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

Daith · 11-02-2015 09:54AM

reprise wrote: »

Why is everyone running from the civil partnership expansion suggestion?

The constitution states that the family is based on marriage. In order for civil partnerships to be equal you would need the constitution changed to say that the family is based on marriage and civil partnerships.

It should also be pointed out that Iona were against civil partnerships because of exactly that reason.

Same sex people want the same constitutional protection that the constitution should afford every Irish citizen.

reprise · 11-02-2015 09:54AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Same sex couples have a right to actual equality, not air-quotes equality.

Sigh.

Where is this mythical "right" to same sex marriage and why are we not enforcing it.

reprise · 11-02-2015 09:59AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Are you actually predicting a No vote? Because if so, you can win some handy money over at Paddypower.com at 7/2, pretty good odds in a two horse race.

The bookies balance the money being placed regardless of the event. Expect those odds to vary accordingly.

RobertKK · 11-02-2015 10:15AM

I have seen some rubbish posted about multinationals and SSM.

It is like the 'Vote Yes for Jobs' for a European referendum. It is not going to make any difference to multinationals if the vote is Yes or No.
They will still employ people of every sexual orientation, as it doesn't matter when applying for the job.
Multinationals are usually listed on the stock market, and growing the business, increasing profit and earnings per share is where it is at.
The outcome of the referendum will have no effect on employment.

RobertKK · 11-02-2015 10:27AM

There will be a lot of people who will tell pollsters they support SSM, because they think that is what they are expected to say and have heard the negative words that have been used against No Voters, like 'bigot', 'homophobic', 'backward' and also how it goes against personal religious belief for some where they believe marriage is a man and a woman united in marriage under God.
It will have nothing to do with hating anyone, it will be simply due to what they believe the definition of marriage is, and that is what the referendum is about about, people can say equality which implies negative stuff about those who will vote no, but it is about the definition of a word and whether people want the word redefined within the constitution.

Daith · 11-02-2015 10:35AM

RobertKK wrote: »

It will have nothing to do with hating anyone, it will be simply due to what they believe the definition of marriage is, and that is what the referendum is about about, people can say equality which implies negative stuff about those who will vote no, but it is about the definition of a word and whether people want the word redefined within the constitution.

The referendum isn't about redefining marriage. It's about the criteria of who can get married. Not what marriage is.

The constitution itself doesn't define marriage. It's about extending marriage to a group of people.

We're voting to change the age criteria for the President. We're not changing the role of the President either.

floggg · 11-02-2015 10:43AM

reprise wrote: »

Do you know of anyone who has ever left a job in Ireland over same sex marriage and pinned it on their employer?

I don't know if it's that you are being intentionally absurd, or just not applying any logic or reason here, but nobody will blame their employer for anything since their employee cannot make laws themselves.

However, where it does cause issues for employers is enticing people to come to ireland from abroad and stay here.

While it may effect a minority of employees, the recognition of their relationships and equality protections would be an important consideration for any lgbt person moving to another country, particualrly if in a relationship.

We have no immediate plans to do so now, but have discussed living in another country for a few years at some point in the future.

I can assure you that I wont be moving anywhere which doesn't offer recognition of my (hopefully) then marriage in at least some form - and places offering dull marriage equality would certainly be higher on my list.

There are a whole variety of reasons, from principled reasons relating to my right to be treated equally, to the extremely practical reasons such as immigration law, hospital and other rights, social welfare/insurance/health benefits if something goes wrong etc.

So I have no doubt that if facebook or Google are trying to entice talent staff who happen to be lgbt here, that does make a difference.

Will it make enough of a difference to make them pull up sticks and leave ireland?

Of course not.

Will it make enough of a difference for them to come out and publicly advocate for marriage equality in spite of the potential backlash (and there were boycotts organised in the US when some of these companies made similar moves there)? Clearly since they are already doing so.

RobertKK · 11-02-2015 10:45AM

Daith wrote: »

The referendum isn't about redefining marriage. It's about the criteria of who can get married. Not what marriage is.

The constitution itself doesn't define marriage. It's about extending marriage to a group of people.

We're voting to change the age criteria for the President. We're not changing the role of the President either.

Sorry but what you described is how marriage is defined, otherwise no changes would need to be made and therefore no referendum needed..

That would be redefining the age allowed to be President.

Daith · 11-02-2015 10:47AM

RobertKK wrote: »

Sorry but what you described is how marriage is defined, otherwise no changes would need to be made and therefore no referendum needed..

No marriage isn't solely defined by sex. If you changed the age at what people can marry are you changing the definition of marriage?

RobertKK wrote: »

That would be redefining the age allowed to be President.

Redefining the age but not redefining the President.
Redefining who can marry not what marriage is.

RobertKK wrote: »

but it is about the definition of a word and whether people want the word redefined within the constitution.

So thanks we aren't redefining marriage. We are redefining who can get married.

shruikan2553 · 11-02-2015 10:48AM

RobertKK wrote: »

I have seen some rubbish posted about multinationals and SSM.

It is like the 'Vote Yes for Jobs' for a European referendum. It is not going to make any difference to multinationals if the vote is Yes or No.
They will still employ people of every sexual orientation, as it doesn't matter when applying for the job.
Multinationals are usually listed on the stock market, and growing the business, increasing profit and earnings per share is where it is at.
The outcome of the referendum will have no effect on employment.

Yes has employment, no has children. The no side have set a very low standard of evidence required to back their point.

11-02-2015 10:50AM

reprise wrote: »

A man and a woman can be equal, that does not make them the same.

In the eyes of the law it should

Zubeneschamali · 11-02-2015 10:54AM

reprise wrote: »

Where is this mythical "right" to same sex marriage and why are we not enforcing it.

It's where a woman's right to vote was around Christmas 1921, people like you are the reason we are not "enforcing" it, but not to worry, it'll be spelled out in the Constitution soon.

Zubeneschamali · 11-02-2015 10:56AM

reprise wrote: »

The bookies balance the money being placed regardless of the event. Expect those odds to vary accordingly.

Yes, and if there is going to be a No vote, those odds will shorten drastically as that becomes clear.

So, if you are predicting a No, you should get your money on right now.

But actually - you know it will be a Yes, so you'll do no such thing.

Flem31 · 11-02-2015 11:10AM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Yes has employment, no has children.

Proof that both sides put up claims that cannot be backed up.

RobertKK · 11-02-2015 11:18AM

Daith wrote: »

No marriage isn't solely defined by sex. If you changed the age at what people can marry are you changing the definition of marriage?

Redefining the age but not redefining the President.
Redefining who can marry not what marriage is.

So thanks we aren't redefining marriage. We are redefining who can get married.

Age limit is part of what defines marriage under the law, say it doesn't and try and marry a 15 year old and then when you end up in court argue, I didn't believe the age limit mattered because I don't believe it is part of the definition of marriage.
The judge would look at you as if you had two heads.

If I was to ask you to define who you are, you might give your name, your age, where you are from, your job, things you like and so on.

This is from a gay agnostic person who wrote an article for the Independent.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/why-ill-be-voting-no-to-samesex-marriage-even-though-im-gay-30953906.html

Perhaps regrettably for those supporting its redefinition, you cannot discuss marriage in Ireland without discussing the family.

Just look at a dictionary and see the meaning of redefine.
This is why we have constitutional referendums as it it to redefine what is in the constitution.

RobertKK · 11-02-2015 11:21AM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Yes has employment, no has children. The no side have set a very low standard of evidence required to back their point.

A yes vote has nothing to do with employment just as a no vote has anything to with children.

You talk about very low standards of evidence and then come in with no evidence...

Daith · 11-02-2015 11:24AM

RobertKK wrote: »

Age limit is part of what defines marriage under the law, say it doesn't and try and marry a 15 year old and then when you end up in court argue, I didn't believe the age limit mattered because I don't believe it is part of the definition of marriage.
The judge would look at you as if you had two heads..

Age limit doesn't define marriage in the same way age limit doesn't define the President.

You agreed with my point about the President and that referendum. We aren't changing what the President is but who can be President.

We aren't changing marriage but who can marry.

RobertKK wrote: »

This is why we have constitutional referendums as it it to redefine what is in the constitution.

We are redefining the President now? We aren't redefining what's in the constitution. In fact for the first time we are actually defining who can get married.

shruikan2553 · 11-02-2015 11:25AM

RobertKK wrote: »

A yes vote has nothing to do with employment just as a no vote has anything to with children.

You talk about very low standards of evidence and then come in with no evidence...

Evidence of what? Iona have done nothing but talk about children, its well known that the no sides main argument is based on a lie.

A yes vote could lead to more employment, not likely but not impossible either.

reprise · 11-02-2015 11:37AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, and if there is going to be a No vote, those odds will shorten drastically as that becomes clear.

So, if you are predicting a No, you should get your money on right now.

But actually - you know it will be a Yes, so you'll do no such thing.

I had assumed a yes until I started reading this discussion.

The attitudes and reasoning here have caused me to reassess.

A no vote won't surprise me at all.

Ave Sodalis · 11-02-2015 11:39AM

reprise wrote: »

I had assumed a yes until I started reading this discussion.

The attitudes and reasoning here have caused me to reassess.

A no vote won't surprise me at all.

As opposed to the no reasoning?

RobertKK · 11-02-2015 11:50AM

Daith wrote: »

Age limit doesn't define marriage in the same way age limit doesn't define the President.

You agreed with my point about the President and that referendum. We aren't changing what the President is but who can be President.

We aren't changing marriage but who can marry.

We are redefining the President now? We aren't redefining what's in the constitution. In fact for the first time we are actually defining who can get married.

In other words 'redefining', we will have to agree to disagree.

RobertKK · 11-02-2015 11:51AM

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Evidence of what? Iona have done nothing but talk about children, its well known that the no sides main argument is based on a lie.

A yes vote could lead to more employment, not likely but not impossible either.

I would nearly put up yes posters for a laugh with 'vote yes for jobs' because it would be funny seeing the ridicule they would receive.

reprise · 11-02-2015 11:58AM

sup_dude wrote: »

As opposed to the no reasoning?

An appeal to thousands of years of tradition, gut instinct for those disinclined to research the issue, catholic church disapproval etc etc

You have a mountain to climb and you are going about it the wrong way here.

Daith · 11-02-2015 12:06PM

RobertKK wrote: »

In other words 'redefining', we will have to agree to disagree.

Simple question

If we change the age people can marry are we redefining marriage?

Zubeneschamali · 11-02-2015 12:09PM

reprise wrote: »

I had assumed a yes until I started reading this discussion.

The attitudes and reasoning here have caused me to reassess.

A no vote won't surprise me at all.

So you are not actually predicting a No. Fair enough.

marienbad · 11-02-2015 01:58PM

reprise wrote: »

An appeal to thousands of years of tradition, gut instinct for those disinclined to research the issue, catholic church disapproval etc etc

You have a mountain to climb and you are going about it the wrong way here.

so no reasoning then or spurious reasoning then ?

jobbridge4life · 11-02-2015 02:05PM

reprise wrote: »

I had assumed a yes until I started reading this discussion.

The attitudes and reasoning here have caused me to reassess.

A no vote won't surprise me at all.

Let me get this straight until you entered this thread you had thought the yes side had it in the bag. Then after raising in an incoherent manner many of the sad, repeatedly debunked lines of 'argument' from the no side and having them once again repeatedly debunked in this thread you felt the yes side had given it away?

Lolorama

No one can convince another of something if that person is determined not to move.

RobertKK · 11-02-2015 02:08PM

Daith wrote: »

Simple question

If we change the age people can marry are we redefining marriage?

Yes, you are putting in definitions for what is allowed to be called marriage.
Age restrictions prevent marriage, because the age limit is defined for marriage.
What is defined, make up what we call marriage.
If I said define civil marriage as understood under Irish law.
You might say currently can only be between a man and a woman, have to be the proper age: at least 18 years old and both are consenting.
Those few points would be defining what civil marriage is.

The referendum will be redefining on who is allowed to get married, compared to the present situation.

If you change anything you are redefining, because it is not the same as before. You are putting a new understanding on it.

reprise · 11-02-2015 02:08PM

marienbad wrote: »

so no reasoning then or spurious reasoning then ?

Are you trying to boost the no vote now?

You will never insult people into a yes vote.

reprise · 11-02-2015 02:10PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Let me get this straight until you entered this thread you had thought the yes side had it in the bag. Then after raising in an incoherent manner many of the sad, repeatedly debunked lines of 'argument' from the no side and having them once again repeatedly debunked in this thread you felt the yes side had given it away?

Lolorama

No one can convince another of something if that person is determined not to move.

You started by bringing my children into the discussion, earning an infraction and generally insulting everyone. I see little improvement.

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

Comments