groups intent of preventing a YES majority will continue misleading people, telling them that the marriages they have will be lessened in value and the future of children will be affected negatively by a YES vote in the referendum, and in the Protection Act the Oireachtas will bring onto the Statute Books. They will try and conflate the Referendum and the Act.

They will lie and prevaricate on the issue and put the wind up the voter, so he/she will vote for the old reliable, the thing they are familiar with, not a change. They will have proxies on live and internet forums to muddy the waters and cause confusion as to what's going be voted on, pretending that what's black is white.

While watching a debate recently on a new show, I was surprised to learn that amongst the audience were proxies. One audience member was given the opportunity to make a point, but before she could do so, the host mentioned that she was a person nominated for audience numbers by the Iona Institute. Said lady was upset at being identified as an Iona-nominee and protested at it being mentioned, but did not deny the truth of it.

With regard to the BAI and it's decisions on balance, it seemed that on that particular show, equal representation did not lie solely amongst the panel guests but included the audience for balance purposes. I wondered how the eventual audience participation reflected the nation, if the show organisers could deliberately park agents for one side or the other amongst it to raise points which neutral ordinary members would have raised themselves.

Daith · 29-01-2015 05:30PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Hang on adoption is now defined the same as procreation now ????

How do infertile straight couples have children when they marry?

floggg · 29-01-2015 05:30PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Legally as defined it is not discrimination and emotive terms like discrimination are pointless.

For example can you cite me any examples of an EU Commission judgement against the Irish State for discrimination of homosexuals ?

The EU Commission doesn't issue judgments. Yiu are probably thinking of the European Court of Human Rights.

The Norris case resulting in the decriminalisation of homosexual acts was probably one of the most famous judgments in the ECHR relating to Ireland.

Ave Sodalis · 29-01-2015 05:31PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Hang on adoption is now defined the same as procreation now ????

The very act of adoption is an oxymoron of the word procreation.

Nothing wrong with adoption mind you

I never said that. In fact, I said the opposite. You said you weren't referring to procreation. Therefore, you must have been referring to adoption or other measures. However, this logic is not just applied to man and woman. It can also be applied to SSM, which is why your point doesn't make sense.

Daith · 29-01-2015 05:31PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I'm actually feeling awfully gay today No not homosexual did you not realize words can have more than one meaning? ?

The word has a religious context. No one was disputing the meaning.

Again though any reason why you're different from the No guy on VinB last night?

bodice ripper · 29-01-2015 05:33PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

No because you were too eager to assume it was religious based view.

I'm actually feeling awfully gay today No not homosexual did you not realize words can have more than one meaning? ?

Sure. But if you want people to believe you when you claim it has no basis in religion, you would do well to avoid word whose primary use is to describe religious ideas.

Pick a word to replace "sanctity" in "sanctity of marriage" that doesn't have religious connotations. See if you can find one that doesn't sound daft.

Ave Sodalis · 29-01-2015 05:33PM

floggg wrote: »

You cand have a vote without having a debate and ensuring people are informed.

And if it doesn't pass, best believe it will still be an issue. Same goes if it's ever repealed.

Inequality will always be an issue as long as it exists.

That's the problem. What debate can the no side have that will inform people? I'm all for giving the no side a chance to debate if they actually inform and make well thought out, reasonable arguments. But they won't (at least, as far as I've seen) so what do we do there?

Daith · 29-01-2015 05:34PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

least make sure you have the basic intelligence to check the actual meaning first (even if big words over 5 letters are hard for you) :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Like I said yesterday it doesnt particularly bother me its expectant when you discuss some in the sphere of the gay agenda you come under attack both subtle and not so subtle

I see.

It was you on VinnyB last night wasn't it?

floggg · 29-01-2015 05:36PM

spikeS wrote: »

I am saying it won't make it so gay people can adopt as that is the case already but it does make it easier as they can no longer discriminate due to not being a married couple. It's a good thing

It's a good side effect of the marriage referendum going through

Amy chance you can back this up with anything?

Given your other posts telling everybody that this is in the bag and we don't have to worry about anything, sometimes u wonder whether you aren't a really clever counter-intelligence agent sent by the no side to sabotage us from within.

Ctrl Alt Delete · 29-01-2015 05:37PM

Daith wrote: »

How do infertile straight couples have children when they marry?

Just to clear that up I'm not anti adoption but adoption and procreation Are not the same thing

Ave Sodalis · 29-01-2015 05:37PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Just to clear that up I'm not anti adoption but adoption and procreation Are not the same thing

Nobody said they were

floggg · 29-01-2015 05:38PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

It's like I asked yesterday. If a magic wand was waved and you had all the equal rights and standings of a married couple as civil partners would you be happy?

And like I asked, would you be and why?

Daith · 29-01-2015 05:38PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Just to clear that up I'm not anti adoption but adoption and procreation Are not the same thing

Yes I know?

floggg · 29-01-2015 05:39PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

No thats called Sharia law in Islam and has nothing to do with the topic really but it's their culture and their way of life. You argue people have no right to tell gays what to do surely it would be same here in that case no ?

The rule of law is what the world turns on like it or lump it.

Whats to stop you going up North and getting married and having the same rights under the Civil Partnership Bill in the South ?

Was legally sanctioned and enforced apartheid discriminatory.

Yes or no?

DeVore · 29-01-2015 05:40PM

The sacrament is Matrimony. Just you know, since everyone is being pedantic and all.

jobbridge4life · 29-01-2015 05:42PM

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.

Speaking of which I'd really like to hear your response to me. An apology would suffice.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I was five when society decided I shouldn't be in effect a criminal. I was fifteen when in response to my coming out my Mother told me 'people like you will never get elected'. I was 19 when my best friend and I fell in love. I am 26 years of age now and still very much in love but I am here trying my best to convince a man who doesn't know me, who shouldn't have a say in anything to do with my life to please use his vote to let me be an equal citizen in my own country. So don't tell me I don't understand the gradual nature of progress.

floggg · 29-01-2015 05:52PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

And as such I respect the law of their land as is their sovereign right. You have to respect the current law of the land here equally.

I mean after all there are plenty of countries around the world were gay marriage is legal , so why not just be equal and "go foreign" same way a straight couple would ?

Why should I have to go abroad to get seen as an equal?

And not to mention the fact that u might possibly want my foreign wedding actually recognised in home country when I return.

Unless I should be happy with just moving abroad if I want the same rights as everybody else?

Zubeneschamali · 29-01-2015 05:55PM

floggg wrote: »

Why should I have to go abroad to get seen as an equal?

I've a better idea: all the people who are grossly offended by SSM can move to Saudi Arabia.

floggg · 29-01-2015 05:58PM

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I stated my reasons multiple times and I will state it again in case you missed it.

My personal values on life, experiences, teachings and a very limited catholic influence on the matter lead to me to believe in the sanctity of marriage being between a male and a female only.

Outside of that I do not need to dissect or discuss my reasoning as my mind is firmly made up on the matter.

You aren't really explaining anything other than its what you believe. You have never said really why you think that to be the case or how my marriage would ever undermine your view of marriage.

Fine, you don't have to say any more if you don't want to, but it would be usual when participating.

But again, I would reiterate nobody shouted you down.

If we were aggressive at all, it was in pressing you to give a more thorough explanation of your reasoning.

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

Comments