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

Deleted User wrote: »

Has anyone actually actively said you do not have the right to express your opinion?

There have been multiple posts expressly saying the no side should not be allowed and / or limited to speakING littered through the thread. yesterday.

All comments made from pro same sex marriage posters.

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

There have been multiple posts expressly saying the no side should not be allowed and / or limited to speakING littered through the thread. yesterday.

All comments made from pro same sex marriage posters.

You have the right to express your opinion. You do not have the right to spread rubbish in order to gain votes.

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

There have been multiple posts expressly saying the no side should not be allowed and / or limited to speakING littered through the thread. yesterday.

All comments made from pro same sex marriage posters.

It would be nice to hear an actual point from you tbh.

Sheldons Brain

sup_dude wrote: »

Oh it's irrelevant. Why bring it up?
You know what? You're right. Gay couples are completely pointless part of society. We should just wipe them out, since they're so pointless. Ammi right?

This type of post appears again and again here, implying that there is nothing between promotion of something and prohibition of it. Some things are prohibited, some things are promoted and the great bulk of things in between are neither promoted nor prohibited. It wasn't right to prohibit gay relationships, but neither is it right to give them tax relief, the State should just stay out of it.

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Most of these people were brought up in families benefiting from the support for marriage, they may have turned against their forefathers but they have already benefited from support for marriage.

But this too is irrelevant. If you want to argue for gays to pay less tax then do so by all means, this is not a case for same sex marriage.

Are you for real? I hope not.

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

It wasn't right to prohibit gay relationships, but neither is it right to give them tax relief, the State should just stay out of it.

Irrelevant point.

Why should homosexual couples not be treated equally to heterosexual couples.

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

OK, so gays dont wish to procreate or adopt is what your trying to say ?

I'm saying that marriage does not require that the people marrying have the ability or the intention to procreate in any way. And when I provided an example of such a married couple (my father and step mother), you readily agreed that this was so.

Now, tell us why you think same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to get married, without mentioning this procreation red herring which you yourself admit does not apply to opposite sex couples.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Nope. Always been a big ol dyke.

'Artificially'? Nope - sperm (from a gay no less) fertilised an egg wot lodged in my womb and grew into a baby wot eventually (and extremely painfully) made it's way into the world where it grew into a man whose sperm fertilised an egg wot lodged in a womb and grew into a baby wot eventually made it's way into the world and grew into a girlchild.

Marriage was not involved in any way shape of form in any of this procreating.

My married, heterosexual, cousin also has a girlchild. Her husband masturbated into a handy plastic cup type thing, this sperm was then aided in fertilising many eggs wot had been removed from my cousin. When the sperm finally (took years and thousands of pounds) managed to do wot sperm is meant to do the now fertilised egg was planted in mu cousins womb where it grew into a baby and eventually was cut out.

Apparently nature had no opinion on whether or not gays can procreate.

I regret to inform you that your cousin is no longer in fact married, due to the involvement of a third party.

Sorry. Ctrl+Alt+Delete said it so it must be true.

shruikan2553

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

This type of post appears again and again here, implying that there is nothing between promotion of something and prohibition of it. Some things are prohibited, some things are promoted and the great bulk of things in between are neither promoted nor prohibited. It wasn't right to prohibit gay relationships, but neither is it right to give them tax relief, the State should just stay out of it.

You're voting yes then seeing as they get the same tax relief already as a civil partnership?

Or will we be surprised to hear your problem isn't actually to do with tax?

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

This type of post appears again and again here, implying that there is nothing between promotion of something and prohibition of it. Some things are prohibited, some things are promoted and the great bulk of things in between are neither promoted nor prohibited. It wasn't right to prohibit gay relationships, but neither is it right to give them tax relief, the State should just stay out of it.

They get no more rights than a straight married couple. Why isn't it a problem with them?
Also, it's a civil marriage they want, not a church one, so why would the State stay out of it when it's between a gay couple and the State? Applying that logic, why won't you stay out of it?

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

In response to your question, why should our constitution not ?

Because it would be fundamentally inconsistent with the Constitutionally protected right to freedom OF religion, and the implicit converse right of freedom FROM religion.

Bannasidhe

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Thank you for exemplifying the point I was making so eloquently You of course would not have been able to do that without sperm from a man (biology 101 ) .

But if you want marriage equality then how do you when married do the same act , without altering the definition of marriage?

Ah - I see where you are having difficulty.

You think procreation and parenting are the same thing.

Procreating often happens in circumstances that are less than ideal - procreating people can be drunk, stoned, complete strangers, etc but hey - those people could get married if they want to... doesn't mean they will make good parents though does it.

But sure - it's ALL about the children which is why people who make a conscious, adult decision that they want to parent a child together and pass all the criteria as laid down by adoption legislation should be prevented from doing so in your opinion because the drunken one-night stand is a far better method of determining who should be a parent.

You do know some married people use donor sperm or eggs don't you?
Hell - some even borrow a whole womb!
You against that too?

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

There have been multiple posts expressly saying the no side should not be allowed and / or limited to speakING littered through the thread. yesterday.

All comments made from pro same sex marriage posters.

Actually, there have been multiple posts saying that the No side should not be allowed to lie and mislead, but I can understand why you would confuse stopping them lying from stopping them expressing their views, given what they have been saying so far.

sup_dude wrote: »

Marriage isn't about procreating or adopting. Gays do not need marriage to do either.

Indeed they don't. But heres the crux of the issue gays would like to redefine what marriage is because after all with marriage is defined (dictionary) - the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.

Now I would like you to tell me how BannasidheTell's example fits that definition of marriage above.

So I am someone who values the inviolability of marriage so can you see my issue yet?????????

Zen65

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Problem is you are failing to see the No sides argument / rationale (regardless of what you actually think of the rationale).

rationale
ˌraʃəˈnɑːl
noun
a set of reasons or a logical basis for a course of action or belief.
"he explained the rationale behind the change"

What I have yet to see here though, is an actual logical argument from the 'no' side. I have not had an opportunity to disagree or even debate a logical argument. What I'm reading here are arguments about having children, which has been shown conclusively and beyond question to be what the referendum is not about.

The idea that marriage is linked to procreation is rightly considered a religious argument, because the current laws on marriage make no assumption about procreation. The religious sacrament of matrimony is the only form of marriage which links to procreation. Current laws confer certain rights (tax, inheritance, medical guardianship, welfare) on married couples automatically, and on any children under the guardianship of either partner. Nothing more.

I could actually respect a poster simply stating that they supported the 'no' vote because they held a religious conviction. Naturally I would ask why they believed that there was a religious teaching to support their view, and I would point out that the book of Leviticus has a long list of banned sexual relations that they may not agree with, and ask why then did they pick on this one and agree with it? I might point out the many other non-sexual commandments in the book of Leviticus and ask why these are not protected in our constitution or in our laws? But at least we'd actually be discussing the source of their beliefs, just as I'm sure they would wish to discuss mine, and in that way progress might be achieved.

And in response to the comment made by an earlier poster that the 'yes' voters were largely pro-gay liberal in their agenda, I'd have to say 'nope'. I would have to be honest and admit I'm probably a little bit homophobic, because if the truth be told when I see a gay couple in a display of affection I'm inclined to grimace a little and look the other way. When two men kiss on TV I groan a little inside and hope it ends soon. I cannot even explain why. I'm in my 50's and seeing these things makes me uncomfortable, possibly because in my formative years these things were never seen.

But do I disrespect gay or lesbian people? Not one bit. In fact I have discovered in the last 10 years or so that some of my straight friends are actually gay. Maybe my own words and actions over the years made them fear admitting their orientation to me in case I rejected them? Shame on me if this was so.

Do I want them or any other LGBT people to have less liberties and protection afforded by the state than I have? Of course not. Do I want to ban them from sharing the same shops, theatres, sports centres, medical facilities as me? No. Do I believe their relationships should be given some other name, so as to ensure that it is marked as different to the type of relationship that I am in? No! Why should I? My relationship is defined by the people in it. I do not need to put a mark over the door of the houses of gay people. That's more of an Adolf philosophy.

I'm voting "yes" because honestly I may not be liberal in my thinking, but I'm certainly not an ideological Nazi.

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Are you seeing the issue yet?????????

Using my telepathic powers, I'm getting something...

You think bum-sex is icky?

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Indeed they don't. But heres the crux of the issue gays would like to redefine what marriage is because after all with marriage is defined (dictionary)

That's an argument against dictionaries

There is no definition of marriage in our constitution.

sup_dude wrote: »

No, what? Where you getting that from?

Marriage isn't about procreating or adopting. Gays do not need marriage to do either.

Seriously, how have you not got this by now.

It is about procreation and adoption when it suits his argument. Its not about procreation and adoption when it doesn't.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Actually, there have been multiple posts saying that the No side should not be allowed to lie and mislead, but I can understand why you would confuse stopping them lying from stopping them expressing their views, given what they have been saying so far.

I'll give you the chance to change that before I go back and pull all the posts from yesterday being very explicit in what they said.

Again you continue to try and misrepresent the facts

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

There have been multiple posts expressly saying the no side should not be allowed and / or limited to speakING littered through the thread. yesterday.

All comments made from pro same sex marriage posters.

By one poster, and another poster who argued that the no side shouldn't be allowed speak dishonestly.

Get over it.

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Indeed they don't. But heres the crux of the issue gays would like to redefine what marriage is because after all with marriage is defined (dictionary) - the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship.

Now I would like you to tell me how BannasidheTell's example fits that definition of marriage above.

So I am someone who values the inviolability of marriage so can you see my issue yet?????????

Marriage isn't defined by children. Why are you bringing children into it?

No, I can't see your issue.

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Again you continue to try and misrepresent the facts

When you are making up facts I can see how you might think they are misrepresented.

Daith wrote: »

That's an argument against dictionaries. There is no definition of marriage in our constitution.

More specifically the constitution doesnt definite sexes in marriage I know.

But are you now telling me that the practice in the (majority) of the world over of two people marrying is not the commonly held belief in the western world?

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I'll give you the chance to change that before I go back and pull all the posts from yesterday being very explicit in what they said.

Again you continue to try and misrepresent the facts

Ohh, you'll give him a chance to change stuff... that's nice of you. Especially coming from someone who repeatedly changes their argument, refuses to explain or address any of them and throws accusations around like wheat seeds....

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

But are you now telling me that the practice in the (majority) of the world over of two people marrying is not the commonly held belief in the western world?

Two people will still be marrying after the referendum is passed.

Daith wrote: »

When you are making up facts I can see how you might think they are misrepresented.

Oh dear, am I making up you admonishing people yesterday for saying their posts lends no credence to the yes side as well ?

[Deleted User]

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

There have been multiple posts expressly saying the no side should not be allowed and / or limited to speakING littered through the thread. yesterday.

All comments made from pro same sex marriage posters.

Nice to see you are not ignoring all of my posts - just the vast majority.

But this is not what I asked. Those posts were referring to media air time and how it should be proportioned. That is a different thing entirely. I will repeat what I actually asked - with some highlighting to assist comprehension.

Has anyone actually actively said you do not have the right to express your opinion?

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

But are you now telling me that the practice in the (majority) of the world over of two people marrying is not the commonly held belief in the western world?

That won't change? It's still two people?

Again that's an argument about what is common. It's common for married couples to have children. Therefore what?

sup_dude wrote: »

Marriage isn't defined by children. Why are you bringing children into it?

No, I can't see your issue.

Then if your too blind to see the issue then no point in discussing further :rolleyes: