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

alan partridge aha · 02-05-2015 03:21AM

efb wrote: »

If I had friends that weren't equal, I'd vote to give them equality, thats what friends are for.

And if your friends were two sisters that wished to get married, would you give them equal rights as heterosexual couple have?

jimdublin15 · 02-05-2015 03:28AM

alan partridge aha wrote: »

And if your friends were two sisters that wished to get married, would you give them equal rights as heterosexual couple have?

Sisters to each other.... Sorry this topic is on same sex marriage, not Incest.

alan partridge aha · 02-05-2015 03:29AM

Venus In Furs wrote: »

If you're voting no, your opinion, but what the utter fup does the above mean? I mean, it's really terrible arguing - don't know if the blind thanking of it is worse.
It's same-sex marriage - to marry one person of the same sex, that's all. Why would a bisexual want to marry two people? Because they fancy members of both sexes? It doesn't work like that and you know it doesn't.
It doesn't "prevent" a woman from having both a husband and a wife and vice-versa because... it's same-sex marriage, it's for people who just want to marry one person of the same gender as them...
The logic of what you're saying as that heterosexual people should be able to marry more than one man or woman because they fancy others besides just one spouse.

Seeing as you ask, I'll give you an answer; that answer being no.

What about two sisters who wish to marry, equality for all.

jimdublin15 · 02-05-2015 03:40AM

alan partridge aha wrote: »

What about two sisters who wish to marry, equality for all.

So it's Marriage Equality "same sex " referendum, it’s very simple really and it’s only about extending the current legal definition of marriage (As it is now, so excluding incest ) to same sex couples so they can also legally make each other miserable by means of marriage.

So no changes for Incest this time round, sorry I know it's popular in some area's but they will have to wait for the "Incest equality round" BTW when and if we do vote on allowing Incest ill be voting no.

alan partridge aha · 02-05-2015 03:41AM

jimdublin15 wrote: »

Sisters to each other.... Sorry this topic is on same sex marriage, not Incest.

Sorry again, this is ssm two females love each other, should they be allowed to get married? If you disagree, by your logic you are against equality for all.

alan partridge aha · 02-05-2015 03:44AM

jimdublin15 wrote: »

So it's Marriage Equality "same sex " referendum, it’s very simple really and it’s only about extending the current legal definition of marriage (As it is now, so excluding incest ) to same sex couples so they can also legally make each other miserable by means of marriage.

So no changes for Incest this time round, sorry I know it's popular in some area's but they will have to wait for the "Incest equality round" BTW when and if we do vote on allowing Incest ill be voting no.

So your against equality for all, just equality for the gay people. Not really equality at all.

jimdublin15 · 02-05-2015 03:47AM

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Sorry again, this is ssm two females love each other, should they be allowed to get married? If you disagree, by your logic you are against equality for all.

No it's about the current marriage rights being extended to include same sex couples. Current marriage rights between a man and a woman do not allow for Incest and that is not going to change with this vote.

It's not about changing Incest

alan partridge aha · 02-05-2015 03:53AM

jimdublin15 wrote: »

No it's about the current marriage rights being extended to include same sex couples. Current marriage rights between a man and a woman do not allow for Incest and that is not going to change with this vote.

It's not about changing Incest

No, when go down this route, equality for all, ssm has to accomodate for two sisters/brothers to marry and if not it's not equality for all. Just for gays.

jimdublin15 · 02-05-2015 03:53AM

alan partridge aha wrote: »

So your against equality for all, just equality for the gay people. Not really equality at all.

Look I would vote no for Incest changes to the law. That my right to do so if it comes up on a referendum and when and if it does we can debate it.

But it's not for the topic of the this referendum or the topic of this board post. It's about the current referendum and that is to simple extend marriage to same sex couples.

Nobody is at this stage extending or talking about or voting on Incest to be legal . Like I said when we do ill be happy to debate it, but it's not. I do understand from some of debates I've seen and heard that Incest and Inbreeding is a pass time in some area's. However that is a topic for a different thread.

it’s very simple and it’s only about extending the legal definition of marriage so same sex couples can also legally make each other miserable by means of marriage.

alan partridge aha · 02-05-2015 03:56AM

jimdublin15 wrote: »

Look I would vote no for Incest changes to the law. That my right to do so if it comes up on a referendum and when and if it does we can debate it.

But it's not for the topic of the this referendum or the topic of this board post. It's about the current referendum and that is to simple extend marriage to same sex couples.

Nobody is at this stage extending or talking about or voting on Incest to be legal . Like I said when we do ill be happy to debate it, but it's not. I do understand from some of debates I've seen and heard that Incest and Inbreeding is a pass time in some area's. However that is a topic for a different thread.

it’s very simple and it’s only about extending the legal definition of marriage so same sex couples can also legally make each other miserable by means of marriage.

Well stop the yes campaign from saying equality for all because it's not.

efb · 02-05-2015 03:57AM

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Well stop the yes campaign from saying equality for all because it's not.

When the medical profession give the ok, I won't object.

alan partridge aha · 02-05-2015 04:00AM

efb wrote: »

When the medical profession give the ok, I won't object.

Who gives FIDDLESTICKS END, STOP SAYING IT'S EQUALITY FOR ALL BECAUSE IT'S NOT.:mad:

jimdublin15 · 02-05-2015 04:00AM

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Well stop the yes campaign from saying equality for all because it's not.

Well maybe you can write them a letter, correct them on this . I can tell your very frustrated on the incest part.

I understand how you feel BTW but not on topic incest.

The NO side are claiming that children rights will be affected, when children’s rights are not part of the question nor will they be affected by the outcome.

The NO side also have posters up of a family that children deserve a Mother and Father, to clarify Full joint adoption by same-sex couples is currently legal and will not be changed nor affected by this vote.

So I get what you mean that the posters both Yes and No can be slightly misleading at times.

Back on topic however this referendum is not about if we like homosexuality, it’s not about children or redefining family, it’s very simple and it’s only about extending the "current" legal definition of marriage so same sex couples can also legally make each other miserable by means of marriage.

efb · 02-05-2015 04:04AM

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Who gives FIDDLESTICKS END, STOP SAYING IT'S EQUALITY FOR ALL BECAUSE IT'S NOT.:mad:

Time for bed methinks

alan partridge aha · 02-05-2015 04:06AM

jimdublin15 wrote: »

Well maybe you can write them a letter, correct them on this . I can tell your very frustrated on the incest part.

I understand how you feel BTW but not on topic incest.

The NO side are claiming that children rights will be affected, when children’s rights are not part of the question nor will they be affected by the outcome.

The NO side also have posters up of a family that children deserve a Mother and Father, to clarify Full joint adoption by same-sex couples is currently legal and will not be changed nor affected by this vote.

So I get what you mean that the posters both Yes and No can be slightly misleading at times.

Back on topic however this referendum is not about if we like homosexuality, it’s not about children or redefining family, it’s very simple and it’s only about extending the "current" legal definition of marriage so same sex couples can also legally make each other miserable by means of marriage.

Fair play I see we are aligned to some degree.

jimdublin15 · 02-05-2015 04:06AM

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Who gives FIDDLESTICKS END, STOP SAYING IT'S EQUALITY FOR ALL BECAUSE IT'S NOT.:mad:

It's extending current legal right to include all men and woman, the population is either a man or a woman hence the posters say " equality"

But you are right the current legal marriage does not allow such things as marring family members, sheep and other farm or domesticated animals, it also has clauses such and age restrictions. So yeah technically your right it not equal to all.

This indeed is only about extending the legal definition of marriage so same sex couples can also legally get married.

alan partridge aha · 02-05-2015 04:07AM

efb wrote: »

Time for bed methinks

Yes go to bed, it will help your brain.

alan partridge aha · 02-05-2015 04:10AM

jimdublin15 wrote: »

It's extending current legal right to include all men and woman, the population is either a man or a woman hence the posters say " equality"

But you are right the current legal marriage does not allow such things as marring family members, sheep and other farm or domesticated animals, it also has clauses such and age restrictions. So yeah technically your right it not equal to all.

This indeed is only about extending the legal definition of marriage so same sex couples can also legally get married.

Stop right there, you are better than that, animals now really!

jimdublin15 · 02-05-2015 04:11AM

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Stop right there, you are better than that, animals now really!

Oh come on sisters really !

alan partridge aha · 02-05-2015 04:16AM

jimdublin15 wrote: »

Oh come on sisters really !

Yes dangerous precedent, VOTE YES because if two humans love each other irrespective of their sexuality, what's the harm.

jimdublin15 · 02-05-2015 04:23AM

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Yes dangerous precedent, VOTE YES because if two humans love each other irrespective of their sexuality, what's the harm.

I'm voting not voting Yes for that reason or point of view.
And how is it a dangerous precedent ? How is it a precedent even ? It's legal in 19 countries and being reviewed to be made legal by 3 more.

The Netherlands was fist in 2001 I think and nothing dangerous has happend because of it.

jimdublin15 · 02-05-2015 04:25AM

jimdublin15 wrote: »

I'm voting not voting Yes for that reason or point of view.
And how is it a dangerous precedent ? How is it a precedent even ? It's legal in 19 countries and being reviewed to be made legal by 3 more.

The Netherlands was fist in 2001 I think and nothing dangerous has happend because of it.

And before you say "sisters" no sisters can't marry in The Netherlands either.

alan partridge aha · 02-05-2015 04:28AM

jimdublin15 wrote: »

And before you say "sisters" no sisters can't marry in The Netherlands either.

Not sure where you stand here, are you ok with incest?

jimdublin15 · 02-05-2015 04:32AM

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Not sure where you stand here, are you ok with incest?

I've been pretty clear I'm not okay with incest.

My question was how come you think a yes vote is a precedent or dangerous?

How is it a dangerous precedent ?
How is it a precedent even ? It's legal in 19 countries and being reviewed to be made legal by 3 more.

The Netherlands was fist in 2001 I think and nothing dangerous has happend because of it.

alan partridge aha · 02-05-2015 04:39AM

jimdublin15 wrote: »

I've been pretty clear I'm not okay with incest.

My question was how come you think a yes vote is a precedent or dangerous?

How is it a dangerous precedent ?
How is it a precedent even ? It's legal in 19 countries and being reviewed to be made legal by 3 more.

The Netherlands was fist in 2001 I think and nothing dangerous has happend because of it.

Right I'm heading now but

1/ It's not voting equality for all, it's just for gays

2/ People are killed in asia/africa for brainless things, been gay, adultery etc. and the world has not fallen in, does not mean it's fine.

Good night and sweet dreams

jimdublin15 · 02-05-2015 04:41AM

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Right I'm heading now but

1/ It's not voting equality for all, it's just for gays

2/ People are killed in asia/africa for brainless things, been gay, adultery etc. and the world has not fallen in, does not mean it's fine.

Good night and sweet dreams

Well i'll wish you good night.

Nothing you said about clarifies why voting yes is dangerous according to you.
It just highlights how backwards and intolerant the rest of the world can be, glad were not part of them and can vote to show that.

El_Duderino 09 · 02-05-2015 08:22AM

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Right I'm heading now but

1/ It's not voting equality for all, it's just for gays

2/ People are killed in asia/africa for brainless things, been gay, adultery etc. and the world has not fallen in, does not mean it's fine.

Good night and sweet dreams

It is voting for equality. It's voting to bring gay's rights in line with everyone else which will result in... equal (marriage) rights for everyone.

Apart from anything else, I want to live in an equal society so this does effect everyone

galljga1 · 02-05-2015 08:31AM

jimdublin15 wrote: »

I've been pretty clear I'm not okay with incest.

My question was how come you think a yes vote is a precedent or dangerous?

How is it a dangerous precedent ?
How is it a precedent even ? It's legal in 19 countries and being reviewed to be made legal by 3 more.

The Netherlands was fist in 2001 I think and nothing dangerous has happend because of it.

Just off to visit the sister. Cheers.

Cold War Kid · 02-05-2015 08:49AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I asked my 82 year old father to vote yes yesterday. This is a man who was so homophobic he refused to attend my son's 21 because it was held in a Loafers in Cork (free venue for the win!) and he wouldn't set foot in a place with all those f*cking queers. Family War erupted.

3 years ago - after an extended period where no one in the family would talk to him and much heated discussion where I explained how his comments made me feel I saw a light go on in his eyes and he actually burst into tears (in a restaurant in Jersey - morto like!) apologizing profusely and saying he never really meant those things it was just the way things were and he was afraid to go against the flow. Now, my Dad is a former boxing champion who has always boasted of never feeling fear and no f*cker will ever tell him want to do...
He suddenly realised that his fear was going to cost him his daughter, his grandson and his great grandchildren (coincidentally the only males in the family to bare his surname, which means a lot to him) because I told him he had to choose. Choose hate or choose love. It was his choice. He choose love.

I was worried when I asked him.. to say the least.. my heart was in my mouth as I said 'Dad, will you vote yes?' 'WHA?!?!?' he roared at me down the phone. Then I remembered he's deaf.. so I asked louder. Without hesitation he said 'Sure what other way would I vote? We need to move past all that s*ite now and let people live their lives in peace, like.'

Big bad butch blubbed.

Thanks Dad. Love ya ya old b*llocks.

That is a WONDERFUL post!

dashcamdanny · 02-05-2015 09:06AM

jimdublin15 wrote: »

I have kids and I would not change them.
If one of them did come home and told me that they are homosexual I would however be very sad and maybe even embarrassed.

Not because of the homosexuality, but because I know they would have to face the intolerant homophobic bigots in our society. I would also suspect I would be embarrassed that we did not resolve some of the issues during our generations time and on a personal level that I did not do more to help resolve the issues of intolerance and inequality sooner, it would sadden me if this issue is allowed to drag on so that yet another generation will have to face it.

I would be sad for all of the above, but I would also be sad that my family blood line would stop and I would have no biological grandchildren. My parents seeing my kids is a highlight in their lives.

I hope my children are not gay.

Maybe a yes vote can bring family together. Im am very much on the fence on this as yet.

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

Comments