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

Zaph · 22-03-2015 07:21PM

RobertKK wrote: »

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

Marriage is a civil institution, so how would things work if you removed it?

RobertKK · 22-03-2015 07:22PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

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?

They aren't forced to. Catholics set up these schools, all we have now are moaners who want everything handed to them.

P_1 · 22-03-2015 07:22PM

RobertKK wrote: »

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

And what would you replace it with prey tell? Bearing in mind that not everybody is religious

marienbad · 22-03-2015 07:24PM

RobertKK wrote: »

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

Can you expand ? Are you saying you would have only religious marriage ? Or am I reading you incorrectly ?

RobertKK · 22-03-2015 07:25PM

Zaph wrote: »

Marriage is a civil institution, so how would things work if you removed it?

Civil marriage is only a recent thing in history.

There are countries in the world with no civil marriage.

Zaph · 22-03-2015 07:27PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Civil marriage is only a recent thing in history.

There are countries in the world with no civil marriage.

But we're not talking about other countries, we're only talking about Ireland.

RobertKK · 22-03-2015 07:28PM

marienbad wrote: »

Can you expand ? Are you saying you would have only religious marriage ? Or am I reading you incorrectly ?

Actually what I would want would mean no need for a referendum and same sex couples could marry whether one agreed or not with it.
I mean marriage could be a religious event, it could be a humanist event or something in between.
I am fed up of people who feel they need the state to recognise their love. It is like for some they feel ' I need the state involved in my private life'.

P_1 · 22-03-2015 07:29PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Civil marriage is only a recent thing in history.

There are countries in the world with no civil marriage.

1864 yeah sure it only came in yesterday :rolleyes:

P_1 · 22-03-2015 07:31PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Actually what I would want would mean no need for a referendum and same sex couples could marry whether one agreed or not with it.
I mean marriage could be a religious event, it could be a humanist event or something in between.
I am fed up of people who feel they need the state to recognise their love. It is like for some they feel ' I need the state involved in my private life'.

But that is not what civil marriage does, it's a contract that combines two individuals into one unit. Civil marriage isn't all about love, it's also about the glamour of sharing tax credits and having a say in implementing your spouse's final wishes and all that

floggg · 22-03-2015 07:39PM

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

I've seen the statement that "homosexuality is rife within the animal kingdom" loads of times here on boards. Which is absolutely incorrect.

If somebody tries to back up their incorrect statement within wishy washy "facts" then I'm (or anybody else is) absolutely entitled to argue it.

I don't think anybody was really saying that animals experience things like sexual orientation in the same way as we do, for the simple reason animals don't tend to perceive emotions, relationships or many other human concepts in the same way we do.

The relevance of the cases of homosexual behaviour cited was simply to show that arguments based on the supposed unnaturalness of homosexuality or homosexual acts is flawed and inconsistent with the evidence before us.

But nobody is trying to show that animals share our concepts of sexual orientation or relationships. Our concepts of relationships and sexual orientation or naturally going to be much more advanced and complicated - since we ourselves are much more advanced and complicated.

Kiwi in IE · 22-03-2015 07:48PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Actually what I would want would mean no need for a referendum and same sex couples could marry whether one agreed or not with it.
I mean marriage could be a religious event, it could be a humanist event or something in between.
I am fed up of people who feel they need the state to recognise their love. It is like for some they feel ' I need the state involved in my private life'.

So you are actually arguing for the removal of marriage altogether? That marriage could be any sort of made up ceremony of the couples choosing and the spouses would therefore have no legal recognition as being family? You want to end inheritance rights etc that married couples currently have?

Anyone who wants to get married could just have a ceremony of their choice, call themselves married and that would be marriage?

marienbad · 22-03-2015 07:50PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Civil marriage is only a recent thing in history.

There are countries in the world with no civil marriage.

I think you might have to rethink that - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_ancient_Rome

Long predating Christian marriage

LookingFor · 22-03-2015 07:52PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Actually what I would want would mean no need for a referendum and same sex couples could marry whether one agreed or not with it.
I mean marriage could be a religious event, it could be a humanist event or something in between.
I am fed up of people who feel they need the state to recognise their love. It is like for some they feel ' I need the state involved in my private life'.

I can appreciate the point, but having some kind of legal relationship between two people who are not blood relatives is useful. But I can understand why some don't see why the state should be interested in marriage.

That said, given that we're unlikely to abolish civil marriage any time soon, the only other alternative toward social justice for gay people (and their kids) is a yes vote in this referendum. Leveling the playing field by simply getting rid of marriage for everyone is unlikely to get much traction as an idea, I think.

Kiwi in IE · 22-03-2015 07:54PM

RobertKK wrote: »

They aren't forced to. Catholics set up these schools, all we have now are moaners who want everything handed to them.

Hypocritical at all do you think? You were just moaning that Catholics of the past had no choice but to educate their children in Protestant schools set up by Protestants and you think that was terrible! Today many non Catholics are unhappy that have no choice but to send their children to Catholic schools set up by Catholics and that is too bad, they are simply 'moaners'?

Annasopra · 22-03-2015 07:59PM

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.

Your arguments today have been torn asunder.

freshpopcorn · 22-03-2015 08:04PM

I'm voting Yes and I did think about it and I can see no valid reason for voting No.
I can't predict the result of the referendum but I do think it will be a lot closer than the opinion polls are showing. If this referendum was taking place a decade ago I'd probably think the result would have being a no vote. We've progressed a lot over the last 20 years and to think the divorse referendum barely passed just shows us that if you want a yes vote you've got to go out and vote.
I think the week or so leading up the referendum could sway a lot of people to go one way or another. One confusion I find amongst people is they don't understand that this is civil marriage and has nothing to do with the church. Since we legalised divorce the state is involved in marriage because the church doesn't divorse people are marries people who wishes to remarry. The Iona institute have being quiet lately apart from there meeting the other night. David Quinn was against civil partnerships being introduced so I do find it a bit odd they way they say there okay now.
Priests at mass in the weekend before the referendum are going to play are part in the result of the vote as well but not as much as in the past.
If we go by social media this will defently be a yes vote. Most of the people I've in countered on this who are against civil marriage are very religous and they think the one place you can get married is in a church under the eyes if god. These people also say that if we allow people of the same sex get married soon they'll be people marrying there toaster, the Berlin wall, the dog and of course a 12 year old.
The other argument us every child is intitled to a mother and father. I actually prefer people to be honest and say there against homosexuality than hide behind the rights of the child argument.
I do think that homosexuality is a taboo for people in ireland and it doesn't get normalised for people until there son, daughter, nephew, nieve comes out to them and they understand that gay people are not only on the telly they are there family and friends and they should be equal.

Annasopra · 22-03-2015 08:13PM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Priests at mass in the weekend before the referendum are going to play are part in the result of the vote as well but not as much as in the past.

Don't worry that will be trumped

Bannasidhe · 22-03-2015 08:14PM

RobertKK wrote: »

They aren't forced to. Catholics set up these schools, all we have now are moaners who want everything handed to them.

Not strictly accurate old bean. Shall I produce the research or do you wish to move on to another bit of spin?

Actually, how about you answer this instead.

Now, what does this have to do with this:

At the end of the day, in the context of this debate, it doesn't matter how anyone was treated prior to independence. It matters how the Irish State treats it's citizens NOW.

fran17 · 22-03-2015 08:23PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Beam in your eye much there fran?

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.

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.

Sigh,the continuous use of fallacies as a means to get offended really is energy sapping.I have already explained twice today why acting on homosexual thoughts and being a practicing Christian is incompatible and you'll have to forgive me if I don't explain again.
I fully understand that I am in the lions den here regarding this matter as society can be very cruel and many gather here for comfort,support etc.However people deserve to be made aware that the church is there with open arms if an individual is at a crossroad in there life and truly wishes to overcome the demons which haunt them.

CiDeRmAn · 22-03-2015 08:32PM

Gay rights are human rights.
As soon as we decide it's OK to have different rules for one group than for another, before you know it, a minority group you belong to will have something taken from you, or denied to you.

Same goes for any vulnerable group, or a minority.
You can't have a majority deciding their lifestyle is the only one that matters.
And you have to recognise that a country that loves it's children and fellow citizens equally isn't threatened by those that are different.
Especially if there isn't any evidence that their lifestyle is damaging in any way to those they live amongst.

I'm a straight man but have colleagues and friends who are gay, and straight. I just think of them as colleagues and friends, rather than worry about their choice of partner and what they do in the bedroom.

Zen65 · 22-03-2015 08:38PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Catholics set up these schools, all we have now are moaners who want everything handed to them.

The Catholic church sought and obtained from the state permission to run schools which taught the Catholic ethos. You would be quite simple to believe that this was done by the RCC for purely altruistic reasons; taking control of the primary education allowed the RCC to indoctrinate young girls and boys so that they mostly became incapable of original thought on matters of 'the faith'. Since the RCC receives its funding from 'the faithful' their actions were very much self-serving.

The 'moaners' you speak of simply want the right to have kids educated in properly funded schools where religion is not taught on the curriculum, believing as they do that religion is a matter for the family or individual.

That seems very fair to me.

al_E_kat · 22-03-2015 08:43PM

I specifically registered to vote (a few years late mind you) to have a say in this referendum! I will be voting yes!

Zen65 · 22-03-2015 08:53PM

fran17 wrote: »

I don't see how explaining to you sections of the Christian faith could be deemed as "hardline".Its all there in the Bible,but you always were a stickler for the dramatic.The churches teaching on sodomy is very clear . . .

How and where is it very clear? In Leviticus? In Romans? In Exodus?

Fran it seems that you have almost no knowledge or understanding of the faith(s) that you seem to think that you represent here. The teachings of Leviticus are bonkers, and there is not a priest or bishop in the world who would stand up and defend them. They represent a doctrine of hate, and not even well-focussed hatred, but just a bizarre list of thou-shalt-nots which 99% of the faithful ignore.

The only texts which Christians should study for morality are the New testament books which are, in the main, more rational in their writings. In that Jesus spoke only of the importance of loving each other, without the nonsense of fixating on how that love was expressed.

And you should probably stop speaking on behalf of the faithful, because what we see here is that the majority who reference you disagree with your position. Speak on your own behalf, vote however you wish as is your right, but stop pretending that you have the backing of the faithful behind you, because the vast majority of the faithful are smart enough to think some things through for themselves.

Finally, this debate is not about homosexuality (which is perfectly legal in Ireland and in most countries) and it certainly is not about paedophilia (which is not legal in almost any country) - it is whether or not to vote for the recognition of legal LGBT relationships within the definition of marriage as set down by the state. The 'faithful' will continue to ban marriages between same sexes in their churches and for the most part nobody cares about that as it does not deny anybody their civil rights.

Links234 · 22-03-2015 09:04PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Your arguments today have been torn asunder.

Only today? :pac:

Zen65 · 22-03-2015 09:04PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I am voting no as it is what my conscience tells me. This comes from the following:
I come from a conservative background, and growing up there was no such thing as same sex marriage, no such thing was ever heard of same sex marriage being a right. For me marriage was always a man/woman thing.

Marriage was always a man/woman thing; the referendum is about asking people if they want to change it. If everybody thought the way you do nothing would ever change.

It's not a surprise that you are voting 'no'. I have never seen you post anything on Boards that was not entirely consistent with the thinking of people 100 years ago. Most intelligent people are capable of questioning why they are comfortable / uncomfortable with the status quo and then rationally identifying how things might be better and more fair if they changed. Those people will be the ones who determine how society should respond to the opportunity presented by this referendum.

It would be wonderful to see you come to the discussion with a position which could be discussed and debated. Simply repeating the mantra "this is how it was and how it should be" is not really the sort of stuff that makes for a debate. If you cannot debate a topic, then why bother to post?

Debate requires rational, reasoned thoughts, expressed respectfully, with an open mind which allows for the possibility of persuasion. If your mind has already been settled by the experiences of your parents then that's not a position that you are going to want to change, is it?

B_Wayne · 22-03-2015 09:07PM

Links234 wrote: »

Only today? :pac:

Fran's confidence in his/her argument is rather fascinating.........

One eyed Jack · 22-03-2015 09:15PM

fran17 wrote: »

Sigh,the continuous use of fallacies as a means to get offended really is energy sapping. I have already explained twice today why acting on homosexual thoughts and being a practicing Christian is incompatible and you'll have to forgive me if I don't explain again.

You're complaining about the continuous use of fallacies while using religion to argue against supporting marriage equality for people who are LGBT.

Please, I don't need you to explain the incompatibility between your personal religious beliefs with regard to marriage equality from a religious perspective, but would you mind explaining to me what religion has to do with civil marriage?

I fully understand that I am in the lions den here regarding this matter as society can be very cruel and many gather here for comfort,support etc.

Stop with the martyrdom complex, no wonder your energy is sapped :rolleyes:

However people deserve to be made aware that the church is there with open arms if an individual is at a crossroad in there life and truly wishes to overcome the demons which haunt them.

Thanks fran, I think people are aware already that your namesake, Pope Fran, has already decreed "Who am I to judge?", with respect to people who are LGBT. I'm delighted to see you're finally coming round.

I'm still waiting to hear what any of that has to do with civil marriage though?

CiDeRmAn · 22-03-2015 09:23PM

It's a mistake for any group to assume that their morality should be dominant and unquestioned, while all others should obey or ship out.
Yet that's exactly what a lot of people think.
A morality based in anything isn't worth tuppence unless it is regularly tested, not by the standards of the time it was codified, but by the standards of the day it is being enforced.
If your rule of law is being asked to have a rule on a scenario that simply didn't exist when it was created, or it was written down in a time when communities were far less diverse than now, your rule of law in these situations must be questioned, examined and, if necessary, struck down or modified.
This goes for everything from treatment of unwed fathers in terms of rights to their children, rights of people based gender, race, religion or orientation, how we treat the aged, the young, the mentally ill and the intellectually disabled.

The right to have a family should be universal, the ability to raise a family, a healthy well adjusted family has nothing to do with anything more than that child is raised in a loving supportive environment, and based on that metric alone there are many straight couples who should never be allowed to raise children together.
But communities here seem far more prepared to excuse wife beaters/rapists, excuse delinquent mothers, give the alcoholic neglectful parents a second chance and would never take the right to have children away from them, yet find any excuse to see that a gay couple should be denied the right to be parents to a child, with equal rights afforded to each, as a married couple.

I honestly don't care what a holy book has to say on the matter, be it the Bible, Torah, Koran or Lord of the Rings, I care about the world that we see before us, that gay people being married in no way weakens the already married or those to be married.
That the property, tax and other rights afforded to straight married couples should apply equally to non straight married couples.
That if a gay couple can provide a loving and supportive home to a child why shouldn't they have the right to apply and be judged to be a fit and suitable home, the same way any other couple do.

freshpopcorn · 22-03-2015 09:32PM

Paul Murphy wouldn't be my favourite T.D but I would agree with him on this.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iA-zU6Xyn1c

Zubeneschamali · 22-03-2015 09:35PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So you are actually arguing for the removal of marriage altogether?

That's a rather common argument: if gays can have civil marriage, it isn't worth having.

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

Comments