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…127128130132133…325

Comments

  • #3872
    TwoShedsJackson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,438 ✭✭✭TwoShedsJackson


    fran17 wrote: »
    so I take it that your also of the opinion that whoever votes no in this referendum,for whatever valid reason,is also an "evil and spiteful whatever"?

    No-one seems to have come up with an actual reason to vote No so far, that isn't based on either an argument from tradition, or a book that was written anywhere between 1400 and 2000 years ago.


  • #3873
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    fran17 wrote: »
    so I take it that your also of the opinion that whoever votes no in this referendum,for whatever valid reason,is also an "evil and spiteful whatever"?

    Wait, hang on, there are valid reasons for voting no?

    In all my years never once have I heard one. Care to provide a few?


  • #3874
    B_Wayne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,039 ✭✭✭B_Wayne


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    Wait, hang on, there are valid reasons for voting no?

    In all my years never once have I heard one. Care to provide a few?

    I predict vague statements that misrepresent real life, a condemnation of me predicting vague statements will also shortly follow. Basically it'll go round in circles as per normal.


  • #3875
    dublinman1990
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,937 ✭✭✭dublinman1990


    Slicemeister wrote: »
    What relationship is thAt friend in now? Not defending his actions but I've seen lads like that who are extremely frustrated and could be at loggerheads with their whole thinking .

    I would assume my cousins friend that he is straight & has a girlfriend. I would ask him otherwise in the future btw.

    My cousin who asked me those questions on the other hand is definitely straight with his own girlfriend as I seen her twice with him before.


  • #3876
    bb1234567
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    Wait, hang on, there are valid reasons for voting no?

    In all my years never once have I heard one. Care to provide a few?

    You might hear some what ifs and what abouts, some strange parallels with other situations and cases that really have nothing to do with gay marriage, something about gays being obscene and unnatural, i don't like gays, what about the children, some similarities drawn with paedophilia or something if we are really getting into it. And yeah same old same old.


  • Advertisement
  • #3877
    bb1234567
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    dublinman1990 wrote: »
    I would assume my cousins friend that he is straight & has a girlfriend. I would ask him otherwise in the future btw.

    My cousin who asked me those questions on the other hand is definitely straight with his own girlfriend as I seen her twice with him before.

    Being in a straight relationship doesn't mean you're definitely straight, it means you're definitely in a straight relationship. I know several gay people who married people of the opposite sex to avoid discrimination


  • #3878
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    bb1234567 wrote: »
    I don't know about evil and spiteful, but a person voting no believes a gay person shouldn't be granted the same rights they have for the one and only reason that they are gay.By voting no you are saying gay people aren't equal to you and don't deserve the rights you have. To me thats just unfair.

    But you do agree they have the right to vote no.Everyone really needs to bear in mind that this,or any,online forum is not a true reflection of the demographics of the society we live in.This forum in particular reflects a rather distorted view considering the disproportionately high number of homosexuals that reside here.
    Its rather easy to be swayed into thinking that he who shouts loudest here is shouting honestly.The no vote will not be made up of evil and spiteful people,it will be our fathers,mothers,siblings and extended family members.


  • #3879
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    fran17 wrote: »
    But you do agree they have the right to vote no.Everyone really needs to bear in mind that this,or any,online forum is not a true reflection of the demographics of the society we live in.This forum in particular reflects a rather distorted view considering the disproportionately high number of homosexuals that reside here.
    Its rather easy to be swayed into thinking that he who shouts loudest here is shouting honestly.The no vote will not be made up of evil and spiteful people,it will be our fathers,mothers,siblings and extended family members.


    Who here is gay Fran? Whats the percentage while you're at it.


  • #3880
    bb1234567
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    fran17 wrote: »
    But you do agree they have the right to vote no.Everyone really needs to bear in mind that this,or any,online forum is not a true reflection of the demographics of the society we live in.This forum in particular reflects a rather distorted view considering the disproportionately high number of homosexuals that reside here.
    Its rather easy to be swayed into thinking that he who shouts loudest here is shouting honestly.The no vote will not be made up of evil and spiteful people,it will be our fathers,mothers,siblings and extended family members.

    Personally I don't agree, but theres nothing I can do about that. It makes no sense to me that people who aren't gay are allowed to decide whether we get the same rights as them or not. Same way I disagree with men being allowed to vote on whether women can abort the baby that will stay with them for 9 months or not.
    And its not disproportionate , people are obviously more open about their sexuality in anonymous online forums as there are no repercussions. Where as they must stay in the closet to avoid discrimination in real life. So it seems like theres more gay people online. Like what exactly do you think it is about this website that makes the gays flock here hmm? And yes , obviously..that doesn't change the fact that fathers ,mothers, siblings and extended family members can still be homophobic arseholes, you know.


  • #3881
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    lavdad wrote: »
    Natural may have not been the best choice of word.

    I believe that it is best for a human being to be heterosexual, in the sense that it causes them optimal well-being and lack of dysfunction, and allows them to fit into a healthy functional society. Since homosexuality is not pre-determined from birth, it need not flurish unless it is encouraged. So this encouragement, so common in our current culture, is leading to the lack of well being and dysfunction of individuals. The state supporting gay marriage is a facet of this.

    Probably a bit late with this, but couple of questions for you if I may.

    1. I'm gay, and believe u always have been. Im assuming your not - why do you believe you know better about my sexuality than I do?

    2. My sexuality was something I really struggled with for a number of years before I could accept it, and actively tried to be straight for a number of years. It wasn't something I wanted or embraced.

    If there was any element of choice in the matter, why couldn't I choose to be straight.

    3. I was raised in the same environment and by the same parents as my heterosexual brother. How was I turned gay but not him?

    4. Most straight people will say that their sexuality was never a choice, it's just how they are wired. They couldn't become attracted to the same sex if they tried.

    Do you believe you can? Could you become sexually attracted to men and sexually satisfied in a same sex relationship?

    If you can't choose or change your sexual orientation, how can others?

    5. As long as gay people are treated with equal dignity and respect, we don't experience any added dysfunction or issues of non-acceptance. Wouldn't it therefore be easier for society to do just that and treat us as equals, rather than trying to force people to change who they are go against their own nature?


  • Advertisement
  • #3882
    bb1234567
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    floggg wrote: »
    Probably a bit late with this, but couple of questions for you if I may.

    1. I'm gay, and believe u always have been. Im assuming your not - why do you believe you know better about my sexuality than I do?

    2. My sexuality was something I really struggled with for a number of years before I could accept it, and actively tried to be straight for a number of years. It wasn't something I wanted or embraced.

    If there was any element of choice in the matter, why couldn't I choose to be straight.

    3. I was raised in the same environment and by the same parents as my heterosexual brother. How was I turned gay but not him?

    4. Most straight people will say that their sexuality was never a choice, it's just how they are wired. They couldn't become attracted to the same sex if they tried.

    Do you believe you can? Could you become sexually attracted to men and sexually satisfied in a same sex relationship?

    If you can't choose or change your sexual orientation, how can others?

    5. As long as gay people are treated with equal dignity and respect, we don't experience any added dysfunction or issues of non-acceptance. Wouldn't it therefore be easier for society to do just that and treat us as equals, rather than trying to force people to change who they are go against their own nature?
    god bless this post


  • #3883
    Captain Peanuts McDrummie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33 ✭Captain Peanuts McDrummie


    I will be voting yes in this referendum. It's about time members of the LGBT community were allowed to marry someone they love. The no side so far have put forward nothing but scare tactics in my opinion which isn't helpful.


  • #3884
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    Nodin wrote: »
    Who here is gay Fran? Whats the percentage while you're at it.

    Your a rather large cog in this machine Nodin.You tell me.


  • #3885
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    fran17 wrote: »
    Your a rather large cog in this machine Nodin.You tell me.


    Hardly, Fran. What "machine" is this?

    You made the claim, its for you to back it up.

    Who here is gay Fran? Whats the percentage while you're at it.


  • #3886
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    fran17 wrote: »
    This forum in particular reflects a rather distorted view considering the disproportionately high number of homosexuals that reside here.

    Threads discussing whether or not gay people should have the same rights as everyone else contain posts from gay people. Shock!


  • #3887
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    Was talking to one of the lads in work, and he's of the "gays are icky" variety.

    He's voting yes, "**** it, why not like. Why shouldn't they have the chance to be miserable too!"


  • #3888
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    fran17 wrote: »
    .The no vote will not be made up of evil and spiteful people,it will be our fathers,mothers,siblings and extended family members.

    Considering your use of the word "spiteful", one good reason to vote no please.


  • #3889
    StewartGriffin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭StewartGriffin


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    Wait, hang on, there are valid reasons for voting no?

    In all my years never once have I heard one. Care to provide a few?

    Are you sure you are not confusing this referendum with something else? Since the wording for the vote was only finalised on Jan 21st, about 8 weeks ago. You're talking about Years?


  • #3890
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    StewartGriffin wrote: »
    Are you sure you are not confusing this referendum with something else? Since the wording for the vote was only finalised on Jan 21st, about 8 weeks ago. You're talking about Years?

    Most of the No arguments for SSM are the same that have been used against gay people in general for years.


  • #3891
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    PeteFalk78 wrote: »
    I was simply highlighting that lazygals wikipedia link only showed that some animals exhibited homosexual behaviour. 1) "Plenty of animal species have homosexual animals". Plenty? Really?

    Yeah I think it is clear what you are saying. Homosexual behaviour is not homosexuality or attraction. To your mind at least. And perhaps you are right, or wrong. And we could debate the differences between compulsions and behaviours and attractions and more. To no useful avail. And whether we are anthropomorphising animal behaviour in describing those animals as homosexual.

    So we could also equivocate over the claim therefore that plenty of species have homosexuals therefore. Again with no utility. Because in the end the whole discussion on whether homosexuality is "natural" at all is a red herring used to derail actual relevant discussion related to the referendum. It has nothing to do with the morality of it. Nothing to do with the referendum. And lets face it, the vast majority of human behaviour is hardly "natural" itself anyway. For some reason unclear to me, those who reject homosexuality as unnatural and therefore want to vote "no" appear entirely oblivious to the fact that "marriage" is hardly natural either in the first place. And while paying for their precious little marriages, they never pause to look at the money they are handing over and think how unnatural currency is. Or cooking while they eat at their reception. Or DJs while they dance the night away while wilfully poisoning themselves with fermented sugars. It seems that the relevance of things being "natural" only comes to the fore in people who lack any actually relevant argument in this debate.

    However what we can say with more safety is that many species have non reproducing elements. This is achieved in a variety of ways in nature. Sterility being one. Extra or missing hormones leaving the individual not compelled to mate. Sexless individuals. And so on and so forth. One thing we know from Nature, Biology, Evolution, is that not only do many species have individuals that do not reproduce, but the species benefits from their existence too.

    So whether homosexuality is an aspect of one species, a number of them, or many, we could easily view it as just another expression of a biological lateral move that evolution makes in the existence chess board in producing elements of a species that do not reproduce.
    fran17 wrote: »
    Your a rather large cog in this machine Nodin.You tell me.

    Point of order. The claims of the % of gays here was yours, not theirs. Why should they tell you therefore? You clearly have access to a data stream we do not. Lets see your numbers and workings on this. Or perhaps withdraw the claim as the baseless hyperbole it was.


  • Advertisement
  • #3892
    StewartGriffin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭StewartGriffin


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Most of the No arguments for SSM are the same that have been used against gay people in general for years.

    But this thread is about a specifically worded referendum, and the comment was about valid reasons to vote against that referendum.

    It's a poorly thought out assumption that all against the referendum are against gay people.


  • #3893
    Cody montana
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,598 ✭✭✭Cody montana


    StewartGriffin wrote: »
    But this thread is about a specifically worded referendum, and the comment was about valid reasons to vote against that referendum.

    It's a poorly thought out assumption that all against the referendum are against gay people.

    I see no valid reason against gay marriage, thus I assume they are against gay people.


  • #3894
    StewartGriffin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭StewartGriffin


    Cody montana wrote: »
    I see no valid reason against gay marriage, thus I assume they are against gay people.

    You're wrong. Many people will vote against the referendum, but will wish no harm to gay people. Now, they may be against gay peoples right to marry, and their reasoning may be flawed, they may be traditionalists, or just pedantic about the word "Marriage" and it's definitions, but they will not all be "against Gay People."

    Your logic is too black and white.


  • #3895
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    StewartGriffin wrote: »
    But this thread is about a specifically worded referendum, and the comment was about valid reasons to vote against that referendum.

    It's a poorly thought out assumption that all against the referendum are against gay people.

    "I'm all for marriage equality but I'm going to vote no because I don't like the wording of the referendum". Yeah right!


  • #3896
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Cody montana wrote: »
    I see no valid reason against gay marriage, thus I assume they are against gay people.
    StewartGriffin wrote: »
    Your logic is too black and white.

    Yeah I think its a little of Column A and a little of Column B. There are those who will clearly vote no for no other reason than anti homosexual agendas or bigotry. And there is probably little one can do through debate or discourse to change them.

    But there are also people merely trying to protect some linguistic or traditionalist view of marriage. Or they merely fear change (yes is often a harder vote than no to campaign for in any election because maintaining the status quo is so ingrained in many people). While some others might be convinced by the slippery slope arguments of "If we open the door to this change, what else will come through that door".

    And those people at least I think we can reach using reason and discourse and decorum.


  • #3897
    Cody montana
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,598 ✭✭✭Cody montana


    StewartGriffin wrote: »
    You're wrong. Many people will vote against the referendum, but will wish no harm to gay people. Now, they may be against gay peoples right to marry, and their reasoning may be flawed, they may be traditionalists, or just pedantic about the word "Marriage" and it's definitions, but they will not all be "against Gay People."

    Your logic is too black and white.

    Voting no to this is harm to gay people though.

    To deny loving people marriage over the definition of a word and tradition is absurd IMO.
    And should be viewed as so.


  • #3898
    StewartGriffin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭StewartGriffin


    Cody montana wrote: »
    Voting no to this is harm to gay people though.

    To deny loving people marriage over the definition of a word and tradition is absurd IMO.
    And should be viewed as so.

    It's all about a legal issue. And legal issues are all about wording. It's about the right to have a relationship recognised by the state, not exactly some romantic utopia.

    Absurd is not the same as causing harm.


  • #3899
    B_Wayne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,039 ✭✭✭B_Wayne


    fran17 wrote: »
    Your a rather large cog in this machine Nodin.You tell me.

    Sounding rather conspiratorial Fran..... Have you ever considered that a large proportion of this nation may just be far more inclusive and tolerant than yourself?


  • #3900
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    StewartGriffin wrote: »
    It's all about a legal issue. And legal issues are all about wording. It's about the right to have a relationship recognised by the state, not exactly some romantic utopia.

    Absurd is not the same as causing harm.

    i think most people dont give a bo**ix about "wording", and will be voting "no" if they are against gay marriage, "yes" if in favour.


  • Advertisement
  • #3901
    StewartGriffin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭StewartGriffin


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    i think most people dont give a bo**ix about "wording", and will be voting "no" if they are against gay marriage, "yes" if in favour.

    I wish we had a few lawyers like you, Roger. The world would be a better place.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement