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

reprise wrote: »

I have given several reasons and all of them have been treated with dripping disdain.

I've read every post here, and I did not see you actually offer a reason to vote 'No'. What I saw were vague suggestions about other stuff, not related to the referendum (children, tradition, reproduction) and when anyone asked you to elaborate you changed the topic, you pulled out another strawman and ran away from the debate.

It's the lack of any coherent response to the why question that people here are treating with disdain.

On the other hand I thought this:

hinault wrote: »

I will be voting No.

was just straight-forward honest and to the point. I doubt hinault wants to debate, I doubt he wants to be persuaded, and I doubt that he wants to elaborate on his position. He's just answering the OP question and I can respect that. He probably won't pretend he has his reasons, and hopefully he won't pretend to be part of a persecuted section of society. He almost certainly will not submit over a hundred posts with no substance to them.

I'm voting hinault for the winning 'No' post.

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Sadly you'll find that most of the No arguments boil down to either 'because the Bible says it's wrong',

Well that depends on whether you are reading the old or the new testament because they have very different ideas on what marriage is. Not to mention that marriage itself wasn't considered a sacrament until the 1200's. So for most of the Catholic Church's history there was no specific ritual for celebrating marriage.

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

'because marriage has always been between a man and a woman so that should never change' (ignoring the fact that it also used to be the case that a man could not rape his wife amongst many other anachronisms which are slowly being eradicated from society) and 'won't someone think of the children' (usually from someone who is still taking moral advice from the Catholic Church, some of whose members and/or employees spent entirely too much time thinking of the children).

As a rule most Catholics aren't all that versed in its history. It has been adapting, changing and rewriting itself since it was first put together.

For example:

Fridays are still a day of penance. According Canon Law we should be abstaining from eating meat, or another foods, based on the rulings of our Bishops. So anyone who is a Catholic and doesn't abstain on Fridays is technically just as guilty of breaking Cannon Law as someone who is Gay. But that rule is glossed over as unmanageable, so the Church ignore it to keep the vast majority happy.

"Nothing impure enters Heaven" - the Bible states that original sin is real and that unbaptised babies can not enter Heaven. It wasn't until Pope Benedict in 2007 that the Church did a little back peddling.

So whenever I hear someone saying that the Bible is against homosexual relationships, I wonder if the person talking is ok with babies living in purgatory and whether or not they abide by the Friday fasting laws.

walshyn93 wrote: »

It is and it isn't. The conduct of this campaign will colour a lot of people's perception of the progressive movement. If the movement is feral, shrill, and condescending well then it'll be a hollow victory. For instance, is there more or less racial tension in America since Obama was elected? I would say more. Much of that is down to the conduct of Obama's supporters by accusing everyone of racism for disagreeing with him.

Again you're twisting the word bullying around, which is again a shaming tactic.

i would think it's got more to do with Obama providing a lightning rod for all the racism that still exists in the US, which has brought it to the surface.

It's simply shined a light on the issue.

It's not like these people decided to be racist out of spite because they didn't like the way Obama supporters behaved.

Similarly, I don't buy that decent people will punish all lgbt people in the country (present and futude) just to spite so people they find disagreeable on the yes side.

Here are the consequences of a yes vote:

1. People of the same sex will be able to marry.












You're welcome.

Good to see another politician, Pat Carey FF (even if he's on the retired bench) has come out officially no matter how long it's been known that he is gay. There's no more sitting on the fence for him.

Tomorrow's Irish Times magazine (valentine's day) cover.

Sorry about that osarusan. I'll try another route for the photo. Meantime there's this (hope it work's) From facebook.... http://theoutmost.com/marref/. Survey-monkey Marriage Referendum Survey two question poll. It's a YES or a NO tick the box poll.

osarusan wrote: »

Server not Found.


Worst headline ever. What a rag the IT is.

Sorry osarusan: If you're still online, the cover photo link is in the post above.

K4t wrote: »

That cover won't do the YES side any favours, and may even strengthen the NO side's convictions imo.

If that cover upsets them, they're bigots. Feck them.

walshyn93 wrote: »

You don't really understand how people think do you. Out of sight out of mind applies to a lot of Yes voters. They're happy to let people marry but don't want it shoved in their face.

Ah here. What are you on about? Seriously?

K4t wrote: »

That cover won't do the YES side any favours, and may even strengthen the NO side's convictions imo. Happy for the two lads though.

Why? the tattoos? They're two perfectly normal looking guys tbh see nothing wrong with it.