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…4647495152…325

Comments

  • #1442
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Daith wrote: »
    The exact same as between a man and man and woman and woman.

    You have yet to explain the difference.
    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Because I'm not allowed use certain words on this thread without it somehow being brought back to a religious basis :rolleyes:

    Your argument is "marriage is between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman is special."

    And?

    That doesn't mean anything at all, and is getting kind of circular.

    You are either completely unwilling or unable to explain why a marriage between two men cannot be equally special, or how a marriage between two men women would change of affect the special nature of it.


  • #1443
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Because marriage between a man and a woman is [INSERT WORD HERE]

    Also, you obviously have your conception of what marriage is, but do you think its a universal truth for everybody?

    Are other straight people allowed see their marriage in different terms to you? Can each straight couple define the foundation and basis of their relationship for themselves?

    Or do you presume to know better than them in that regard?


  • #1444
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    You owe me an apology for telling me that I didn't understand the gradual nature of progress relating to gay rights as opposed to a wonderful straight 'friend of the gays' like your self.

    You will be waiting so


  • #1445
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    You will be waiting so

    No I won't because I always knew there was zero chance you'd acknowledge you were wrong. You haven't done so once. Its a little sad.


  • #1446
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Sofiztikated wrote: »
    Madam and Eve

    Does Madam run a high class brothel by any chance?

    No wonder they didn't include her in the bible!


  • Advertisement
  • #1447
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Apparently, as it's between a man and a woman, it's fine because that excuse only applies to a gay couple. It's only important someone is able to procreate if they're gay. That doesn't apply at any other time.

    We try to procreate regularly. Its not my fault my fiance is infertile!


  • #1448
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,344 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    I'll try and be a bit clearer then seeing as how you had difficulty understanding what I said

    Getting you to try and be clearer has been the goal of the posts of many posters - myself included - and it has nothing to do with a failure of our understanding as you are contriving to misrepresent it - but due to your MO of soap boxing your views alongside a refusal to support them in any way. So yes - by all means - try to be clearer. It would make a nice change from the wilful obfuscation and dodge to date.
    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    When I say a man and woman should marry and should have children. Where in that above sentence does it decree or dictate to anyone that they must have children as you like to try and twist it ?

    By declaring what they "should" do you are putting yourself on a pedestal where you have no credibility to be. There is no "should" here and you have not supported one other than declaring it by fiat. You are telling people what they "should" do based on nothing - and the reality is that there is no reason why they should conform to this should - and many do not. People as I said get married and have no children. They have children without getting married. They do neither. They do both. I am sorry that human individuality does not conform to what you feel people "should" do. I can recommend you get used to it - it will not be changing soon.
    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    But I do because I dont discuss my reasoning further, same way yo dictate whether or not to engage with me

    Good - so you agree that "discussion over" is just filler nonsense given you can not dictate to me when the discussion is over - and you are clearly still discussing. That is - when you are not storming out of the thread and pretending you will not be posting on it again.

    As for "discussing your reasoning further" that is a bit rich given you have not been discussing it _at all_. "Further" would require you at some point started.
    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    No what you did was try and over reach on a point that didnt need to be over reached in the first place and fell down on your own empty rant.

    The ranting is yours and yours alone as you soap box your views while refusing to discuss them - lend substance to them - or support them. The rest of us however are not just putting our views forward - but explain the basis for them. Try it sometime. It is not that hard. And perhaps you will then stop the ranting.
    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    I don't need bluster or empty words to maintain or justify my position

    Then that begs the question as to why if you do not need that - you have been doing _exactly_ that. You seem to also fail to understand this and also fail to understand I am not alone in this thinking.
    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    You seem to be under some very misguided impression that I feel a need to "dodge" questions in the first point. I don't by the way.

    As above - I was not commenting on what you "need" to do - just what you HAVE been doing. Acknowledging what you have been doing is not a commentary on what you need to do. At all.
    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Can you quote me where I said my religious background was the main influence of my view?

    Can you quote me where I claimed you did say it was the "main" influence. You simply can't because your trying to twist things again , gg :rolleyes:

    I am merely acknowledging that in two posts you put religion forward as a basis for your views - and in the post above you distance yourself from this position by saying it is not a religious position. Sure it is not SOLELY a religious position - but you clearly claimed twice it was a religious position to some degree.
    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    I mean we've even had serious multiple suggestions

    Take it up with the people who have suggested such things then. I have not - so you are just posting derailing filler into your conversation with me that has nothing to do with me.
    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Attacking the poster (or anyone pro status quo) and not the post has become par for the course in this thread, for me and a few others.

    Take it up with the people who have done such things then. I have not - so you are just posting derailing filler into your conversation with me that has nothing to do with me.

    Actually what is "par for the course" is people on the "no" side have blatantly ignored the reasoned posts and focused on the rest - in order to manufacture this fantasy persecution that they are being insulted - or shouted down - or their voices are being surpressed.

    A nice fantasy - and easy to maintain if you simply contrive to ignore the posts that show the lie behind it. Take the post from me you ignored for example - before you took your ball home and pretended to leave the thread. You simply ignored it and refused to reply to it. Because it simply did not fit your narrative of the shrill rants you want to pretend are coming from the other side.

    Follow the pro gay agenda narrative in your head of bully boy types of approach - or simply get your reasoned posts ignored. Nice MO.
    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Because I'm not allowed use certain words on this thread without it somehow being brought back to a religious basis :rolleyes:

    Note however my reply to your choice of words had NOTHING to do with the religious etymology of the word. My reply to it was to point out that the word sounds good on paper but actually says nothing at all. When you want to protect the "sanctity" of marriage or whatever other pretty word you throw in - it is blatantly clear what you are protecting is the status quo - for no apparent reason other than it IS the status quo - and when you are asked what your reasoning is you retreat behind "I do not want to / have to explain myself" rhetoric to dodge. Or you just run out of the thread - pretending you will not post again - but then do once enough time has elapsed that you think people will not notice all the replies you simply dodged. Again: Nice MO.


  • #1449
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    floggg wrote: »
    Also, you obviously have your conception of what marriage is, but do you think its a universal truth for everybody?

    Are other straight people allowed see their marriage in different terms to you? Can each straight couple define the foundation and basis of their relationship for themselves?

    I'm glad someone finally understands it is my concept of marriage

    To answer your question no I don't think it's a universal truth for everybody and of course others are perfectly entitled to see marriage whatever way they wish.

    But I am not voting to represent anyone elses views on marriage. I am voting to represent my singular view with a singular vote

    The totality of how singular my view may or may not be will only become apparent after the the tá and níl's are fully counted.


  • #1450
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    floggg wrote: »
    We try to procreate regularly. Its not my fault my fiance is infertile!

    Oh no, according to Ctrl, it's not the infertile part that's the problem, it's only a problem when your gay. Which, you know, isn't at all contradictive...

    "Marriage is about children, gays can't have children naturally so shouldn't marry"
    "What about infertile?"
    "Doesn't count! Only gays"


  • #1451
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    No I won't because I always knew there was zero chance you'd acknowledge you were wrong. You haven't done so once. Its a little sad.

    Well when you take your blinkers off you will see plenty of acknowledgements to others points and posts.


  • Advertisement
  • #1452
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    I'm glad someone finally understands it is my concept of marriage

    To answer your question no I don't think it's a universal truth for everybody and of course others are perfectly entitled to see marriage whatever way they wish.

    But I am not voting to represent anyone elses views on marriage. I am voting to represent my singular view with a singular vote

    The totality of how singular my view may or may not be will only become apparent after the the tá and níl's are fully counted.


    But it doesn't affect you in any shape or form.
    You keep changing your reasoning too, instead of explaining it in the first place.


  • #1453
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Well when you take your blinkers off you will see plenty of acknowledgements to others points and posts.

    After the fourth request for an answer, you're still ignoring mine.


  • #1454
    kingtiger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,744 ✭✭✭kingtiger


    voting yes,

    I think just to annoy fools like this auld lad

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-kzB6cPuQI


  • #1455
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,259 ✭✭✭Daith


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    I am voting to represent my singular view with a singular vote
    .

    As I said before, that's fine. Just don't go pretending you support gay rights and equality which your initial posts were about.

    You've changed it from gay rights to children and flip flopped all over again.

    I've more respect for the guy on Vincent Brown though. He didn't try to throw up red herrings to shield against his singular view.


  • #1456
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,344 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    I'm glad someone finally understands it is my concept of marriage

    I am not sure anyone failed to understand that - you are just trying to paint it that way. What you are failing to understand is that we are inquiring into the basis of that concept - which you are refusing to offer - and we are pointing out that if you have some personal concept of marriage that is one thing - but declaring what other people "should" do off the back of it is another.

    As is voting in such a way as to maintain your personal concept of it for others. If you do not want to marry someone of the same sex - due to your personal concept of marriage - that is great. No one wants you to. But we can acknowledge the difference between you choosing not to have a gay marriage - and you voting to ensure no one else does either.

    Chewing gum disgusts me - so I simply do not buy it. I have never once felt compelled to prevent others from having it - or telling them what they "should" do - because of my personal feelings on the subject.
    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    But I am not voting to represent anyone elses views on marriage. I am voting to represent my singular view with a singular vote

    Why does your view need representing? You have a very narrow view of the process of democracy and voting. It is not for posturing your views to represent them - it is for asking what should be true about society and what should people be allowed do or prevented from doing.

    And as I said above, if you do not want gay marriage then simply do not have a gay marriage. But that is words apart from using a vote to ensure no one else can too. We can at least be honest about that - even if we can not change your vote.


  • #1457
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    I'll try and be a bit clearer then seeing as how you had difficulty understanding what I said (or are choosing to try twist it).

    When I say a man and woman should marry and should have children.

    Where in that above sentence does it decree or dictate to anyone that they must have children as you like to try and twist it ?



    But I do because I dont discuss my reasoning further, same way yo dictate whether or not to engage with me ;)



    No what you did was try and over reach on a point that didnt need to be over reached in the first place and fell down on your own empty rant.

    I don't need bluster or empty words to maintain or justify my position you seem to also fail to understand this and also fail to understand I am not alone in this thinking.



    You seem to be under some very misguided impression that I feel a need to "dodge" questions in the first point. I don't by the way



    Can you quote me where I said my religious background was the main influence of my view?

    You simply can't because your trying to twist things again , gg :rolleyes:

    Attacking the poster and not the post has become par for the course in this thread, for me and a few others. Follow the pro gay agenda or else type of approach.

    I mean we've even had serious multiple suggestions on this thread that the no side shouldnt be allowed to voice their opinions equally to the yes side and we do away with the democratic / constitutional process in the first place to suit the pro gay agenda :rolleys:
    Given that you have clearly lied in one of your first posts, it is extremely difficult to believe anything you say, particularly around this whole idea that you are trying to pass yourself off as someone that is down with the gays. But let's continue to give you the benefit of the doubt.

    Clearly you are perfectly entitled to believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman, thereby continuing discrimination against same-sex couples that want to get married. Now, when you are suggesting keeping a discriminatory practice in operation then you kind of really do need to provide some reasoning for it. For example, if I told you that from now one you would not be allowed to get married, and if you were married it was no longer valid, and all the legal and financial benefits you might have, because of your now invalid marriage, are to be removed, but I refused to provide the reasoning or reasons for invalidating your marriage, would that be acceptable to you?

    We humans are simple creatures, if someone is going to do something negative against us, we are not going to like it, but, if good reasons can be given then, whilst we might still not like it, we might grudgingly accept it. When something negative is inflicted upon us and inadequate reasoning is supplied, it is extremely unlikely to get even grudging acceptance.

    This is what you are doing here. You want to allow discrimination against same-sex couples to continue, but you are unwilling to provide any reasoning beyond 'well, that is just what I believe.' That is not a good way to try to achieve consensus.

    Please note, this is not an attack on you, merely an observation that repeating 'I have my reasons' without actually giving the reasons, or giving reasons that have no substance and refusing to substantiate them, is quite unhelpful. You say you don't want to discuss your reasoning further, well, you haven't discussed it at all!

    I know it may seem like you are being badgered, but surely you can understand that people kind of feel pretty strongly about this...? You are advocating a continuation of the circumstances whereby they can't marry their loved ones, something which they strongly believe, as do a majority of the population, they should be able to do, but you refuse to give reasons.

    Generally, and I emphasise the generally, when people refuse, as you have repeatedly done, to provide good reasoning for a particular position, especially when that position is seen by some as unpleasant or unpopular, it is because they believe people may not accept their reasoning. There can be a number of reasons for this; there may not be any reasoning, it might be mere prejudice; the reasons may be based on something that other may not accept, a religious belief, for example; or it may be that there simply are no reasons, though this then kind of almost becomes mere prejudice...

    So, of course you are under no obligation to provide any reasoning for your support of continued discrimination against same-sex couples, you do of course have a right to silence, as it were, but don't be surprised if people choose to exercise their right to take a negative inference from your silence.

    MrP


  • #1458
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    There is almost a hundred pages here of people of irrelevant distractions about religion, individuality. etymology and whatever, when it isn't rocket science. Marriage is a privileged institution in pretty much every society for generations because it brings together men and women. Society supports this in various ways because it is in society's interest to form families, so ensuring that the values of that society will be transmitted onwards. Same sex relationships do not provide the same type of value to society so should not be conflated with marriage, if they wish to claim legal privilege then they should do on their own merits as has happened with civil partnerships.


  • #1459
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    There is almost a hundred pages here of people of irrelevant distractions about religion, individuality. etymology and whatever, when it isn't rocket science. Marriage is a privileged institution in pretty much every society for generations because it brings together men and women. Society supports this in various ways because it is in society's interest to form families, so ensuring that the values of that society will be transmitted onwards. Same sex relationships do not provide the same type of value to society so should not be conflated with marriage, if they wish to claim legal privilege then they should do on their own merits as has happened with civil partnerships.

    Another "won't someone please think of the children" post... Homosexuals can form families without this referendum, so your point is invalid.

    What about infertile couples? Or are you another "it only counts if it's the gays"?


  • #1460
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Well when you take your blinkers off you will see plenty of acknowledgements to others points and posts.

    Not a single one. Not one. You've evading, obfuscating and leading this thread around in the same redundant circles for ages saying what amounts to nothing more than...

    'I think the state shouldn't recognize gay marriages because I just don't like it'.

    Which is an absurd way to approach democracy.


  • #1461
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    I'm glad someone finally understands it is my concept of marriage

    To answer your question no I don't think it's a universal truth for everybody and of course others are perfectly entitled to see marriage whatever way they wish.

    But I am not voting to represent anyone elses views on marriage. I am voting to represent my singular view with a singular vote

    The totality of how singular my view may or may not be will only become apparent after the the tá and níl's are fully counted.

    Sorry, but that position is blatantly contradictory. You cannot say others are free to define the basis for their marriage, if you are actively seeking to deny people (through your vote) the choice to enter marriages otherwise than on your terms.

    It's not "representation" of your view - its enforcement of it.

    And you can't hide behind the fact that its just one vote, because you are still playing your part in enforcing your view point on others.


  • Advertisement
  • #1462
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    There is almost a hundred pages here of people of irrelevant distractions about religion, individuality. etymology and whatever, when it isn't rocket science. Marriage is a privileged institution in pretty much every society for generations because it brings together men and women. Society supports this in various ways because it is in society's interest to form families, so ensuring that the values of that society will be transmitted onwards. Same sex relationships do not provide the same type of value to society so should not be conflated with marriage, if they wish to claim legal privilege then they should do on their own merits as has happened with civil partnerships.

    Ah - The Fabric of Society argument. That's not an irrelevant distraction at all at all. Or even a rehash of why women shouldn't get the vote... or why divorce will make the sky fall down...


  • #1463
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Oh no, according to Ctrl, it's not the infertile part that's the problem, it's only a problem when your gay. Which, you know, isn't at all contradictive...

    "Marriage is about children, gays can't have children naturally so shouldn't marry"
    "What about infertile?"
    "Doesn't count! Only gays"

    When people mention infertile women / males so on it is not their fault they are infertile but biologically their body is trying.

    Nature intended you to be gay thats fine but if nature intended you to be gay it didnt intend for you to procreate.

    Fact is, only a male / female relationship biologically can procreate offspring

    Fact is, biologically a man / man exclusive or woman / woman exclusive relationship cannot procreate offspring without the direct intervention of a third party which in turn does not really seem like an exclusive marriage / relationship between two people anymore does it ?

    If at some stage in the future male / females suddenly develop a-sexual reproductive capacity then that fact changes.


  • #1464
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    There is almost a hundred pages here of people of irrelevant distractions about religion, individuality. etymology and whatever, when it isn't rocket science. Marriage is a privileged institution in pretty much every society for generations because it brings together men and women. Society supports this in various ways because it is in society's interest to form families, so ensuring that the values of that society will be transmitted onwards. Same sex relationships do not provide the same type of value to society so should not be conflated with marriage, if they wish to claim legal privilege then they should do on their own merits as has happened with civil partnerships.

    Except they can and do, and supported by a normative institution like civil marriage will only do more so in the future.


  • #1465
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    When people mention infertile women / males so on it is not their fault they are infertile but biologically their body is trying.

    Nature intended you to be gay thats fine but if nature intended you to be gay it didnt intend for you to procreate.

    Fact is, only a male / female relationship biologically can procreate offspring

    Fact is, biologically a man / man exclusive or woman / woman exclusive cannot procreate offspring without the direct intervention of a third party.

    If at some stage in the future male / females suddenly develop a-sexual reproductive capacity then that fact changes.

    When your infertile, your body has stopped trying. It's not the fault of gay people that they're gay either, but most are fertile and capable of producing children. However, you're narrowing down things you never cared about before. Your argument is changing at nearly a post to post basis now...


  • #1466
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    When people mention infertile women / males so on it is not their fault they are infertile but biologically their body is trying.

    Nature intended you to be gay thats fine but if nature intended you to be gay it didnt intend for you to procreate.

    Fact is, only a male / female relationship biologically can procreate offspring

    Fact is, biologically a man / man exclusive or woman / woman exclusive relationship cannot procreate offspring without the direct intervention of a third party which in turn does not really seem like an exclusive marriage / relationship between two people anymore does it ?

    If at some stage in the future male / females suddenly develop a-sexual reproductive capacity then that fact changes.

    This is the most ridiculous non-sense. So nature intended for biologically infertile people to reproduce but definitely did not intend for the biologically capable gay people to reproduce. I mean for God's sake.


  • #1467
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    floggg wrote: »
    Sorry, but that position is blatantly contradictory. You cannot say others are free to define the basis for their marriage, if you are actively seeking to deny people (through your vote) the choice to enter marriages otherwise than on your terms.

    It's not "representation" of your view - its enforcement of it.

    And you can't hide behind the fact that its just one vote, because you are still playing your part in enforcing your view point on others.

    Silly me for thinking this thread was starting to show some hope :rolleyes::rolleyes:

    So lets pose a simple question based on your post above:

    Because you want something to happen I am now no longer able to express my representation of my view via voting in a legal referendum because it is enforcement.

    Surely, you can see you are now being contradictory and looking to enforce your views on others to suit your agenda ????

    I find it strange but typical of this thread that there has been many examples of posters looking and seeking equality for gays but yet seem to have such failings on the basic understandings or concept of equality.


  • #1468
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Ah - The Fabric of Society argument.

    I still think if you are keen on fabric, then the gays are the right lads for it. I wouldn't know silk from satin, myself.


  • #1469
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Silly me for thinking this thread was starting to show some hope :rolleyes::rolleyes:

    So lets pose a simple question based on your post above:

    Because you want something to happen I am now no longer able to express my representation of my view via voting in a legal referendum because it is enforcement.

    Surely, you can see you are now being contradictory and looking to enforce your views on others to suit your agenda ????

    I find it strange but typical of this thread that there has been many examples of posters looking and seeking equality for gays but yet seem to have such failings on the basic understandings or concept of equality.

    This post is going to fall completely on deaf ears but... the no campaign don't have an argument. They have a bunch of lies and misinformation. How is that fair? Why are they allowed to spread lies and misinformation in order to poison the yes sides chances? If the no side have an argument, fair enough but they don't. I don't think you understand equality...


  • #1470
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,344 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    When people mention infertile women / males so on it is not their fault they are infertile but biologically their body is trying.

    There is more to it than that. People get married for example - who are perfectly fertile - and simply choose not to reproduce. Some people reproduce and never get married. By necessity I am in such a relationship as there is three of us - not two - and so marriage is not an option or a desire. And we have 2 of 4 planned children already.

    The entire discourse that links marriage with children therefore is problematic - and not just because of fertility.
    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Fact is, only a male / female relationship biologically can procreate offspring

    And fact is - that is only passingly relevant to the discussion on marriage. They are not synonyms. People get married who never reproduce. People reproduce and never get married. The conflation in discussion simply fails.
    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    which in turn does not really seem like an exclusive marriage / relationship between two people anymore does it ?

    No more or less so than a divorced single parent who chooses to remarry. Yet this lack of exclusivity in the reproduction process does not preclude them the option of marriage - so I am struggling to see how it is relevant here either.
    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Because you want something to happen I am now no longer able to express my representation of my view via voting in a legal referendum because it is enforcement.

    Not once person is saying you can not. You very much can - and by all means do - but do not get offended when others points out the hypocrisy or flaws in your thinking and motivation while doing so.

    I have 100% respect for someone who has no interest in gay marriage. Simply do not marry someone of the same sex. If you have a personal view of marriage that is against marrying your own sex - then do not do so. Simples.

    But when you actively vote to ensure no one else can do so either - then not one of us is suggesting you can not do so. It is your right. But at the same time you have no license to hide behind the "It is just my PERSONAL view of marriage" card. It is not personal any more. You are making it about others.

    Us acknowleding that fact is not a problem - you playing the persecution card and twisting that acknowledgement into more than it actually is - is.


  • Advertisement
  • #1471
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 7,344 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    Society supports this in various ways because it is in society's interest to form families, so ensuring that the values of that society will be transmitted onwards.

    And how is a gay couple - with or without children from previous relationships, adoption or surrogacy or whatever - not a family? How do they not have the same values? How are they not receiving those values as much as transmitting them?

    By all means use marriage to transmit values onwards. Values like - in a dark world - treasuring when two people come together and find love - and decide to walk their path in life side by side until death. THAT is a value worth transmission using marriage - and that value is no less real - pertinent - or special when the contents of the underpants of the owner of those two hearts just happen to contain the same sexual organs.

    It is society that gives value to marriage - not vice versa - and I think this is something the "no" side tend to forget in their claims to be protecting the "sanctity" or status quo of marriage.
    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    Same sex relationships do not provide the same type of value to society

    How so? What are the differences specifically that are relevant?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement