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

osarusan · 03-05-2015 11:41AM

opiniated wrote: »

Can anyone explain why the word "marriage" is so important?

This is a serious question - can you turn that very question back on yourself?

There have been quite a few posters on here who have made much the same argument - if we make it marriage in all but name (address the 160+ differences), wouldn't that be enough, even if it wasn't called marriage?

Is the word "marriage" (or the concept of marriage?) so important to you that you would prefer something which is legally identical to be called something different?*

*apart from the issue that marriage is constitutionally protected, while civil partnerships are not.

It seems to me that people who would be willing to grant completely equal rights to SSM but who still want to avoid using the word 'marriage' are more fixated on, and attach more importance to the term than those who want the SSM referendum to pass.

Bannasidhe · 03-05-2015 11:42AM

opiniated wrote: »

I haven't read the entire thread. I don't have time to read 500+ pages, so I've dipped in here and there.

I've read a couple of times that there are 100+ differences between marriage and civil partnership. I will check those differences when time allows.

Your post caught my attention, because, though I am not in the least homophobic, and believe in inheritance rights, etc. for gay couples - I can't get my head around the idea that gay couples are the "same" (as in identical to), as heterosexual couples. Equal, yes. Identical, no. (Stands ready to be attacked as homophobic!)

So, I'm genuinely wondering why equality legislation that addresses the issues gay couples face isn't enough? What is wrong with being regarded as an equal citizen, with equal legal rights, without using the word "marriage"?

I don't understand the issues for those who don't want a religious ceremony, though I acknowledge that it is an issue for those who would like a religious ceremony - which civil marriage rights will not address in any case.

Can anyone explain why the word "marriage" is so important?

Are men and women 'identical'?
NO.

Would that justify men be allowed to vote and have that right protected by the Constitution but women should cast a ballot as defined by legislation without Constitutional protection?

The way our Constitution is interpreted is that Married = Family. That is why the word itself is important. Dev made it important. No amount of legislation can change that - only 'marriage' grants full Constitutional protection. Blame Dev.

timetogo · 03-05-2015 11:47AM

opiniated wrote: »

Your post caught my attention, because, though I am not in the least homophobic, and believe in inheritance rights, etc. for gay couples - I can't get my head around the idea that gay couples are the "same" (as in identical to), as heterosexual couples. Equal, yes. Identical, no. (Stands ready to be attacked as homophobic!)

So, I'm genuinely wondering why equality legislation that addresses the issues gay couples face isn't enough? What is wrong with being regarded as an equal citizen, with equal legal rights, without using the word "marriage"?

I don't understand the issues for those who don't want a religious ceremony, though I acknowledge that it is an issue for those who would like a religious ceremony - which civil marriage rights will not address in any case.

Can anyone explain why the word "marriage" is so important?

Men are equal to women. We're not identical either but we have the same rights. I can't think of anywhere where we have different rights because of gender. Maybe their are some.

As for the word marriage. From the referendum booklet it says the courts have decided that marriage is between a man and a woman. The constitution pledges to protect marriage. This isn't equal.

As for religious marriage this is irrelevant. Churches can marry whoever they want. Whoever gets married in a church isn't legally married until they do the state bit. It's becoming more and more irrelevant.

Edit: Ah feck. I didn't just copy the previous posters. I just type slower

Shrap · 03-05-2015 11:50AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Blame Dev.

Oh, I frequently do

Bannasidhe · 03-05-2015 11:52AM

Shrap wrote: »

Oh, I frequently do

I like to split the blame between him and Cosgrave.

Anita Blow · 03-05-2015 11:53AM

opiniated wrote: »

I haven't read the entire thread. I don't have time to read 500+ pages, so I've dipped in here and there.

I've read a couple of times that there are 100+ differences between marriage and civil partnership. I will check those differences when time allows.

Your post caught my attention, because, though I am not in the least homophobic, and believe in inheritance rights, etc. for gay couples - I can't get my head around the idea that gay couples are the "same" (as in identical to), as heterosexual couples. Equal, yes. Identical, no. (Stands ready to be attacked as homophobic!)

So, I'm genuinely wondering why equality legislation that addresses the issues gay couples face isn't enough? What is wrong with being regarded as an equal citizen, with equal legal rights, without using the word "marriage"?

I don't understand the issues for those who don't want a religious ceremony, though I acknowledge that it is an issue for those who would like a religious ceremony - which civil marriage rights will not address in any case.

Can anyone explain why the word "marriage" is so important?

Nobody is going to call you homophobic. But the very essence of what you're suggesting is not equality at all. The concept of marriage, which is a legal contract (not just a word that homosexuals want), is enshrined in our constitution and is available to some but not others. That is unequal, and what people are seeking to change.

Marriage, as the legal concept (with all its rights, responsibilities, protections) is so much more than a word. Nobody is advocating for access to religious ceremonies because this is about civil marriage.

jimdublin15 · 03-05-2015 11:56AM

opiniated wrote: »

So, I'm genuinely wondering why equality legislation that addresses the issues gay couples face isn't enough? What is wrong with being regarded as an equal citizen, with equal legal rights, without using the word "marriage"?

Well number of reasons one being the fact you already mentioned that that there are 100+ differences between marriage and civil partnership so it's not equal, so in a very short put manner a lot of gay people and other supporters want the "governments" legal definition of marriage to be extended to same sex couples so they are treated equally to heterosexual counterparts.

opiniated wrote: »

I don't understand the issues for those who don't want a religious ceremony, though I acknowledge that it is an issue for those who would like a religious ceremony - which civil marriage rights will not address in any case.

Can anyone explain why the word "marriage" is so important?

Well I had a civil marriage myself. This referendum is on civil marriage not the churches definition of marriage. Nobody can force the church to marry same sex couples. in short the referendum is about the "governments" legal definition of marriage. Nothing will change for the church so I have a hard time understanding why they are involved in something that does not affect them.

david75 · 03-05-2015 11:59AM

Delighted:) Sunday Times have an article about UNICEF calling out mothers and fathers matter for misrepresenting their research..
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEEjeOVWoAASeXN.jpg

Colm O Gorman is on point asking Mills for a response..Mills is flailing
Colm O'Gorman 31 seconds ago
@KeithM will you or @MFM_Ireland respond to the specific charge from UNICEF that you misused their research? Simple question. #MarRef

El_Duderino 09 · 03-05-2015 12:36PM

opiniated wrote: »

So, I'm genuinely wondering why equality legislation that addresses the issues gay couples face isn't enough? What is wrong with being regarded as an equal citizen, with equal legal rights, without using the word "marriage"?

I don't understand the issues for those who don't want a religious ceremony, though I acknowledge that it is an issue for those who would like a religious ceremony - which civil marriage rights will not address in any case.

Can anyone explain why the word "marriage" is so important?

So you don't understand the difference between a 'marriage' and a 'wedding'.

This has nothing to do with religious weddings (note I didn't say religious marriage). The religious inserted themselves into the debate but they're not necessary to it.

03-05-2015 12:42PM

John Waters just had a brilliant interview on Newstalk a few minutes ago. Very relevant and valid points for No side ... get it on Podcast if you missed it :-)

Bannasidhe · 03-05-2015 12:44PM

Deleted User wrote: »

John Waters just had a brilliant interview on Newstalk a few minutes ago. Very relevant and valid points for No side ... get it on Podcast if you missed it :-)

Care to summarize?

Maximus Alexander · 03-05-2015 12:48PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Care to summarize?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

Fudge You · 03-05-2015 12:50PM

Deleted User wrote: »

John Waters just had a brilliant interview on Newstalk a few minutes ago. Very relevant and valid points for No side ... get it on Podcast if you missed it :-)

But he is insane.
I listened to it. He basically has a problem with homosexuals, but wont admit it, and just went on about kids and family.
Awful interview. Ignorant prejudice.
This is a human rights issue. Nothing to do with children.

John Waters cares about children, I'm glad I know this, what a horrible spoofer.

03-05-2015 12:58PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Care to summarize?

no.... havent the time or inclination to be bashed about here on Boards for having an opinion in a democratic society. Listen to it yourself.

03-05-2015 01:00PM

Fudge You wrote: »

But he is insane.
I listened to it. He basically has a problem with homosexuals, but wont admit it, and just went on about kids and family.
Awful interview. Ignorant prejudice.
This is a human rights issue. Nothing to do with children.

John Waters cares about children, I'm glad I know this, what a horrible spoofer.

John Waters is far from insane. He is one of the most educated and articulate jounalists and speakers we have in this country. I dont understand the agression of all the YES voters here on Boards?

20Cent · 03-05-2015 01:00PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

John Waters just had a brilliant interview on Newstalk a few minutes ago. Very relevant and valid points for No side ... get it on Podcast if you missed it :-)

Listened to it. Sounds like his problem is with the children's referendum and he wants to sabotage this one for some reason.

Could someone explain his point? tried to listen carefully to him but interview was a jumbled mess.

Bannasidhe · 03-05-2015 01:04PM

Deleted User wrote: »

no.... havent the time or inclination to be bashed about here on Boards for having an opinion in a democratic society. Listen to it yourself.

Hey - you posted a link. A link that you claimed contained a 'brilliant interview'. A link that us out here in rural no broadbandland have trouble accessing and I'm not wasting my data allowance on it so you were asked to summarize. No need for the passive aggressive snit fit.

Is the 'sweet' part of your user name ironic?

Bannasidhe · 03-05-2015 01:07PM

Deleted User wrote: »

no.... havent the time or inclination to be bashed about here on Boards for having an opinion in a democratic society. Listen to it yourself.

Deleted User wrote: »

I dont understand the agression of all the YES voters here on Boards?

Because passive aggression is so much sweeter.

Nodin · 03-05-2015 01:09PM

Deleted User wrote: »

John Waters is far from insane. He is one of the most educated and articulate jounalists and speakers we have in this country. I dont understand the agression of all the YES voters here on Boards?

*cough

*splutter

*chuckle

Yeah, so brilliant and articulate you can't summarise what he was saying. Truly The Great Communicator of our time.

03-05-2015 01:10PM

dont have the time on a sunny Sunday morning after a day of rain to sit inside composing a synopsis of an entire interview lads. Sorry. I have gardening to do.

But I smiled when he spoke about the "Keyboard Activists" for the Yes campaign all over social media . Thats all I came on here to say. It was a good interview!!

Have a happy sunny Sunday :-)

jimdublin15 · 03-05-2015 01:11PM

Deleted User wrote: »

John Waters just had a brilliant interview on Newstalk a few minutes ago. Very relevant and valid points for No side ... get it on Podcast if you missed it :-)

Listened to it but he sounds very confused to be honest, he did not seems to have anything relevant to say towards the question being asked for us to vote on in this upcoming referendum.

Talking about great interviews I was watching an episode of Tom & Jerry earlier that was great and had about as such to do with the topic of extending the states legal definition and rights of marriage to same sex couples as the interview John Waters gave.

B_Wayne · 03-05-2015 01:12PM

Deleted User wrote: »

John Waters is far from insane. He is one of the most educated and articulate jounalists and speakers we have in this country. I dont understand the agression of all the YES voters here on Boards?

99% of his articles in recent times sound like they emerged from a bong in the Vatican library.

Nodin · 03-05-2015 01:12PM

Deleted User wrote: »

dont have the time on a sunny Sunday morning after a day of rain to sit inside composing a synopsis of an entire interview lads. Sorry. I have gardening to do.

But I smiled when he spoke about the "Keyboard Activists" for the Yes campaign all over social media . Thats all I came on here to say. It was a good interview!!

Have a happy sunny Sunday :-)

So one of his points is that there's bugger all no campaigners on social media. Well, there's a reason for that.......

Links234 · 03-05-2015 01:13PM

Deleted User wrote: »

John Waters is far from insane. He is one of the most educated and articulate jounalists and speakers we have in this country. I dont understand the agression of all the YES voters here on Boards?

Oh I can think of a few reasons people don't like him. As for him being articulate, reading some of his articles, they're a rambling mess and you get the sense of him sitting there with a thesaurus hamfistedly cramming every over complicated word he can into his prose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DW1lxwsK5_Q

suicide_circus · 03-05-2015 01:13PM

Deleted User wrote: »

John Waters

Booooo! Hissssssssss!

jimdublin15 · 03-05-2015 01:14PM

Deleted User wrote: »

John Waters is far from insane. He is one of the most educated and articulate jounalists and speakers we have in this country. I dont understand the agression of all the YES voters here on Boards?

I would agree insane is a bit much and he might be a great and well educated journalist. However he is human and seems to have miss understood what the vote in this occasion is regarding. To err is human.

B0jangles · 03-05-2015 01:15PM

Deleted User wrote: »

John Waters is far from insane. He is one of the most educated and articulate jounalists and speakers we have in this country. I dont understand the agression of all the YES voters here on Boards?

John Waters is not articulate, he is verbose.

(Also loopy)

Nodin · 03-05-2015 01:16PM

Links234 wrote: »

Oh I can think of a few reasons people don't like him. As for him being articulate, reading some of his articles, they're a rambling mess and you get the sense of him sitting there with a thesaurus hamfistedly cramming every over complicated word he can into his prose.

In fairness, when he steers clear of topics like Religion and "gay" marriage, he can be ok as a writer. It's when he starts thinking he's a philosopher the shite starts to fly.

Bannasidhe · 03-05-2015 01:16PM

Nodin wrote: »

So one of his points is that there's bugger all no campaigners on social media. Well, there's a reason for that.......

Gardening apparently.

Yesterday was, apparently, World Naked Gardening Day.

Nothing to do with the Referendum but hey - neither does who parents children.

Anita Blow · 03-05-2015 01:16PM

Deleted User wrote: »

John Waters is far from insane. He is one of the most educated and articulate jounalists and speakers we have in this country. I dont understand the agression of all the YES voters here on Boards?

Most educated and articulate?! John Waters on depression, the leading cause of suicide in this country:

I don't believe in depression. There's no such thing. It's an invention. It's bulls**t. It's a cop out.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/anger-over-john-waters-depression-comments-30182806.html

The guy is an ignorant fool.

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

Comments