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

Gunney wrote: »

How do they do that without the involvement of a member of the opposite sex?

Who said it was without involvement of a member of the opposite sex?

Gunney wrote: »

No. Your opinion and the way you put it is a denigration of those with opinions that oppose yours takes no account of the fact that because of the activities of gay activists Christian people are being discriminated against.
It seems to be fair game to call anyone who expresses a Christian opinion on marriage homophobic despite the fact that marriage was instituted by God to provide a stable environment for the raising of children. If you want to disagree with that, fine, but Christians are entitled to hold that position and it is not agreeable for anyone in a democracy to suggest that it is wrong to vote with their conscience.

I don't agree with abstentionists - to me they are cowards and especially if they are likely No voters - but your comments regarding voting no not making sense and actively opposing it beign a waste of time are something I would expect from a bully

How many more weeks til Santa comes?

And what about infertile couples? I take it St Peter wont be waiting for them with a towel and a locker key?

FYI for more than half the history of Christianity (up to the 12th century IIRC), the church did not perform any wedding ceremonies, they were entirely secular arrangement, so it appears that secular marriage is actually a return to tradition!

K4t wrote: »

Ok, so the first part of the sentence in bold I think most people would agree with me on; it does not make sense to vote against this referendum, no matter how you want to argue it, or how you attempt to cloud the issue. Now the second part, "to abstain and simply say you don't mind if people vote against it is worse imo" was not meant to be interpreted as you did i.e. A NO voter is preferable to a NON-voter. It was meant as a direct reply to the poster who had already reverted from a NO vote to probably abstaining. My point was to show that abstaining from voting was if anything worse than voting NO, because you are aware that it does not make sense to vote NO, nor is it worth actively opposing the referendum. Obviously the poll will favour better without the extra NO vote, but it's the poster's frame of mind I was questioning. I then followed this up with an explanation to floggg's post:

I made estimates, based on my own opinion. I believe the polls to be much closer than they are. Why is that such a problem for you too? You obviously don't care too much about this referendum, as those who read through previous posts of yours on this thread will see. But that's no reason to attempt to tarnish and rile up those who do care about this issue and this referendum. We're trying to engage in discussion and see all perspectives. You seem to be nothing more than a contrarion.

I would be very surprised if the Yes Campaigners here would prefer a No voter to a non voter. You are trying to justify a claim that makes no sense.
You keep relying on a context that is unique to you and most others will take that statement at face value.

Your response to Flogg was about people who claim to be yes voters now but wont bother voting on the day. But even then they are still better than a voter who votes No on the day.

re the voting patterns, you made claims that don't stack up. If you have 500 no votes and another 500 wont votes, and only 1719 votes in total, ergo there is 719 Yes votes which leave a 58:42 split.

Please show me where I disagreed with the 2:1, you got an end result but that was at odds with the previous sentences in that post.
I do agree that the Referendum will likely pass 2 to 1 but questioned the logic on how you got there.

Re my posting history, please quote where I have shown that I don't care about this referendum.

Your problem is that you make statements that lack logic but then have a major issue if someone questions that logic and use patronising comments to silence. You are not interested in discussion, this is just a soapbox for you to repeat the same point over and over and dislike anyone who can pick holes in your statements.

You obviously wont allow logic and common sense to get in the way of your crusade. I wish you the best of luck with that but would suggest that if you are going to do any active campaigning, the smart comments don't really work in persuading people to vote the way you demand.

Gunney wrote: »

I'm old school. I kinda think the gender of the parents is somewhat important in the conception of the child and seeing as it's their child they should be the ones to bring it up.

I know there are cases where parents get killed or they can't bring up the kid themselves but gender models are important and ideally kids should have a mother and a father.

Am I not entitled to that opinion?

You can have any opinion you want. If that opinion is factually correct or not is another question.

Gunney wrote: »

isn't that what same sex so called marriage is all about ?

Same sex marriage is about two people of the same sex getting married. That is all.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So you are opposed to IVF, donor eggs, donor sperm, surrogacy and so on?

Better send another letter about the Children and Family Relationships Bill, all that durty stuff is in there.

Still nothing to do with this referendum, though.

:eek:

How dare you!? This is pre-watershed! My poor ears are bleeding from the prophanities :P