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…246247249251252…325

Comments

  • #7442
    MightyMandarin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Legally marriage is simply a contract. A very specific contract but still a contract.

    Why would one want to have it in the Constitution that there are two contracts that mean exactly the same thing but have different names because some people didn't want other people to use the same word for this contract as themselves?

    You'd have to ask them I suppose.

    But personally speaking, I think just the symbol of marriage and the recognition of your relationship as a family by the state, even though the constitution would afford the same protection to civil partners, retains some value.

    It might be a bit ridiculous, but I think it's a fair point.


  • #7443
    Whosthis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,342 ✭✭✭Whosthis


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Where's the lad who was calling some of us pedants earlier? Here's an example of real pedantic behaviour if you need an example.

    Touche.


  • #7444
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    MightyMandarin wrote: »
    You'd have to ask them I suppose.

    But personally speaking, I think just the symbol of marriage and the recognition of your relationship as a family by the state, even though the constitution would afford the same protection to civil partners, retains some value.

    It might be a bit ridiculous, but I think it's a fair point.

    Do gay people not also deserve to enjoy the 'symbol of marriage and the recognition of your relationship as a family by the state'?


  • #7445
    mucksavage1985
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭mucksavage1985


    It's all talk of gender quotas in the dail and more women should have jobs in higher posts. Why is it going the opposite way when it comes to parentage? Two men is as good as a man and woman now! Is this not talking out of both sides of the mouth? Nature dictates that for a child to be born a man and woman needs to have sex! Now why has the human brain tried to upset this basic instinct we have?(well it's called education) I know that people out there can't have kids due to health problems but there is help out there for those cases. But fundamentally its a man and a woman. Why give gay couples children to suit there needs when actually the child is programmed to know there mother and father. It's there needs that are no 1. It annoys me that this referendum is gonna make a hetrosexual marriage with children equal a homosexual marriage with children. This is simply not the same! You can use the equality bluff all u like! It's simply not the way nature intended. If it was, every combination of relationships could conceive children! But it ain't and it should stay like that. I'm 30 years of age by the way with gay friends and not religious.


  • #7446
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,007 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    We have a new contestant, whos turn is it?


  • Advertisement
  • #7447
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9Ylu7fq2cc


  • #7448
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    Supergurrier wrote: »
    I will be voting yes but i am a little dissapointed on both sides on how they is all panning out as it's not dignified atall.

    What we need to be voting on it free childcare or state funded childcare breaks.

    You have a two tier society atm where people who are long term social welfare jockeys are having kids to beat the band and if they get away with it can you blame them.

    Where people on lower tiers of employment are really struggling to pay childcare for their 1-2 kids and pay a mortgage, not exactly adept social planning i think you will agree.

    Maybe it's a harsh view but there you have it.

    Believe me, as a gay person, nothing about this situation feels dignified. In saying that, i do appreciate the yes vote


  • #7449
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    VinLieger wrote: »
    We have a new contestant, whos turn is it?

    I'm watching a doco on Rod Stewart so if someone else could get this one I'll return the favour later.


  • #7450
    MightyMandarin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Do gay people not also deserve to enjoy the 'symbol of marriage and the recognition of your relationship as a family by the state'?

    I don't know. I'd like to think that everyone in this world can have the same opportunities as everyone else, but at the same time I just feel that a heterosexual marriage is different to a homosexual marriage, and perhaps we should distinguish them.

    I admit that what I'm saying is somewhat discriminatory, and if people think I'm a horrible person for thinking this way then so be it; but I just have a gut feeling that some sort of boundary should be maintained in the definition of what constitutes a marriage, so long as homosexuals aren't precluded from enjoying the same constitutional protection in their relationship as heterosexuals are.


  • #7451
    mucksavage1985
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭mucksavage1985


    MightyMandarin wrote: »
    I don't know. I'd like to think that everyone in this world can have the same opportunities as everyone else, but at the same time I just feel that a heterosexual marriage is different to a homosexual marriage, and perhaps we should distinguish them.

    I admit that what I'm saying is somewhat discriminatory, and if people think I'm a horrible person for thinking this way then so be it; but I just have a gut feeling that some sort of boundary should be maintained in the definition of what constitutes a marriage, so long as homosexuals aren't precluded from enjoying the same constitutional protection in their relationship as heterosexuals are.

    I agree with u. Every one is different. We are not all equal and the same is said for relationships. Marriage should be about the family as nature intended, and then every thing that marriage is equal to in law with out children, should be equated to gay relationships


  • Advertisement
  • #7452
    MightyMandarin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,723 ✭✭✭MightyMandarin


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    I don't agree with differentiating the two, but fair play to you for saying that's just how you see it instead of trying to hide behind excuses like plenty others on here

    I know my opinion is not a very popular one at the moment, and if I were to tell people I know who are staunch campaigners for yes, I'd stress to them that I'm still gonna vote yes purely because at the moment civil partnership and marriage don't afford the same legal protection.

    My opinion is only in a hypothetical sense; unless a referendum on extending the rights of civil partnerships was passed, and then this question came up, I just think I'd vote differently than I will here.


  • #7453
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    mucksavage1985 wrote: »
    It's all talk of gender quotas in the dail and more women should have jobs in higher posts. Why is it going the opposite way when it comes to parentage? Two men is as good as a man and woman now! Is this not talking out of both sides of the mouth? Nature dictates that for a child to be born a man and woman needs to have sex! Now why has the human brain tried to upset this basic instinct we have?(well it's called education) I know that people out there can't have kids due to health problems but there is help out there for those cases. But fundamentally its a man and a woman. Why give gay couples children to suit there needs when actually the child is programmed to know there mother and father. It's there needs that are no 1. It annoys me that this referendum is gonna make a hetrosexual marriage with children equal a homosexual marriage with children. This is simply not the same! You can use the equality bluff all u like! It's simply not the way nature intended. If it was, every combination of relationships could conceive children! But it ain't and it should stay like that. I'm 30 years of age by the way with gay friends and not religious.

    The talk of gender quota's is because women are under represented in politics and therefore their needs and issues are under represented, which is why women tend to face more barriers and challenges in society. It's a whole other debate and a whole other kettle of fish.


  • #7454
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    MightyMandarin wrote: »
    I don't know. I'd like to think that everyone in this world can have the same opportunities as everyone else, but at the same time I just feel that a heterosexual marriage is different to a homosexual marriage, and perhaps we should distinguish them.

    I admit that what I'm saying is somewhat discriminatory, and if people think I'm a horrible person for thinking this way then so be it; but I just have a gut feeling that some sort of boundary should be maintained in the definition of what constitutes a marriage, so long as homosexuals aren't precluded from enjoying the same constitutional protection in their relationship as heterosexuals are.

    Yes, it is discriminatory but I do understand 'gut reaction'.

    Marriage is something we are raised to aspire to. A sign that we are truly adult and getting down to the serious business of life. Not just settling down with the person you love but declaring to the world in a ceremony we are now grown up serious people all mature and getting ready for a future with this person you love. It is ingrained in us... 'when I grow up I'm gonna marry a.... and we will live in... and have.... '

    Gay people are just people. People who grew up in the same Ireland. People who have the same cultural references. The same desires. The same dreams.
    They want what straight people want but it's being twisted into they want what straight people have. It's not about that, It's about standing there in front of the world and saying look at me all grown up getting ready to settle down with the person I love. I'm getting married.

    Being gay doesn't mean you don't want the same things as your (straight) brothers/sisters/friends but in Ireland at the moment it means you can't have that one special thing. You can't get Married.

    Marriage matters.

    It matters to gay people just as much as straight people.


  • #7455
    mucksavage1985
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭mucksavage1985


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    You wot m8?

    Man + woman = children!


  • #7456
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,007 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    mucksavage1985 wrote: »
    Man + woman = children!

    Marriage has nothing to do with children


  • #7457
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    mucksavage1985 wrote: »
    Man + woman = children!

    It used be head of the household who was head of the (not nessecarily genetic) family. There was also frequently man + women.


  • #7458
    mucksavage1985
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭mucksavage1985


    WoolyJumper wrote: »
    The talk of gender quota's is because women are under represented in politics and therefore their needs and issues are under represented, which is why women tend to face more barriers and challenges in society. It's a whole other debate and a whole other kettle of fish.

    That's because women have a voice. If a baby could talk what kind of parents would they want?


  • #7459
    mucksavage1985
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭mucksavage1985


    Nodin wrote: »
    It used be head of the household who was head of the (not nessecarily genetic) family. There was also frequently man + women.

    You are headin back to the time when we were apes. I can understand where ur comin from alright.


  • #7460
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,948 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    mucksavage1985 wrote: »
    That's because women have a voice. If a baby could talk what kind of parents would they want?

    ones that looks after it properly?


  • #7461
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,948 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    I keep trying to respond to this, but I genuinely don't know how.

    oh i dont know, i quite liked my response.


  • Advertisement
  • #7462
    mucksavage1985
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭mucksavage1985


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Or nature, which was the part I was questioning :pac:

    marriage should be about the family as nature intended. Man and woman = children.


  • #7463
    Hammer Archer
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 11,593 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hammer Archer


    mucksavage1985 wrote: »
    marriage should be about the family as nature intended. Man and woman = children.
    I'll try this time: What is natural about marriage? Tell me where in nature is there marriage apart from humans?


  • #7464
    VinLieger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,007 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    mucksavage1985 wrote: »
    marriage should be about the family as nature intended. Man and woman = children.

    Marriage and monogamy is a very human invention there are a handful of animals in nature who are monogamous similar to us.


  • #7465
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    I keep trying to respond to this, but I genuinely don't know how.

    Genuinely had the same reaction :pac:


  • #7466
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    mucksavage1985 wrote: »
    You are headin back to the time when we were apes. I can understand where ur comin from alright.

    You know children were sent away into service in this country up until the 20th century? That muslims can marry more than one woman, as is the same with other cultures? That marriage by "marry me?" "Yes" was frequently the standard up till the 1700's?


  • #7467
    mucksavage1985
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭mucksavage1985


    Hammer Archer wrote: »
    I'll try this time: What is natural about marriage? Tell me where in nature is there marriage apart from humans?

    It's a word used to describe a family under law. And all that comes with family life.


  • #7468
    mucksavage1985
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭mucksavage1985


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Marriage and monogamy is a very human invention there are a handful of animals in nature who are monogamous similar to us.

    Children grow up better in a stable home. Fact!


  • #7469
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    mucksavage1985 wrote: »
    Children grow up better in a stable home. Fact!


    What makes a gay couple less stable?


  • #7470
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    mucksavage1985 wrote: »
    Children grow up better in a stable home. Fact!

    And?


  • Advertisement
  • #7471
    JK.BMC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭JK.BMC


    mucksavage1985 wrote: »
    Man + woman = children!

    Ahem..
    Who told you that?
    And what age are you now?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement