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

Penny Tration · 22-03-2015 03:26PM

junospider wrote: »

I will be voting NO because of the word marriage. Marriage is between man and woman,I would probably vote yes if they worded it differently.
Everyone is entitled to happiness.Incedentally I believe it is wrong for 2 men to raise children.

You wouldn't vote yes if it were worded differently, don't lie.

Incidentally, 2 men can already raise children, and the law will soon be changed to give them BOTH custody in cases of same sex couples adopting.

As for dictionary definitions -

Gay primarily meant jolly, happy.

******, the homophobic slur, initially meant a bunch of sticks.

Words, definitions and phrase meanings change.

bb1234567 · 22-03-2015 03:37PM

junospider wrote: »

I will be voting NO because of the word marriage. Marriage is between man and woman,I would probably vote yes if they worded it differently.
Everyone is entitled to happiness.Incedentally I believe it is wrong for 2 men to raise children.

And not two women?
And is it just the fact that they're male or is it 2 GAY men raising a child that you think is wrong? Like say two men who were close friends were both married to women but both their spouses happened to die in an accident, and it made sense financially for the two men to move in together afterwardsand raise their children together. But they were both straight, would you see a problem with that? Would that be wrong?

LookingFor · 22-03-2015 03:40PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Front page letter. How anyone could deny happiness to this man is beyond me.

http://m.independent.ie/opinion/letters/at-60-and-gay-i-can-dream-31085474.html

It makes me quite angry.

The no side - that I have seen thusfar - have offered no pragmatic alternative for the improvement of status and environment for the hundreds of thousands of children this referendum will affect in the coming generations.

They talk in a hypothetical sense, about a world where children would only be raised by a man and woman. As if this is a referendum about whether we are saying yes or no to a different reality. The truth is: this different reality exists already. Given that it is happening, the question that the No side needs to answer is: how do we improve wellbeing for those kids?

How does it improve their welfare to withhold status from them, their families, their parents? To call them synthetic? To question their parentage and upbringing, to mockingly ask 'who's the father?', to ponder if these kids celebrate Mothers' day or Fathers' day? This has been the narrative of the no side of late. What was that the Pope said about 'speak ill of my mother and...'?

The children of gay couples aside, they have no concern, seemingly, for the much wider numbers of gay children that are and will be growing up in this country.

This ownership they claim over welfare of children is a farce. Absolute farce. The only 'answer' I have seen - at least from the David Quinns and Breda O'Briens of this world - is that the kids of gay couples should not have been brought into the world in the first place. That we should be banning all avenues through which gay people could possibly procreate. It's outrageous!

On a brighter note, I almost fell out of my chair when I say this this morning:

Brenda Power: Vote for gay marriage and watch as the earth doesn’t move

Anyone following this whole saga to date, from the CP bill onward, will know the significance of this. This is a complete 180 for her. Apparently she mentioned on radio a month ago that she'd be voting yes, but this is the first time I've seen her write in support. Quite shocking, in a good way - I wonder what changed her mind. The whole time I was reading it I was waiting for some other shoe to drop, but from head to toe it's pragmatic consideration of what will make family life better for more people.

One eyed Jack · 22-03-2015 03:43PM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

He/she posted a reply to the thread op, do you honestly expect anyone to read 300 pages of bickering?

The thread circles round every thirty or so pages, and every time it looks like the thread may be losing momentum, a poster comes along and says they're voting no, and it all kicks off again for another thirty pages of the same.

What kind of question is that about expecting everyone to entertain you? Almost as if you own the thread and a guest has just dropped in.

It's a legitimate question when the poster doesn't offer any new perspective to the thread, and not only has no new perspective, but doesn't even give any basis for the reasons they will be choosing to vote no. It's not at all as though I 'own the thread' (weird thing to say tbh), but when someone posts something that's been repeated numerous times already, I think it's only reasonable to be skeptical of their motives.

Annasopra · 22-03-2015 04:00PM

fran17 wrote: »

Maybe so and I never claimed they do

Yes you did

fran17 wrote: »

The real offensive thing here for me and all people of faith in this forum

_Redzer_ · 22-03-2015 04:10PM

Can't wait until SSM is passed for the added bonus of the look of pure disgust and defeat on the face of so many bigots here. They'll be powerless to do anything about, and will be condemned to the history books along with those who fought civil rights for black people -forever to be looked back on as those who stood on the wrong side of history and who will be galvanised by it.

Tombi! · 22-03-2015 04:27PM

Mod note: stop attempting to compare being gay to being a pedophile

Links234 · 22-03-2015 04:38PM

bb1234567 wrote: »

Internalised self hatred perhaps. I always suspect the most homophobic are in fact homosexual themselves, so determined to distance themselves from what they are that they'll try to offend those who are the same as them as much as possible.

It's usually the case, just take a look at folks like John Paulk, George Rekers, or Ted Haggard and loads more like them. In fact it's usually called "Haggard's Law" and says that the more outspoken one is against gay people, the more likely that person is to be gay themselves. Sounds like a cliche but it's quite often the case.

It's long been said that the battle for LGBT rights is fought between those who've come out of the closet and those who are still in the closet.

bb1234567 · 22-03-2015 04:49PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Can't wait until SSM is passed for the added bonus of the look of pure disgust and defeat on the face of so many bigots here. They'll be powerless to do anything about, and will be condemned to the history books along with those who fought civil rights for black people -forever to be looked back on as those who stood on the wrong side of history and who will be galvanised by it.

Im so excited

StewartGriffin · 22-03-2015 04:50PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

the poster doesn't even give any basis for the reasons they will be choosing to vote no

But they did, they said it was because of the wording, changing the definition of marriage.

You might say people shouldn't be so hung up about a word but if it were decided to change that word to something else and still give same sex couples fully equal rights, I suspect the wording would suddenly become very important.

Nodin · 22-03-2015 04:53PM

bb1234567 wrote: »

And not two women?

There's gay wimmin?

One eyed Jack · 22-03-2015 04:59PM

Links234 wrote: »

It's usually the case, just take a look at folks like John Paulk, George Rekers, or Ted Haggard and loads more like them. In fact it's usually called "Haggard's Law" and says that the more outspoken one is against gay people, the more likely that person is to be gay themselves. Sounds like a cliche but it's quite often the case.

It's long been said that the battle for LGBT rights is fought between those who've come out of the closet and those who are still in the closet.

Genuine question though, and something I've always thought of such, IMO, misguided notions -

Is insinuating that an outspoken individual against homosexuality, that they are likely homosexual themselves, not a derogatory commentary that reflects badly on people that are homosexual?

Are people who are homosexual not entitled to their personal privacy and respect, or are they painting a target on their back and undeserving of understanding until they admit they are homosexual?

I'll be honest here, it's a stupid cliché parroted by idiots who miss the irony that they are doing themselves no favours by claiming that being LGBT is nothing to be ashamed of, and then pointing fingers and insinuating people are secretly LGBT as if it's something to be ashamed of!

It makes no sense to me to do that to another person tbh, and it just strikes me as an immature and quite frankly daft insult to try and make the insinuator feel better about themselves.

Clearly, it isn't working.

WoolyJumper · 22-03-2015 05:01PM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

He/she posted a reply to the thread op, do you honestly expect anyone to read 300 pages of bickering?

What kind of question is that about expecting everyone to entertain you? Almost as if you own the thread and a guest has just dropped in.

I've read this whole thread...unfortunately.

Seems like every argument ends up with a discussion of paedophilia, incest or "the yes side is shouting me down"

bb1234567 · 22-03-2015 05:08PM

WoolyJumper wrote: »

I've read this whole thread...unfortunately.

Seems like every argument ends up with a discussion of paedophilia, incest or "the yes side is shouting me down"

Really shows how bad the no sides argument is if they regularly have to resort to accusations of paedophilia .

StewartGriffin · 22-03-2015 05:09PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

That isn't a reason. It's like voting against a candidate running for election because they don't like the look of the other candidate. It's nonsense and irrelevant.

So, the referendum is about marriage, but people having a problem with the word marriage is irrelevant?

One eyed Jack · 22-03-2015 05:13PM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

But they did, they said it was because of the wording, changing the definition of marriage.

You might say people shouldn't be so hung up about a word but if it were decided to change that word to something else and still give same sex couples fully equal rights, I suspect the wording would suddenly become very important.

And how many times in this thread alone, has that argument been addressed already?

There is no definition of marriage in the Irish Constitution.

This referendum is related to civil marriage. Religious marriage will not be affected by the outcome of the referendum.

I do think the Government and the Referendum Commission could do a better job in making this distinction known to the public before the referendum as I'm already hearing about politicians having difficulty publicly supporting marriage equality for fear of losing their seat in the next general election!

unfortunately · 22-03-2015 05:18PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Genuine question though, and something I've always thought of such, IMO, misguided notions -

Is insinuating that an outspoken individual against homosexuality, that they are likely homosexual themselves, not a derogatory commentary that reflects badly on people that are homosexual?

Are people who are homosexual not entitled to their personal privacy and respect, or are they painting a target on their back and undeserving of understanding until they admit they are homosexual?

I'll be honest here, it's a stupid cliché parroted by idiots who miss the irony that they are doing themselves no favours by claiming that being LGBT is nothing to be ashamed of, and then pointing fingers and insinuating people are secretly LGBT as if it's something to be ashamed of!

It makes no sense to me to do that to another person tbh, and it just strikes me as an immature and quite frankly daft insult to try and make the insinuator feel better about themselves.

Clearly, it isn't working.

I used to think the same but research has been done that show men who are homophobic (by their own admission and measured by a scale of agreeing/disagrees with various statements) are shown to be more aroused by homoerotic pornography than non-homophobic men. And of course there are all these anti-gay hate figures who are later caught in the act. Now, obviously not all homophobes are secretly gay - but I think the ones that shout the loudest are more likely to be suppressing something. Think about it - why are they so actively against it, how do they sustain the hatred - something must be motivating them. They are obsessed with homosexuality and especially fixated with the sexual acts of homosexuality. It's a natural projection of their own self-hatred.

WoolyJumper · 22-03-2015 05:26PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Genuine question though, and something I've always thought of such, IMO, misguided notions -

Is insinuating that an outspoken individual against homosexuality, that they are likely homosexual themselves, not a derogatory commentary that reflects badly on people that are homosexual?

Are people who are homosexual not entitled to their personal privacy and respect, or are they painting a target on their back and undeserving of understanding until they admit they are homosexual?

I'll be honest here, it's a stupid cliché parroted by idiots who miss the irony that they are doing themselves no favours by claiming that being LGBT is nothing to be ashamed of, and then pointing fingers and insinuating people are secretly LGBT as if it's something to be ashamed of!

It makes no sense to me to do that to another person tbh, and it just strikes me as an immature and quite frankly daft insult to try and make the insinuator feel better about themselves.

Clearly, it isn't working.

Yeah I have to agree, I cringe when I hear another gay (or straight) person say that. For one it always feels a little bit like self shaming and two it almost excuses the other persons homophobia (am I allowed to say that word anymore?)

Though it sometimes turns out to be the case. eg Ted Haggard (remember him?) For the most part it is just down to plain ignorance and serious lack of ability to think outside yourself and and have some basic empathy really. It's what I've found a lot on this thread. People can not imagine for a second what it might be like to be gay and at the same time see themselves the victims of this referendum.

InTheTrees · 22-03-2015 05:32PM

I'm sorry but for me the church has very little to say on the matter. This endless playing off of one biblical quote against another is pointless.

They've shown themselves to be completely unqualified to comment anyway.

If anything their hypocritical intransigence is what brought us to this point.

One eyed Jack · 22-03-2015 05:32PM

unfortunately wrote: »

I used to think the same but research has been done that show men who are homophobic (by their own admission and measured by a scale of agreeing/disagrees with various statements) are shown to be more aroused by homoerotic pornography than non-homophobic men.

I imagine there being no bias in that research whatsoever :rolleyes:

"We surveyed all these straight college jocks in this straight bathhouse to measure their reactions to men having sex. We were shocked by the findings. We were, honest!" :pac:

And of course there are all these anti-gay hate figures who are later caught in the act. Now, obviously not all homophobes are secretly gay - but I think the ones that shout the loudest are more likely to be suppressing something. Think about it - why are they so actively against it, how do they sustain the hatred - something must be motivating them. They are obsessed with homosexuality and especially fixated with the sexual acts of homosexuality. It's a natural projection of their own self-hatred.

Confirmation bias, correlation/causation fallacy...

No, because a handful of men turn out to be gay, it's gone from coincidence to being fact.

That still doesn't address the issue I have with it that it's simply painting being LBGT as something to be ashamed of, rather than simply being an asshole as something to be ashamed of.

fran17 · 22-03-2015 05:50PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yes you did

No I did not Joey,once again you completely distort and misrepresent the issue.I was speaking in regards to the faith,i even informed you that certain members of the church welcome lgbtq individuals struggling with sexuality issues.This tactic which you have honed is counterproductive for all concerned.

Links234 · 22-03-2015 06:05PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Genuine question though, and something I've always thought of such, IMO, misguided notions -

Is insinuating that an outspoken individual against homosexuality, that they are likely homosexual themselves, not a derogatory commentary that reflects badly on people that are homosexual?

Are people who are homosexual not entitled to their personal privacy and respect, or are they painting a target on their back and undeserving of understanding until they admit they are homosexual?

I'll be honest here, it's a stupid cliché parroted by idiots who miss the irony that they are doing themselves no favours by claiming that being LGBT is nothing to be ashamed of, and then pointing fingers and insinuating people are secretly LGBT as if it's something to be ashamed of!

It makes no sense to me to do that to another person tbh, and it just strikes me as an immature and quite frankly daft insult to try and make the insinuator feel better about themselves.

Clearly, it isn't working.

You're quite mistaken if you think there is any insult is intended, it's merely taking note of something that is apparently quite prevalent. Take note of former Exodus International president Alan Chambers, or Cardinal Keith O'Brien. This isn't merely making some insinuation, there's a long history of vociferously anti-LGBT politicians, religious figure, or member of some anti-LGBT group being caught out in scandals involving the same sex. George Rekers was a founder of the Family Research Council and member of Narth before being found out for having hired a rent boy.

This kind of thing happens quite regularly, so of course it has people wondering about a person's motivations, how much anti-LGBT sentiment is driven by self hatred, as well as pointing out the sheer hypocrisy. So it is an interesting point of discussion, and whether you feel it an insinuation or not, there's a very well established pattern and history of prominent anti-LGBT activists being gay themselves. That of course isn't to say that anyone who expresses a homophobic opinion is secretly harbouring same-sex feelings, but the people who seem to make anti-LGBT advocacy life's work or their very raison d'etre, well then people might speculate.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That still doesn't address the issue I have with it that it's simply painting being LBGT as something to be ashamed of, rather than simply being an asshole as something to be ashamed of.

But it's not painting being LGBT as something to be ashamed of, it's talking about something that happens quite regularly. Before Kellie Maloney came out, she had said some pretty horrible things about LGBT people, that gays are no good for society or that Camden had too many gays, etc... And in retrospect, you kinda wonder, where did those sentiments come from?

One eyed Jack · 22-03-2015 06:13PM

fran17 wrote: »

No I did not Joey,once again you completely distort and misrepresent the issue.I was speaking in regards to the faith,i even informed you that certain members of the church welcome lgbtq individuals struggling with sexuality issues.This tactic which you have honed is counterproductive for all concerned.

Beam in your eye much there fran?

fran17 wrote: »

The real offensive thing here for me and all people of faith in this forum is not just the ignorance of the mob,as they will always exist,but the collusion of those who are deemed to know better.

You are distorting the truth with that statement, and it is your tactics are counter-productive to people who are religious as you make us all look like ignorant, hate-filled bigots who obsess about being as offensive as possible to other people, instead of people who hope to promote tolerance and understanding among everyone in society, to withhold judgement and instead offer assistance to anyone.

fran17 wrote: »

Believe what you will.I am not here to tip my hat to anyone therefor I speak the truth.

It's obvious even to a half-blind man at this point fran that you are simply incapable of telling the truth. It's interesting though that you tell me to believe what I will, as if you're somehow you believe you're any different to me.

bb1234567 · 22-03-2015 06:24PM

unfortunately wrote: »

I used to think the same but research has been done that show men who are homophobic (by their own admission and measured by a scale of agreeing/disagrees with various statements) are shown to be more aroused by homoerotic pornography than non-homophobic men. And of course there are all these anti-gay hate figures who are later caught in the act. Now, obviously not all homophobes are secretly gay - but I think the ones that shout the loudest are more likely to be suppressing something. Think about it - why are they so actively against it, how do they sustain the hatred - something must be motivating them. They are obsessed with homosexuality and especially fixated with the sexual acts of homosexuality. It's a natural projection of their own self-hatred.

Exactly, if you are gay then sex(with other men) is on your mind a lot, like women on straight mens minds. You hate the fact that you're gay, and so the hatred of yourself and other gay people is always on your mind. Unless this is the case I don't see how straight homophobic men could have hatred of gay people on their mind so much and so often, hatred of gay people seems to be the only thing on some peoples minds.

Kiwi in IE · 22-03-2015 06:55PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Catholics could go to Protestant schools.

And you have a problem with that? Sounds similar to today, where many non Catholics have to go to catholic schools. From what I recall of your postings on that topic you don't consider that an issue at all, yet apparently you think it was terrible that in the past Catholics had to go to Protestant schools?

RobertKK · 22-03-2015 07:06PM

bb1234567 wrote: »

Jesus Christ!! Ive never even heard the most brainwashed of bible beaters try to claim all gay male couples were paedophiles! You're taking generalising to all new levels of ridiculousness.

I never said that, I don't know what you were reading.

RobertKK · 22-03-2015 07:08PM

Cuban Pete wrote: »

And who would "they" be in this instance? Because I'm pretty sure abusing children makes someone a child abuser, not gay.

I never said child abusers were gay.

Kiwi in IE · 22-03-2015 07:17PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Australian police said same sex marriage was used as a cover in one paedophile scandal.
It involved Australia, the US and Russia. It led to Russia banning adoption to a number of countries given it was a Russian child that was being taken around the world by the two men to be abused by other men.
My argument is this will blow up in the faces of the gay community in the future just like when paedophiles joined the church because it gave them a cover of respect and people were afraid to boo to a priest, people are the same now with gay people because they fear causing unintended offense.
If one cared for others they would say it, better to be hated for saying something people don't want to hear.
Because they then have no excuses when it happens.

All you need to be is a paedophile with no record, hook up with another paedophile who has no record, pretend to be gay and pretend to be lovers, have your SSM, go through the process and get access to a child.
This is what happened in Australia.
It is not fantasy, it is already a reality, but no one wants to have a public debate because it will cause offense, even though the intention is good.

Should heterosexual marriage be banned because heterosexual couples have sexually abused/exploited their adopted, fostered or biological children?

RobertKK · 22-03-2015 07:18PM

bb1234567 wrote: »

Robert, tarring an entire community is exactly what you're doing. Do you have an evidence whatsoever to support your theory that gay men are more likely to be paedophiles than straight men? Because Id love to hear about this

Again I never said it was gay men who were the abusers or more likely to be abusers, this is making stuff up that I never posted and which I don't believe.

I said it was gay people who will get abused by paedophiles using them, like how the priesthood was used by paedophiles.
The church had to put in child protection to protect both children from abuse and the priest from false accusations.

RobertKK · 22-03-2015 07:19PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Should heterosexual marriage be banned because heterosexual couples have sexually abused/exploited their adopted, fostered or natural children?

I would yes to remove civil marriage if I had the choice in a referendum.

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

Comments