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…6465676970…325

Comments

  • #1982
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    Hahaha. Good point, well argued.

    Its the blunt truth however most here will deny to the ground any double standards from the pro yes side.


  • #1983
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    What I said was that the difference between civil partnership and marriage is not a question of rights.



    I don't think they should be the same in law, I think the relationship with a capacity for procreation should remain a privileged one, as it does today. (And please don't come back with details about particular individuals who do not procreate).

    You're using that word again


  • #1984
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    Yeah, I'm just pointing out the fact that it's damaging to the Yes campaign to even call someone's right to vote in this referendum into question.

    This line of argument has been borrowed from the Proposition 8 campaign where they had the exact opposite referendum to the one we're having. It just doesn't work here and I don't like being told I don't/shouldn't have a right to have a say over the constitution.

    I've been in the Yes camp for most of my life but am opening my mind to being swayed by some compelling arguments from the No side as a matter of principle. I've yet to hear any though.

    Whether I agree with you or not, it doesn't matter. We are in this position where you have the right to vote on what rights im entitled to so its a bit pointless for me to argue with you over it. I hope you can now at least understand why some people react with anger over it. It's not easy to be in this position and remain calm. Its and emotive and deeply personal campaign Some people are going to get very worked up (Including myself)

    Don't let that change how you are going to vote though, if you agree with allowing same sex couples to marry then vote yes, don't abstain or vote no because you don't like how some people behaved during the campaign. It will only punish all gay people (and their family and friends). If you find a compelling reason to vote no, then by all means do so. This isn't me telling you how to vote, but just that if you do feel i should have the right to marry the person i love, don't take that away because some guy that has nothing to do with me got angry with you.


  • #1985
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    An inter race marriage is as likely to result in offspring from that union as one of people of the same race, so there is no difference. The same cannot be said of a same sex "marriage". But I think you know that, but are deliberately choosing to ignore it.

    Yawn. And then we are marriages between infertile, elderly or intentionally childless couples valid?

    the State does not require married couples to have kids, and gives each the choice whether or not to do so.

    The very fact that it allows them access to contraception and family planning services is proof that it considers children to a matter to be entirely at the discretion of the couple.

    Therefore any argument that same sex couples are incapable of marrying because of the fact they cannot procreate is flawed. It simply puts them in the same position as other married couples who cannot have children naturally or choose not to.


  • #1986
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    I think you're excluding the human element here. If you're at a university and you decide to start a research project to prove that gay parents are harmful to children just think of the response of your colleagues around the staff room. Think of what the college president would do to nip it in the bud so you don't bring negative publicity to the university.

    Let's be real here. Sociology departments are circle-jerks.

    Not that I'm hoping for such a study to be done. I just don't think research in these areas is particularly useful.

    Cough errm, as a sociology student i'd have to disagree :P But studies have been done to try and prove that gay parents are harmful to children and of course they found the answer they were looking for. But they have been found to be heavily funded by very particular interest groups, found to be biased and basically doing bad research.


  • Advertisement
  • #1987
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    Well then, you explain why single people are taxed to support married people, other than as a wish to support families.

    Families, sure. The constitution makes it clear that the institution of marriage is all about families.

    You get married: you're a family. No procreation required.


  • #1988
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Its the blunt truth however most here will deny to the ground any double standards from the pro yes side.

    You see very adept at ignoring arguments that compromise your position........
    COYVB wrote: »
    Theirs reason for voting yes has plenty of logic. It amounts to: it doesn't affect me so I've got no problem in affording these rights to everyone in the name of equality.

    Yours is the equivalent to "I dislike tomatoes, they're not to my liking, and as such I'm going to back the campaign to prevent everyone else in the country from having tomatoes"
    WoolyJumper wrote: »
    He doesn't want to deny me my rights because me or my relationship has nothing to do with him and will have no effect on his life what so ever. I agree with that...
    COYVB wrote: »
    There's no flaw in voting yes because it doesn't affect you, in the case of something that relates to the rights of a person. It should, to any right minded, sane individual, be the default position.

    The no vote is the only one that needs ANY rationale behind it


  • #1989
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    floggg wrote: »
    Therefore any argument that same sex couples are incapable of marrying because of the fact they cannot procreate is flawed. It simply puts them in the same position as other married couples who cannot have children naturally or choose not to.

    Not micromanaging the operation of marriage is one thing, extending to combinations which defeat the purpose of supporting it is another. But then you already know that, but are hoping the rest of the people don't notice.


  • #1990
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Zen65 wrote: »
    Has anybody seen an argument in favour of a 'no' vote which is not, at its core, simply a homophobic position?

    That is not to suggest that everyone who votes 'no' is in fact homophobic. The problem is that very many people are going to vote 'no' because they believe that same sex marriage is bad for society. They cannot express in words why they hold this belief. They look for evidence to support their views and in most cases they cling to arguments that are specious at best.

    The reason that they cannot articulate a logical argument for their position is that they do not hold their position through a process of reasoned thought; they hold that belief because in their formative years they were taught that it is wrong for a man to love a man the way a man loves a woman, and likewise for women to love women. These teachings came almost exclusively from "Christian" religious teachings based on old testament. These scriptures do not explain why it is wrong for a man to love a man, they simply name-call it ("an abomination"). Through those teachings homophobia is passed from generation to generation and given a status that it does not deserve i.e. that it was the word of God. The fact that scriptures do not record Christ ever expressing anything remotely supportive of that view has not dampened the vitriol of the homophobic teachings.

    Muslim and Jewish teachings about sexuality have the same philosophy, but also fail to offer a logic to support the view. It is always purported to simply be against the will of whichever god they worship. That is extremely convenient, and allows ancient homophobia to indoctrinate generation after generation, without the need to explain itself. I have said in an earlier post on this thread that I am well aware of my own deep-rooted homophobic feelings, but I choose not to allow them to dictate my actions in dealing with others.

    I recall President Mary McAleese once made the same comment about sectarianism being handed down from generation to generation - the children did not really understand the hatred, but they inherited it anyway.

    Inherited homophobic beliefs are like second-hand cigarette smoke, offering nothing but harm to those unfortunate enough to grow up surrounded by it. Maybe a 'yes' vote will help to break that circle of hatred.

    you don't need to teach your Grandma to suck eggs ! We all know this . The point is demonising people who were raised in this ethos is not going to change them and only pisses off undecideds. Nothing to be gained from it .

    Let the rudeness and hysterics to Iona and its fellow travellers , it will undo them in the end .


  • #1991
    Zen65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    . . . you do not seem to understand anything about society or marriage. I shouldn't have to explain these things.

    If you've come to discuss and debate here on Boards then you should debate the point and not chastise the people.

    You say you should not have to explain about marriage and society, but your contributions to date show you do not understand the existing tax rules for married people, nor can you explain the basis for your voting 'no' to SSM. You say if people cannot have kids they do not deserve the right to marriage, unless they're heterosexual in which case it's not their fault, so then you're really saying if people cannot procreate because they are the same sex then they do not deserve to be given the right of marriage.

    That's a tautology then. The only conclusion from what you're saying is that you believe same sex marriage should be refused because the couple are of the same sex.

    That's not logic, that's a prejudice. We're here to debate reason, not prejudice.


  • Advertisement
  • #1992
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,863 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    I don't think they should be the same in law, I think the relationship with a capacity for procreation should remain a privileged one, as it does today. (And please don't come back with details about particular individuals who do not procreate).
    Hahahahahahaha....this is my argument (and don't respond with logical points that make my argument look stupid please)


  • #1993
    Zen65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    marienbad wrote: »
    The point is demonising people who were raised in this ethos is not going to change them and only pisses off undecideds. Nothing to be gained from it .

    Let the rudeness and hysterics to Iona and its fellow travellers , it will undo them in the end .

    I'm not intentionally demonising anybody. I'm explaining that people who hold homophobic convictions are not necessarily homophobic themselves. I'm not sure why you would hold my comment up as being 'rude' but I do regret that you would see any of it as being rude.


  • #1994
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Zen65 wrote: »
    Has anybody seen an argument in favour of a 'no' vote which is not, at its core, simply a homophobic position?

    That is not to suggest that everyone who votes 'no' is in fact homophobic. The problem is that very many people are going to vote 'no' because they believe that same sex marriage is bad for society. They cannot express in words why they hold this belief. They look for evidence to support their views and in most cases they cling to arguments that are specious at best.

    The reason that they cannot articulate a logical argument for their position is that they do not hold their position through a process of reasoned thought; they hold that belief because in their formative years they were taught that it is wrong for a man to love a man the way a man loves a woman, and likewise for women to love women. These teachings came almost exclusively from "Christian" religious teachings based on old testament. These scriptures do not explain why it is wrong for a man to love a man, they simply name-call it ("an abomination"). Through those teachings homophobia is passed from generation to generation and given a status that it does not deserve i.e. that it was the word of God. The fact that scriptures do not record Christ ever expressing anything remotely supportive of that view has not dampened the vitriol of the homophobic teachings.

    Muslim and Jewish teachings about sexuality have the same philosophy, but also fail to offer a logic to support the view. It is always purported to simply be against the will of whichever god they worship. That is extremely convenient, and allows ancient homophobia to indoctrinate generation after generation, without the need to explain itself. I have said in an earlier post on this thread that I am well aware of my own deep-rooted homophobic feelings, but I choose not to allow them to dictate my actions in dealing with others.

    I recall President Mary McAleese once made the same comment about sectarianism being handed down from generation to generation - the children did not really understand the hatred, but they inherited it anyway.

    Inherited homophobic beliefs are like second-hand cigarette smoke, offering nothing but harm to those unfortunate enough to grow up surrounded by it. Maybe a 'yes' vote will help to break that circle of hatred.

    This is an irrelevant tangent, but its something I have often thought about:

    If man is apparently made in god's image, and man is sometimes homosexual, does that not means god is also homosexual to some degree? And how can something that is part of god's own nature be sinful?

    (Obviously that doesn't apply if you think its all a choice, but that belief doesnt really have any credibility, and as far as I am aware is even rejected by the catholic church).


  • #1995
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    Perhaps you would like to provide some evidence, not that same sex relationships existed or were approved of in history, but that they had exactly the same legal status as marriage.



    Well nobody has explained why I should, other than that I already pay tax for other things, which is no explanation at all. Perhaps you would like to explain why I should?

    Well if that was an issue, the obvious answer would be for the exact same reasons you pay tax to support married couples, regardless of whether or not they had children.


    But of course its not an issue, seeing as CPs already have equal tax treatment.

    Next?


  • #1996
    Zen65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    I don't think they should be the same in law, I think the relationship with a capacity for procreation should remain a privileged one, as it does today.

    No, today the rights are conferred on any couple who marry, regardless of their potential for reproduction. The capacity of the couple, either individually or by demographic is never taken into account. You are proposing to take it into account now, retrospectively, just as one might have argued retrospectively in 1922 that the right to vote should not be given to a person with the capacity to menstruate.


  • #1997
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Zen65 wrote: »
    I think you mean 'deeply held convictions' rather than 'genuine concerns'?

    I have not yet heard nor read a genuine concern, and I've read a lot of these forums.

    I think they have genuine concerns, but only do to their ignorance of the facts and their refusal to critically analyse what they have been told or assumed throughout their life.

    Generally these concerns dissipate once they actually get to know an LGBT person (or become aware they did all along) - which begs the question why the didn't apply critical thinking earlier.


  • #1998
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Zen65 wrote: »
    I'm not intentionally demonising anybody. I'm explaining that people who hold homophobic convictions are not necessarily homophobic themselves. I'm not sure why you would hold my comment up as being 'rude' but I do regret that you would see any of it as being rude.

    I am not saying your comment is rude and if that was the impression , my apologies.

    Iona et al have been rude and offensive and will get even worse , let them and lets not get drawn in .


  • #1999
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    Well then, you explain why single people are taxed to support married people, other than as a wish to support families.

    We did this already.

    Because married coiuples are healthier, happier, more productive, more involved in their society and communities, cost less in healthcare, pensions, welfare etc.

    You ignored those posts though since they didnt suit your narrative - just like you ignored the posts pointing out that CPs have equal tax status (though circa 150 differences in other areas).


  • #2000
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    Yeah, I'm just pointing out the fact that it's damaging to the Yes campaign to even call someone's right to vote in this referendum into question.

    This line of argument has been borrowed from the Proposition 8 campaign where they had the exact opposite referendum to the one we're having. It just doesn't work here and I don't like being told I don't/shouldn't have a right to have a say over the constitution.

    I've been in the Yes camp for most of my life but am opening my mind to being swayed by some compelling arguments from the No side as a matter of principle. I've yet to hear any though.

    Nobody is saying you shouldnt have the right to vote - we are saying this isnt a matter which requires any changes be made to the Constitution so there is no need for a referendum, and further that as a principle voting on minority rights is undesirable.

    But since we are having a referendum, you obviously have the right to vote.


  • #2001
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    While there isn't a one to one relationship between marriage and procreation, it is procreation that causes it to have the status and legal privilege that it does. This is an important status in society and should not be trivialised.

    So procreation is the reason that marriage has the legal privilege that it does. Can I take it from that P.O.V that procreation is more important than marriage?

    With regards's to your P.O.V. above, do you make any differentiation between civil and church performed marriages, or do they have equal status in your opinion?


  • Advertisement
  • #2002
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    What I said was that the difference between civil partnership and marriage is not a question of rights.



    I don't think they should be the same in law, I think the relationship with a capacity for procreation should remain a privileged one, as it does today. (And please don't come back with details about particular individuals who do not procreate).

    There is little point - you refuse to even consider the possiblity of their being any flaws in your argument. there is little pointing in engaging with your copy and paste repsonses on the point.


  • #2003
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    I think you're excluding the human element here. If you're at a university and you decide to start a research project to prove that gay parents are harmful to children just think of the response of your colleagues around the staff room. Think of what the college president would do to nip it in the bud so you don't bring negative publicity to the university.

    Let's be real here. Sociology departments are circle-jerks.

    Not that I'm hoping for such a study to be done. I just don't think research in these areas is particularly useful.

    You shouldnt conduct that type of research looking for evidence to support one conclusion or the other.

    You should conduct the research, analyse the results, and draw your conclusions based on your findings.

    That is what I would imagine nearly all the research to date has tried to prove.

    If you have any specific concerns on any research conducted, please advise us.

    But to pre-judge all research and presume it be flawed would be entirely wrong, and makes it difficult for anybody to argue since you will never approach new information with an open mind.


  • #2004
    Ozymandius2011
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,175 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    It's ironic those who cite Biblical denunciations of homosexuality as something that should inform our law hold a completely different attitude when it comes to Biblical endorsements of slavery.


  • #2005
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    The shows support but again doesnt back up the original claim so I'll ask again.

    Can you provide any link to show any multi national threatening or looking unfavorably if a no vote is carried in the referendum in Ireland ?

    Unless of course you want retract and say what you claimed was clear misinformation and scaremongering because you still have not offered a shred of evidence to back up how multi nationals are keen to up sticks from Ireland and pay an extra $1.6 billion in EU taxation in another country.

    When did i ever say they would leave.

    I said it is something they are concerned with and it is therefore relevant.

    Please dont put words in my mouth.


  • #2006
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    It would not enshrine anything in law. It already is law so I am not enshrining anything the law is there already

    Fine. Retain. Still doesnt change the substantive point though. Apathy is sufficient reason to adopt a live and let live attitude.

    (morally) you should have a decent reason for wanting to deny rights to others though.


  • #2007
    vienne86
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,078 ✭✭✭✭vienne86


    Yes for me - my 'gay' children should have the same rights as my 'straight' children......and cousins.....and other relatives.....and friends.


  • #2008
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    Not micromanaging the operation of marriage is one thing, extending to combinations which defeat the purpose of supporting it is another. But then you already know that, but are hoping the rest of the people don't notice.

    I cant believe I'm trying to argue with you still, but your distinction is a nonsense.

    The State does not care if heterosexual married couples have kids. That fact is irrefutable.

    Therefore, why should it care if same sex couples cant have kids without assistance (they still can have kids with assistance).


  • #2009
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    floggg wrote: »
    When did i ever say they would leave.

    I said it is something they are concerned with and it is therefore relevant.

    Please dont put words in my mouth.

    It was in response to this post


  • #2010
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    floggg wrote: »
    I cant believe I'm trying to argue with you still, but your distinction is a nonsense.

    The State does not care if heterosexual married couples have kids. That fact is irrefutable.

    The State is not concerned with individual couples, it is concerned with the aggregate.
    Therefore, why should it care if same sex couples cant have kids without assistance (they still can have kids with assistance).

    A same sex union cannot produce a child from that union. That is the only irrefutable fact, unlike a refusal to admit the bleeding obvious for argument purposes like the above.


  • Advertisement
  • #2011
    DeVore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    So what?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement