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

kunst nugget · 06-05-2015 01:45PM

gravehold wrote: »

Dog and teapot cannot consent.

This dog can!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzZKY1097gY

kylith · 06-05-2015 01:45PM

SireOfSeth wrote: »

I haven't seen any falsehoods in the YES camps posters - gravehold said that there were some. I wanted to know what they were basically.

The referendum doesn't effect every single conceivable inequality possible so therefore having 'vote yes for equality' on the posters is a falsehood on a par with the No side's blatant untruths.

Not a NSA agent · 06-05-2015 01:46PM

gravehold wrote: »

Homosexual or hetrosexual polygamous people still can't get married

Equality - the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.

By allowing homosexual people to get married it is giving them equality.

Nobody is stating everyone will be equal, that is something you made up yourself.

VinLieger · 06-05-2015 01:46PM

gravehold wrote: »

Homosexual or hetrosexual polygamous people still can't get married

Heterosexual polygamous people actually can get married just not to the multiple people they would CHOOSE to

smash · 06-05-2015 01:46PM

gravehold wrote: »

Homosexual or hetrosexual polygamous people still can't get married

At this rate, before we know it you'll be campaigning because you can't marry a goat.

gravehold · 06-05-2015 01:47PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

This dog can!!!

Being able to yes doesn't mean you can consent, kids can say the word yes but they don't have the mental capacity to consent.

The fact you don't realise that is very worrying

Mitch Connor · 06-05-2015 01:47PM

kylith wrote: »

The referendum doesn't effect every single conceivable inequality possible so therefore having 'vote yes for equality' on the posters is a falsehood on a par with the No side's blatant untruths.

BS.

It is about equality. I'll be voting to establish equality in marriage between sexualities. a vote for equality. Not equality on everything everywhere, but a vote for equality in the context of the referendum. To argue otherwise just displays a moronic nature.

Maximus Alexander · 06-05-2015 01:47PM

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

Equality - the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.

By allowing homosexual people to get married it is giving them equality.

Nobody is stating everyone will be equal, that is something you made up yourself.

Not to mention that everyone actually will remain equal in their inability to have multiple simultaneous marriages.

While we're at it, we should talk about how this referendum also won't legalize cannabis.

SpaceTime · 06-05-2015 01:47PM

This always happens with referenda here!

Its a 17 word amendment not one of those 4000 page EU treaties!

Gay marriage yes/no

Simple as that.

If you think you're voting on suragacy law, adoption law, other aspects of family law or anything else : you're actually voting in the wrong referendum!

kylith · 06-05-2015 01:48PM

OK, I think we've all explained it to Gravehold now, so I think we can move on.

kunst nugget · 06-05-2015 01:48PM

gravehold wrote: »

Being able to yes doesn't mean you can consent, kids can say the word yes but they don't have the mental capacity to consent.

The fact you don't realise that is very worrying

Dagnabbit! I better break the bad news to Czr that me and him can't get married…

kylith · 06-05-2015 01:50PM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

BS.

It is about equality. I'll be voting to establish equality in marriage between sexualities. a vote for equality. Not equality on everything everywhere, but a vote for equality in the context of the referendum. To argue otherwise just displays a moronic nature.

Oh, I totally agree. SireofSeth was just asking what the 'inequalities' that Gravehold keeps going on about were.

aloyisious · 06-05-2015 02:09PM

gravehold wrote: »

I am saying the posters are opinion people tring to paint then as fact based lies are dishonest.

Parents do the most raising of kids sure other lesser role models are nice but the majority of raising is done by parents and if all things are equal most people agree diversity is best. But no families are the same so you can never compare one families worth to anothers.

Wikipedia is actually a worse source then it's given credit for.

Am I correct in reading you believe that what is on the "vote no" campaign posters on poles etc around the country are just opinions and not what the "vote no" campaign think and profess to be facts, OR ARE YOU WRITING ABOUT POSTERS HER? I can't believe that the "vote no" campaign believe that what's on their posters are merely opinion-pieces and not facts that they are using to persuade O/P's to vote "no". That would be so deceiving of them.

If one was to sell a product and publish material promoting the product, would you think that as honest truthful promotion or as dishonest deceitful promotion? Remember that the published material, the advert, is intended to persuade people to buy into what the promoters believe.

silverfeather · 06-05-2015 02:11PM

aloyisious wrote: »

Am I correct in reading you believe that what is on the "vote no" campaign posters on poles etc around the country are just opinions and not what the "vote no" campaign think and profess to be facts? I can't believe that the "vote no" campaign believe that what's on their posters are merely opinion-pieces and not facts that they are using to persuade O/P's to vote "no". That would be so deceiving of them.

I would not worry about the opinions that people and organizations are paid so handsomely to believe.

aloyisious · 06-05-2015 02:16PM

silverfeather wrote: »

I would not worry about the opinions that people and organizations are paid so handsomely to believe.

Hi, I've re-read G's post and am not sure whether he's writing about posters here or the "vote no" one's on poles, so I edited my post to include that ? in capitals.

floggg · 06-05-2015 02:29PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Here's the thing, and I thought I'd been pretty clear about this -

This referendum is about Civil Marriage, so the Archbishop and whoever else can waffle on about the meaning of marriage as it pertains to their particular religion. I genuinely don't see much point in entertaining arguments that have nothing to do with the issue of Civil Marriage.

Do you honestly believe the electorate are that stupid that they aren't able to tell the difference between a religious marriage and civil marriage?

Why would you waste your energy "debating" with someone who's opinion has no bearing upon Civil Marriage?

Are you doing it because you want access to religious marriage?

No, I think Fergus was explicitly clear in that regard, so I'm still as bemused as to why he chose to entertain an opinion from someone who was speaking on behalf of an organisation which has nothing to do with Civil Marriage.

Good thing I didn't do that then, and just because a couple of people in high profile positions who claim they speak on behalf of members of that group, support marriage equality, does not mean that the majority within that group agree with their opinions. You just have to look at the RCC in Ireland to know that much. A couple of high profile members of the Hierarchy does not represent the opinions of all of it's members, hell, not even close really!

I don't believe there is anyone can be "undecided" on this issue. I also believe that there's no amount of arguments will actually change anyone's opinion. I didn't find Fergus' arguments for Civil Marriage equality particularly convincing tbh, but that's just me.

Have I? I think you're either willfully misrepresenting me, or you're genuinely mixing me up with someone else. I have repeatedly stated that the yes campaign should focus on solidifying soft support for marriage equality and that there is no point in engaging with someone who is voting no. I consider it a complete waste of time. My own mother is voting no. In my bollix would I bother entertaining her. I know I'd simply be wasting my time. I have repeatedly stated too on numerous occasions that I have no interest in any political posturing or "debates" on the issue as IMO it shouldn't even be up for "debate". I see a distinct difference between "winning" a debate, and trying to ensure that the referendum on marriage equality is passed.

I have also consistently maintained that I think it is better simply to inform people, and let them make up their own minds, it's a hell of a lot less of a head melt than getting dragged down into a mud flinging match in an attempt to "debate" with people who's minds are not for changing.

I was mixing you up with somebody else so.

munchkin_utd · 06-05-2015 02:37PM

SpaceTime wrote: »

<snip>
If you think you're voting on suragacy law, adoption law, other aspects of family law or anything else : you're actually voting in the wrong referendum!

well, I would beg to differ

As the Constitutional Commission states

Article 41 pledges the State to guard with special care the institution of marriage on which the family is founded. In a number of cases, the courts have decided that the Constitutional rights which apply to the family based on marriage are not necessarily applicable to non-marital families.

http://refcom2015.ie/marriage/

but if anything thats a reason to vote yes rather than no

Ave Sodalis · 06-05-2015 02:39PM

munchkin_utd wrote: »

well, I would beg to differ

As the Constitutional Commission states

http://refcom2015.ie/marriage/

but if anything thats a reason to vote yes rather than no

Except family isn't defined.

aloyisious · 06-05-2015 02:40PM

gravehold wrote: »

It's about equality in marraige

The referendum on the 22nd May is about equalizing access to civil marriage here so that homosexual couples can get married here, as distinct from what applies here now (straight couples only). That is the sole intent of the marriage referendum and is the only issue to be decided upon. Neither side, nor even the Gov't or Referendum Commission, have mentioned any other forms of marriage as being at issue.

floggg · 06-05-2015 03:13PM

munchkin_utd wrote: »

I'd actually argue completely the opposite.

Marriage, the word and the meaning of it is 100% about children.
It's possibily the greatest reason to vote yes, as the rights of children in many laws are linked to the word "married" and their parents being married. Kids of "same sex unions" are being discriminated against by not being the child of a "marraige".

So, the rights of gay people are actually not going to be increased all that much by the vote, but kids of gay people will be much better off.
(now, a referendum to change the constitution is not the ideal way to do this, but heck, it's what's on the table so that's what's being voted on)

No, marriage isn't 100% about kids.

I don't have any intention of having kids but I don't see my relationship as any less deserving of recognition, vindication or protection as a married couple who do.

And that would go equally for a heterosexual couple who either chose not to or are unable to have kids.

Bridge93 · 06-05-2015 03:16PM

We've established there's no credible No argument.
There is also not one organisation, body, society, team whatever that I can see that has come out and said vote No without being an interest group in the campaign.

gravehold · 06-05-2015 03:22PM

Bridge93 wrote: »

We've established there's no credible No argument.
There is also not one organisation, body, society, team whatever that I can see that has come out and said vote No without being an interest group in the campaign.

Yes there is and it's "it's against my my religious or moral beliefs" that a credible reason to vote no.

People mightn't like that reason but it's perfectly valid.

TwoShedsJackson · 06-05-2015 03:27PM

gravehold wrote: »

Yes there is and it's "it's against my my religious or moral beliefs" that a credible reason to vote no.

People mightn't like that reason but it's perfectly valid.

'It's against my religious beliefs' really means 'it's so much easier when someone else tells me who I should despise or fear for being different to me'.

gravehold · 06-05-2015 03:28PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Not really. We're not voting on changing the rules of any religion, and there is no moral argument against SSM that isn't based on religion.

But the persons religious freedom is a perfectly valid readon to vote NO

Zen65 · 06-05-2015 03:28PM

arayess wrote: »

an excellent post.
However I would like to point out that John Waters has been campaigning on those fathers rights issues for many years.

I know, which is why I only referenced MAFM, and not First Families First.

While JW has indeed earned a pedigree in fighting for Fathers, his opposition to this referendum appears to be based around his disillusionment with that rather than on the issue at hand. From the TV debate the best I could ascertain from his argument was "why use the constitution to implement this?" . . . suggesting that simple legislation could do the trick instead. Whether he is right or not (and I suspect not) is irrelevant. The constitution is being used for it, so either back it for what it's trying to do or put up a logical reason to oppose it.

smash · 06-05-2015 03:29PM

gravehold wrote: »

Yes there is and it's "it's against my my religious or moral beliefs" that a credible reason to vote no.

People mightn't like that reason but it's perfectly valid.

It's not a valid reason. If these people were true to what their religion told them instead of picking and choosing what they want to believe and not believe then they might get some credibility. But then again they'd probably be dead or in jail if they were really true to the teachings of their bible.

oldrnwisr · 06-05-2015 03:31PM

gravehold wrote: »

Yes there is and it's "it's against my my religious or moral beliefs" that a credible reason to vote no.

People mightn't like that reason but it's perfectly valid.

There is a big difference between a reason and an argument.

Somebody who says: "I'm voting no because it's against my religious beliefs" is voicing their reason for voting no.

However, somebody who says: "You should vote no because my religious beliefs say so" is offering an argument.

As Bridge93 points out, there is no credible or rational argument coming from the No side. Posters who state that they are going to vote no because of their religious beliefs is not an argument.

gravehold · 06-05-2015 03:32PM

smash wrote: »

It's not a valid reason. If these people were true to what their religion told them instead of picking and choosing what they want to believe and not believe then they might get some credibility. But then again they'd probably be dead or in jail if they were really true to the teachings of their bible.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

No, it really isn't. They're entitled to vote no, but it's still not a valid reason.

No reason to be religophobes.

Bridge93 · 06-05-2015 03:32PM

People's religious freedom has led to terror attacks, bombings and mass shootings. Are these valid because they interpret it from their religion?

smash · 06-05-2015 03:34PM

gravehold wrote: »

No reason to be religophobes.

Is this all the No side can offer as a retort? To label a disagreement as a form of hatred?

Again with the victim card...

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

Comments