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

RobertKK wrote: »

Voting no, it is not about equality, it doesn't allow polygamy or bigamy. It doesn't cater for bisexuals who may want to marry a person from both sexes.
If people want marriage redefined, why not allow multiple husbands or wives?
We are told it is about love and equality, but then prevents a woman from having both a husband and wife, or more, or a man having both a husband and wife or more if he wanted.
Does this referendum want bisexuals to have people whom they are married to and a mistress or another man involved in the marriage whom they are not married to?

Surely the current wording doesn't go far enough for the LGBT lobby groups? It doesn't cater for bisexuals.

Voting no as I would rather a whole new system of marriage without state involvement.

If you care about LGBT people as much as you suggest then you should be voting yes because that is what they want, and that is what is right. The wording does go "far enough" in that it allows same sex-marriage, and that applies to bisexual people too, because bisexuality =/= polygamy. I say this as a bisexual person.

reprise wrote: »

True.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/brendan-oneill/gay-marriage-movement-love-hate_b_3130712.html

I love how you are taking issue with the NZ politician for laughing at the absurd arguments, and not the absurd arguments made.

Seriously, come on. Laughter is the only appropriate response to the complaints he received.

jimboblep wrote: »

Had been thinking of voting yes but Im starting to think about voting no for the same reason some of the attitudes and comments from the yes side are really quite grating
and I dont think im the only one

Don't deny all same-sex couples equality because you're annoyed my the vocal endorsers.

If you'd been denied those rights for so long you'd probably be the same.

floggg wrote: »

See my edit. Yes, the ECHR does defer to member states on "moral" issues in the manner I suggested.

While that doesn't stop it declaring laws incompatible with the Convention, it does mean that it will give Member States varying degrees of leeway on moral social issues.

I will read the judgement you cited though when I can and assess it.

The actual term is 'margin of appreciation'. Will give more detail below..

reprise wrote: »

It is for the Yes side to justify a change in law here not the No. When you are looking for change in work, in society, in life, the default switch is normally no.

No, I think you have it the wrong way round here. Societies should tend towards equality. The default position of a state on anything should be equality, unless there is a specific, valid and justifiable reason for the inequality. 'But this is the way it's always been' is not a valid justification, it wasn't for slavery, it wasn't for women not having the vote, and even more similar to this particular issue, it want when people very like you tried to stop mixed race people from getting married.

You need to justify you desired continued discrimination. It should not be necessary to justify removing discrimination, however tradition that discrimination might be.

reprise wrote: »

There is no right to same sex marriage in Ireland and the European courts have rejected the argument that this is a result of discrimination.

This is not strictly true. The European courts did not, technically, deny there was a right to same sex marriage. What they actually did was refuse jurisdiction to decide on the matter. There are certain area which the courts leave up top the member states to decide on. These areas are said to fall within the state's 'margin of appreciation'. Currently the European courts are willing to rule on marriage, and one's right to it in general terms, but they consider the form of marriage to still be within each states's margin of appreciation. This is likely to change at some point and when it does they will undoubtedly come down on the side of ssm. The EU has a fundamental principle of equality, it really is its big thing. If they ruled on ssm I believe it is almost certain they would be in favour.

MrP

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

It has definitely been par for the course to Shout down Pro No people in this thread from majority of pro yes posters

How can you shout down someone on a public forum. All your opinions are here and clear to read. Just because someone counters those opinions doesn't mean you are being shouted down. In fact that's how a debate works. It amazes me how the no side are keen to make themselves the victim in all of this. Like I've said many times on here try being a LGBT person and having to listen to eveyone's opinions on you day in and day out (no matter how ridiculous they are).

floggg wrote: »

Youre actually really doing a dis-service to your name sake.

I'd say his screen mother would approve though

floggg wrote: »

Your arguments are deeply flawed. Firstly, inter-racial marriage wasn't normal at the time of Loving v Virginia. It was illegal in a number of states, and a significant majority of the US were opposed to it.

So it was no more normal (in the sense of common) than same sex marriage was today.

A few states in America, at a particular point in history, prohibited mixed race marriage, this does not change the definition of normality. Virginia itself looks back to Pocahontas, who married a British settler.
But I also mean normal in the context of the definition of marriage, race has no effect on the relationship between men and women and so is irrelevant and the law simple discrimination.

As for your argument on the grounds of ability, well you are patently wrong. The law provided that inter-racial couples were unable to lawfully marry. It didn't prevent inter-racial couples being together (as inter-racial relations were not illegal), just their marriage.

The Wikipedia link that you yourself cited specifically states that "local police raided their home at night, hoping to find them having sex, which was also a crime according to Virginia law". So you are using misusing resources that you haven't bothered reading to support this ridiculous linkage between the prohibition of mixed race marriage and the current campaign.

floggg wrote: »

Again, please point it out.

Aggressively attacking weaknesses in an argument isn't shouting down the speaker. It's part of any robust debate.

If you arguments and logic cannot withstand the scrutiny or convince anybody of their merits, the fault lies with your arguments and the manner in which you have put them forward, not anybody who responds to them.

There is no question that many on the yes side has tried to sideline debate and dismissed opposition as simply homophobic .Not just here but in the general comments sections in the press and social media . There is already an air of triumphalism beginning to creep in .

Thankfully none of the pro side on radio and tv have fallen into that mode and that is what will carry the day . Let the other side resort to strident scaremongering.

Already at least 2 posters in this thread have said they will vote no even though they accept the yes case but just to spite the proponents. Personally I have my doubts if they would ever have voted yes but why alienate people needlessly ?

It is going to be a long 4 months so lets just keep the cool, it is very early in the day to be getting this stressed about it.

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

I'd say his screen mother would approve though



A few states in America, at a particular point in history, prohibited mixed race marriage, this does not change the definition of normality. Virginia itself looks back to Pocahontas, who married a British settler.
But I also mean normal in the context of the definition of marriage, race has no effect on the relationship between men and women and so is irrelevant and the law simple discrimination.



The Wikipedia link that you yourself cited specifically states that "local police raided their home at night, hoping to find them having sex, which was also a crime according to Virginia law". So you are using misusing resources that you haven't bothered reading to support this ridiculous linkage between the prohibition of mixed race marriage and the current campaign.

Are you will fully comparing yourselves to one of the characthers with the lowest iq?

It most certainly not normal in types of frequency - in 1970 only 2% of marriages were inter-racial.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage

And the vast majority of the U.S. disproved of it. By 1980 only one third approved - far less than the current approval figures for same sex marriages.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage_in_the_United_States

As for your other interpretation of normal, Virginia certainly didn't Agree with your opinion on whether race effected the marital relationship.

In any event, you are stacking the deck by referring to relationships between man and woman. We aren't talking about relationships between man and woman (obviously enough). We are talking about a marital relationship - the two are not becessariyl synonymous - and you have yet to show how gender has any effect on a marital relationship. So much like the racial restriction the Loving case, the present restriction on gender grounds is indefensible.

Your right, I got that part wrong on the Loving case. I skimmed the wiki.

It still doesn't change my point - they law did deny them the ability to lawfully marry on the grounds of race, and this discriminated. Whether they were prohibited from having sex or had some form of second class relationship status available to them doesn't change that fact. That is a directly comparable case to same sex marriages (denial on grounds of gender). So the only thing ridiculous is your refusal to see the similarity.

floggg wrote: »

We shouldn't jump on any opposition as homophobic but that doesn't mean unrepentant homophobia shouldbt be called out as such.

what is the point ? They are not going to change and it just distracts from the issue .

Eyes on the Prize -ladies and gentlemen eyes on the prize