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…106107109111112…325

Comments

  • #3242
    arayess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭arayess


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    The right to marry is a human right.

    Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights


    Article 16: Right to marriage and family
    Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
    Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
    The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.


    yoru quote mentions race, nationality or religion it doesn't mentioned sexuality which is the crux of this debate.

    While the UN may not disprove your point they clearly don't prove it.


  • #3243
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    arayess wrote: »
    While the UN may not disprove your point they clearly don't prove it.
    They should not need to.


  • #3244
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    arayess wrote: »
    yoru quote mentions race, nationality or religion it doesn't mentioned sexuality which is the crux of this debate.

    While the UN may not disprove your point they clearly don't prove it.

    It's minor one regardless.

    But on reflection I may abstain from this particular vote.


  • #3245
    arayess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭arayess


    K4t wrote: »
    They should not need to.


    maybe / maybe not but it was the previous poster who rasied this point.
    I was merely pointing out the flaw.
    Rightwing wrote: »
    It's minor one regardless.

    But on reflection I may abstain from this particular vote.

    your vote , your choice but you are not as right wing as your name would indicate.


  • #3246
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    arayess wrote: »
    maybe / maybe not but it was the previous poster who rasied this point.
    I was merely pointing out the flaw.



    your vote , your choice but you are not as right wing as your name would indicate.

    I view myself as a liberal but question the need to be pandering to minorities.

    I'm probably centre-left or centre.


  • Advertisement
  • #3247
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    Rightwing wrote: »
    But on reflection I may abstain from this particular vote.

    Same-sex marriage has no effect whatsoever on the continuing status and right of different sex marriage. It will simply allow same sex couples to marry. That same sex couples can not, and would continue to be forbidden from marrying, discriminates primarily against gay people. Why would you want this discrimination to continue, when ending it will only cost you a trip to the polling station and the tick of a box marked YES? In May, we have a chance to make other people's lives that much happier and better, and to extend to them a human right that many of us can already exert, at no expense or danger to ourselves. Allowing same sex couples to marry will not affect the institution of marriage in any way, except same sex couples will also be allowed to marry! It's madness to think there is some kind of justification for voting against this referendum, and to abstain is to simply say that you don't mind if people vote against it, which is worse imo. You have a chance to make a difference, to see democracy in action as a force for good; why not put aside political differences and all that crap and simply do something to help your fellow human beings?


  • #3248
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    Rightwing wrote: »
    I view myself as a liberal but question the need to be pandering to minorities.

    I'm probably centre-left or centre.
    But it's not pandering, it's simply putting them on an equal footing to the rest of us under the law concerning the human right to marry. :confused:


  • #3249
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    K4t wrote: »
    Same-sex marriage has no effect whatsoever on the continuing status and right of different sex marriage. It will simply allow same sex couples to marry. That same sex couples can not, and would continue to be forbidden from marrying, discriminates primarily against gay people. Why would you want this discrimination to continue, when ending it will only cost you a trip to the polling station and the tick of a box marked YES? In May, we have a chance to make other people's lives that much happier and better, and to extend to them a human right that many of us can already exert, at no expense or danger to ourselves. Allowing same sex couples to marry will not affect the institution of marriage in any way, except same sex couples will also be allowed to marry! It's madness to think there is some kind of justification for voting against this referendum, and to abstain is to simply say that you don't mind if people vote against it, which is worse imo. You have a chance to make a difference, to see democracy in action as a force for good; why not put aside political differences and all that crap and simply do something to help your fellow human beings?

    Do you know what % of the population are homosexuals ?


  • #3250
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    K4t wrote: »
    Same-sex marriage has no effect whatsoever on the continuing status and right of different sex marriage. It will simply allow same sex couples to marry. That same sex couples can not, and would continue to be forbidden from marrying, discriminates primarily against gay people. Why would you want this discrimination to continue, when ending it will only cost you a trip to the polling station and the tick of a box marked YES? In May, we have a chance to make other people's lives that much happier and better, and to extend to them a human right that many of us can already exert, at no expense or danger to ourselves. Allowing same sex couples to marry will not affect the institution of marriage in any way, except same sex couples will also be allowed to marry! It's madness to think there is some kind of justification for voting against this referendum, and to abstain is to simply say that you don't mind if people vote against it, which is worse imo. You have a chance to make a difference, to see democracy in action as a force for good; why not put aside political differences and all that crap and simply do something to help your fellow human beings?


    It is my belief that there are a lot of homophobic agendas being hidden behind such excuses. It's funny that the supposed sanctity of marriage only becomes a concern at specific times... and the same people who hold the torch for the sanctity of marriage are little bothered by increasing rates of divroce, separation, infidelity etc. Let's face it, plenty of straight people are not exactly marvelous examples of how marriage should be done. They've little ground for preaching about sanctity.


  • #3251
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Rightwing wrote: »
    Do you know what % of the population are homosexuals ?

    Why does that matter?


  • Advertisement
  • #3252
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Rightwing wrote: »
    Do you know what % of the population are homosexuals ?

    Hard to know since there are those unaccounted for who have not come out because of fear of prejudice and homophobia. Not to worry, I'm sure a No vote will really help these people overcome their fear.

    Figures put it at around 8% afaik.


  • #3253
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Hard to know since there are those unaccounted for who have not come out because of fear of prejudice and homophobia. Not to worry, I'm sure a No vote will really help these people overcome their fear.

    Figures put it at around 8% afaik.

    Interesting, I wonder is it an upward sloping graph?

    But as for the referendum, straight away you have 8% voting Yes, then their families etc. It will be a comfortable win.


  • #3254
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Rightwing wrote: »
    Interesting, I wonder is it an upward sloping graph?

    But as for the referendum, straight away you have 8% voting Yes, then their families etc. It will be a comfortable win.

    I wouldn't assume that tbh. I have a gay family member and most of my family are voting NO.


  • #3255
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    Rightwing wrote: »
    Do you know what % of the population are homosexuals ?
    eviltwin wrote: »
    Why does that matter?
    1. It doesn't matter^ The number could be 0.00001% or 99%. Equality is always right.

    2. Homosexuals can already get married; in fact homosexuals can already get married to each other. So this is not about homosexuality. It's about same sex marriage, and allowing people who love each other and want to spend their lives together, the right to marry one and other.


  • #3256
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Rightwing wrote: »
    I view myself as a liberal but question the need to be pandering to minorities.

    I'm probably centre-left or centre.

    It's not pandering though - we don't want any extra right s or preferential treatment.

    We just want the same rights that everybody else already enjoys.


  • #3257
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Rightwing wrote: »
    Interesting, I wonder is it an upward sloping graph?

    But as for the referendum, straight away you have 8% voting Yes, then their families etc. It will be a comfortable win.

    I don't get you


  • #3258
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I wouldn't assume that tbh. I have a gay family member and most of my family are voting NO.
    U wot m8? I know it's personal, but would you care to expand on that, and their reasons for voting NO? It might help people gain a clearer understanding of real world perceptions to this referendum, away from the sanctity of boards!


  • #3259
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    K4t wrote: »
    1. It doesn't matter^ The number could be 0.00001% or 99%. Equality is always right.

    2. Homosexuals can already get married; in fact homosexuals can already get married to each other. So this is not about homosexuality. It's about same sex marriage, and allowing people who love each other and want to spend their lives together, the right to marry one and other.

    And what is the difference ?


  • #3260
    Rightwing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,101 ✭✭✭Rightwing


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    I don't get you

    As in are the more gays now than ever before. Maybe in 5 years the % could be 10%


  • #3261
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    K4t wrote: »
    U wot m8? I know it's personal, but would you care to expand on that, and their reasons for voting NO? It might help people gain a clearer understanding of real world perceptions to this referendum, away from the sanctity of boards!

    Religion :(


  • Advertisement
  • #3262
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,007 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    arayess wrote: »
    yoru quote mentions race, nationality or religion it doesn't mentioned sexuality which is the crux of this debate.

    While the UN may not disprove your point they clearly don't prove it.

    The UN is a body made up of diverse nations and hold's a neutral stance on some issues which it believes are best left to national peoples, parliaments and governments, excepting where a government fails's to uphold the UN human rights obligations it is a signatory to, inclusive of natural civil rights.

    There is no reason (except for that given by those opposing SSM - defence of the traditional married family unit) why two men or two women should be denied access to civil marriage, when both of those couples are quite capable of procreation of children and successful raising of said children. The main objection is that the unions would not be opposite sex unions.

    That objection is based (in the main) on the older Christian view of what a marriage consisted of here and elsewhere, and not what has been proven in actual practice to date, that homosexual male and female couples here are quite capable of procreating, rearing and educating children in a good way, on a par with heterosexual same-sex couples.

    Objectors to same-sex marriage here who take to the airwaves and print media here quoting studies to back up their statements are found to be using partial quotes from dis-proven faulty societal study-reports. The professional ethics committees from within the Medico/Psy professions charged with evaluating the reports quotes are taken from have found the base methods used to examine issues have been not fit for purpose, ending in worthless reports also not fit for use in extrapolation for the purpose of debunking others opinions.

    Putting it simply, as same-sex couples have been proven in real-life as capable of procreating and rearing children to at least an on-par level with opposite-sex couples, there is no reason outside that used by the NO-vote side why same-sex couples should be denied access to civil marriage, the claim that same-sex couples can't procreate. It's a matter of discrimination by the NO-vote side against same-sex couples. If anyone doubt's this, just look for when the NO-vote side used the same reason, or made a statement to the effect, to block opposite-sex couples who can't procreate from marriage.


  • #3263
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Rightwing wrote: »
    Interesting, I wonder is it an upward sloping graph?

    But as for the referendum, straight away you have 8% voting Yes, then their families etc. It will be a comfortable win.

    Is your concern contagion or that it would encourage more people to be gay?

    I can assure you it won't. Its not something we have any control over. I was raised in an almost exclusively heterosexual environment. I didn't mean anybody who I knew to be gay until I was in university (by which stage I already knew deep down I was gay myself). The nearest I had to any "gay" influences was that infamous kiss on Fair City - which was hardly enough to shape my sexual orientation.

    If sexuality was something you chose or learned, I'd be straight.

    And 8% is a long way short of the required 50.1%. This is certainly not a done deal.


  • #3264
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,861 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Rightwing wrote: »
    I view myself as a liberal
    Based on your posts in this thread, the above is nothing short of utter delusion.
    Rightwing wrote: »
    I'm not enamoured with homosexuals.

    Furthermore, we shouldn't be encouraging it and leading them on.
    Rightwing wrote: »
    I'll vote No.
    Rightwing wrote: »

    I'm not homophobic, rather I just don't want to see this thing get out of hand altogether. Next thing is it'll almost be a requirement to be gay to progress.


  • #3265
    Flem31
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭Flem31


    K4t wrote: »
    It's madness to think there is some kind of justification for voting against this referendum, and to abstain is to simply say that you don't mind if people vote against it, which is worse imo.

    So voting no is better than not voting at all.
    That's crazy logic


  • #3266
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    Rightwing wrote: »
    And what is the difference ?
    There are many homosexual men married to heterosexual women. And vice versa. And there may also possibly be gay men married to gay women. This is simply true, factual; it happens. So as you can see, homosexuals can already get married. This isn't about homosexuality. This is about marriage, and love, and the love two people share for each other being expressed through the right to marriage.

    Same-sex marriage would allow same-sex couples, who most likely will be homosexuals, to marry each other. It will improve life for everyone, and it will make marriage, if anything, a better institution, as you will not end up with situations like homosexual men marrying women to conform to societal standards, and everyone will be allowed to pursue their own happiness and their own path. It will improve the sanctity of marriage!


  • #3267
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    Flem31 wrote: »
    So voting no is better than not voting at all.
    That's crazy logic
    Relax, hotshot. I was referring to the reasoning behind it, in the context of that poster's opinions, which we've been discussing over the last two pages.


  • #3268
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    aloyisious wrote: »
    The UN is a body made up of diverse nations and hold's a neutral stance on some issues which it believes are best left to national peoples, parliaments and governments, excepting where a government fails's to uphold the UN human rights obligations it is a signatory to, inclusive of natural civil rights.

    There is no reason (except for that given by those opposing SSM - defence of the traditional married family unit) why two men or two women should be denied access to civil marriage, when both of those couples are quite capable of procreation of children and successful raising of said children. The main objection is that the unions would not be opposite sex unions.

    That objection is based (in the main) on the older Christian view of what a marriage consisted of here and elsewhere, and not what has been proven in actual practice to date, that homosexual male and female couples here are quite capable of procreating, rearing and educating children in a good way, on a par with heterosexual same-sex couples.

    Objectors to same-sex marriage here who take to the airwaves and print media here quoting studies to back up their statements are found to be using partial quotes from dis-proven faulty societal study-reports. The professional ethics committees from within the Medico/Psy professions charged with evaluating the reports quotes are taken from have found the base methods used to examine issues have been not fit for purpose, ending in worthless reports also not fit for use in extrapolation for the purpose of debunking others opinions.

    Putting it simply, as same-sex couples have been proven in real-life as capable of procreating and rearing children to at least an on-par level with opposite-sex couples, there is no reason outside that used by the NO-vote side why same-sex couples should be denied access to civil marriage, the claim that same-sex couples can't procreate. It's a matter of discrimination by the NO-vote side against same-sex couples. If anyone doubt's this, just look for when the NO-vote side used the same reason, or made a statement to the effect, to block opposite-sex couples who can't procreate from marriage.

    we can't procreate together, but that's irrelevant. Procreation capacity is not necessary to marry, nor is marriage simply a means of facilitating child rearing.

    Children/procreation was never a pre-requisite for marriage until gay people wished to marry each other.


  • #3269
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    K4t wrote: »
    Relax, hotshot. I was referring to the reasoning behind it, in the context of that poster's opinions, which we've been discussing over the last two pages.

    It still makes sense. If a poster states an intention to vote no, I would think deciding to abstain is progress.

    Even if they aren't comfortable endorsing marriage equality, they aren't going out of their way to deny it.


  • #3270
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,007 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Rightwing wrote: »
    Interesting, I wonder is it an upward sloping graph?

    But as for the referendum, straight away you have 8% voting Yes, then their families etc. It will be a comfortable win.

    Re the upward sloping graph, it might increase in angle as more LGBT folk who feel it is safe for them to come out of the closet.

    Graphs are one thing, the actual vote on the day is more reliable. It's not a sure thing that because there is one or more gay person in a family that that family will vote em-bloc YES. An example of that is the number of openly gay people who have stated publicly that they are going to vote NO.


  • Advertisement
  • #3271
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,007 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    floggg wrote: »
    we can't procreate together, but that's irrelevant. Procreation capacity is not necessary to marry, nor is marriage simply a means of facilitating child rearing.

    Children/procreation was never a pre-requisite for marriage until gay people wished to marry each other.

    Exactly... :)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement