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

Ave Sodalis · 06-05-2015 06:47PM

gravehold wrote: »

You support polygamous marraige? Most here have said no and are also determined to keep a section of society as second class

I haven't seen many people here give an opinion on pologamous relationships.

gravehold wrote: »

But that's all the no side is saying too

No they aren't. They're saying that the referendum is about children. It is not.

jimdublin15 · 06-05-2015 06:48PM

gravehold wrote: »

But you just said it was about the future of all kids, you are saying it will damage kids if you vote no, you can't have it both ways kids are relevant or they are not.

The vote today is not going to impact children, children's right . However it will give any of them who are homosexual in theory when they grow-up if we vote yes access to civil marriage.

So no not it's not about children, it's about marriage but yes they would have access to that right / privilege when they grow-up

gravehold · 06-05-2015 06:48PM

sup_dude wrote: »

I haven't seen many people here give an opinion on pologamous relationships.

No they aren't. They're saying that the referendum is about children. It is not.

They are saying it will effect kids just like you

Ave Sodalis · 06-05-2015 06:50PM

gravehold wrote: »

They are saying it will effect kids just like you

I'm saying indirectly, as in gay children will be able to get married when they're old enough and children of gay couples have more security. The No side are saying that the referendum will determine whether gay couples can adopt etc or not. Please stop trying to twist my words.

VinLieger · 06-05-2015 07:00PM

gravehold wrote: »

You support polygamous marraige? Most here have said no and are also determined to keep a section of society as second class

Seriously your just becoming a joke at this stage with this ridiculous fallacy you keep trying to push, maybe read up on straw man arguments to understand how ridiculous you sound http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

gravehold · 06-05-2015 07:04PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Seriously your just becoming a joke at this stage with this ridiculous fallacy you keep trying to push, maybe read up on straw man arguments to understand how ridiculous you sound [wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man[/url]

You are the one using everyone should have rights expect those people.

One eyed Jack · 06-05-2015 07:04PM

gravehold wrote: »

So the no campaign talking about kids in families are justified

They're not just talking about children in families though, they're deliberately promoting false information on a number of fronts, and it's that which is unjustifiable. If they were genuinely concerned for children's welfare, I would still have issues with their campaign, but at least I'd be able to say they weren't using children's welfare as a smokescreen for spreading their particular brand of FUD, misleading hysteria and pure hatred.

Hammer Archer · 06-05-2015 07:05PM

Y'know gravehold, it is extremely strange that you so vehemently defend everything that the No side says and publishes given that you have stated you're voting yes.

Very strange indeed.

Bordering on unbelievable in my view. But that may be me just being cynical.

But still very strange.

Sofiztikated · 06-05-2015 07:06PM

@gravehold: For someone that claims to be a trans-female yes voter, your rhetoric seems to suggest otherwise.

floggg · 06-05-2015 07:10PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It may be how he feels but it is not what the Constitution says

ARTICLE 40

1 All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

If all citizens are held equal before the law then homosexuals are entitled to access the same protections for their families as heterosexuals. The Constitution does not actually state marriage is between a man and a woman but by having a Referendum it removes the possibility of a legal challenge to it's introduction.

I fully agree - and I am firmly of the view that no referendum is required to implement marriage equality.

I just respect prefer when people are honest about their discrimination instead of hiding behind made up nonsense and pretending to be victims because people won't let them lie with impunity.

frostyjacks · 06-05-2015 07:11PM

VinLieger wrote: »

You disgust me, you are a bigot and a homophobe who is determined to continue keeping a section of society as second class

You're unable to distinguish between homophobia and opposition to SSM. Homosexuals are not second class citizens in this country, it's not the 1950's anymore. How can you explain the number of homosexuals who will vote no?

gravehold · 06-05-2015 07:12PM

Hammer Archer wrote: »

Y'know gravehold, it is extremely strange that you so vehemently defend everything that the No side says and publishes given that you have stated you're voting yes.

Very strange indeed.

Bordering on unbelievable in my view. But that may be me just being cynical.

But still very strange.

I respect freedom of choice which this threads yes posters have issue with. I am straight and have seen hetrophobia first hand in lgbt groups so I try to point out the yes sides hypocrisy mainly about polygamy as it effects my best friend

Nodin · 06-05-2015 07:12PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

You're unable to distinguish between homophobia and opposition to SSM. Homosexuals are not second class citizens in this country, it's not the 1950's anymore. How can you explain the number of homosexuals who will vote no?

You have a number or percentage as regards gay "no" voters?

smash · 06-05-2015 07:12PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Homosexuals are not second class citizens in this country, it's not the 1950's anymore.

They are in relation to marriage equality

One eyed Jack · 06-05-2015 07:16PM

Hammer Archer wrote: »

Y'know gravehold, it is extremely strange that you so vehemently defend everything that the No side says and publishes given that you have stated you're voting yes.

Very strange indeed.

Bordering on unbelievable in my view. But that may be me just being cynical.

But still very strange.

Tbh her efforts don't strike me as particularly strange at all.

Tiresome perhaps, but nothing particularly strange about someone who just wants to pick holes in someone's argument and twist and spin and frustrate people to get attention for themselves.

The no campaign are famous for it, so it's not entirely unexpected to find a few yes voters who want to hog the limelight by whatever means possible.

Nowt queer as folk

VinLieger · 06-05-2015 07:19PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

You're unable to distinguish between homophobia and opposition to SSM. Homosexuals are not second class citizens in this country, it's not the 1950's anymore. How can you explain the number of homosexuals who will vote no?

The only homosexuals I know of that are voting no are doing so due to their opinions on the instituion of marriage itself and their wish to see it abolished and also from what I have heard they are in the significant minority.

Regarding your assertion they are equal (and I have to thank Ban for this) how do you equate that with article 40 of our constituion ?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I
ARTICLE 40

1 All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

Gay people are very much not held equal due to their inability to marry one another which is due to the supreme courts, in my opinion incorrect, interpretation of the meaning of "family" in article 41

Therefore the facts are actually that they are not equal no matter how much you wish to disagree and any person versed in the law will tell you so

frostyjacks · 06-05-2015 07:23PM

Nodin wrote: »

You have a number or percentage as regards gay "no" voters?

Yes. So how come they're voting no? That doesn't make sense if they feel second class.

floggg · 06-05-2015 07:24PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

You're unable to distinguish between homophobia and opposition to SSM. Homosexuals are not second class citizens in this country, it's not the 1950's anymore. How can you explain the number of homosexuals who will vote no?

They are both attention seekers with issues?

Bannasidhe · 06-05-2015 07:24PM

floggg wrote: »

I fully agree - and I am firmly of the view that no referendum is required to implement marriage equality.

I just respect prefer when people are honest about their discrimination instead of hiding behind made up nonsense and pretending to be victims because people won't let them lie with impunity.

Ah - but it has taken us until now for frosty to show his true colours.
Several pages back he was claiming he respects gay people.

Respectful is not how one would describe that post.

jimdublin15 · 06-05-2015 07:28PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Yes. So how come they're voting no? That doesn't make sense if they feel second class.

Not sure if anyone ever claimed an "All or an Absolute" number of gays feel the same.

To be honest if a different referendum was held should we get rid of marriage all together I would vote yes. But since it's not the topic or the vote ill vote yes so at least it's equal towards same sex.

Bannasidhe · 06-05-2015 07:29PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Gay people are very much not held equal due to their inability to marry one another which is due to the supreme courts, in my opinion incorrect, interpretation of the meaning of "family" in article 41

Therefore the facts are actually that they are not equal no matter how much you wish to disagree and any person versed in the law will tell you so

I am a 50 year old Irish lesbian who came out in the late 1970s while in secondary school so I kinda worked out about the whole lack of equality thing the hard way.

I was quoting that as part of a discussion where frosty claimed homosexuals are looking for rights we are not entitled to... Constitution says all citizens should be held equal under the law so yes, we are entitled to equal treatment no matter what frosty thinks...

smash · 06-05-2015 07:35PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'd personally quite like to see us do away with state marriage altogether and replace it by extending civil partnerships to everyone with the constitutional protection marriage has.

We need this. Then the divorce laws would only affect those willing to get married.

jimdublin15 · 06-05-2015 07:35PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'd personally quite like to see us do away with state marriage altogether and replace it by extending civil partnerships to everyone with the constitutional protection marriage has. It wouldn't make any practical difference, but those who (rightly or wrongly) see marriage as a protected term would be happy, the churches could have it for themselves and the rest of us could get on with our lives.

Of course that isn't what we're voting on, but just thought I'd throw it in there :pac:

Not a bad idea, perhaps it's time and maybe even a good thing to consider to simple give everyone a civil partnership. No more marriage in the civil code and done with it.

Ozymandius2011 · 06-05-2015 08:14PM

Frosty says we are no longer second class citizens since the 1950s. It's certainly much safer to be lgbt than before decriminalization in 1994. However I still fear for my safety sometimes around certain kinds of young men when they shoot homophobic names like f **** t at me in public places. Also as todays Newstalk vox pop in Kilkenny showed (there was one man who nearly jostled the camera crew) there still exists some men who feel they have a right to behave in a threatening manner towards gay people. Also its reported by yesequality on Twitter that 2 yes posters in Waterford Mount Sion area were taken down - so it's not just no side posters being defaced.

aloyisious · 06-05-2015 08:18PM

gravehold wrote: »

He is a jew though not a christian

Do you mean was a jew? The word Christ means, variously (teacher, rabbi, anointed-one, messiah) and was/is used to describe him as such by his followers.

Now the following is not a personal attack on you, just a question. You've written in one of your postings here that you are trans and want to marry your B/F but can't because you're waiting for a change in your birth cert wording, the same thing Lydia went through the court system to force the state to do. Now, if you were transing (female to male) and wanted to marry your B/F, would you be putting up postings here which seem very "devil's advocate" in nature about why same sex couples want to access civil marriage?

jobbridge4life · 06-05-2015 08:19PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Your talking about your fellow human being here, people in your community, in your job....probably in your family or circle of friends. Have a bit of respect.

"Respect a 'gay'?!?!? Perhaps if they ask politely enough."

jobbridge4life · 06-05-2015 08:30PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Homosexuals are not second class citizens in this country, it's not the 1950's anymore. How can you explain the number of homosexuals who will vote no?

We are. That's why we are having a vote. That's why we are in this thread. That's what you are so determined to make sure remains a fact of life. Also dude if you are going to rant at LGBT people about how equal they are you might try and be the least bit informed. Homosexuality was decriminalized in 1993. So forget the 50s.:cool:

gravehold · 06-05-2015 08:31PM

aloyisious wrote: »

Do you mean was a jew? The word Christ means, variously (teacher, rabbi, anointed-one, messiah) and was/is used to describe him as such by his followers.

Now the following is not a personal attack on you, just a question. You've written in one of your postings here that you are trans and want to marry your B/F but can't because you're waiting for a change in your birth cert wording, the same thing Lydia went through the court system to force the state to do. Now, if you were transing (female to male) and wanted to marry your B/F, would you be putting up postings here which seem very "devil's advocate" in nature about why same sex couples want to access civil marriage?

I never plan to marry it would just mean I could technically marry if it came in, once the birth cert thing come in that's another way I could marry. Marraige is a stupid thing to do in this day and age though.

But I am voting yes anyway, I guess posting style is very devils advocate like the jesus is a jew joke. But really if people misgender me in public I am ok with that that's their right, personally I can understand why people still think trans people are there birth gender and I am not going to force people change there mind.

I just find some of the yes sides very hypocritical like in lgbt groups and bars I find a lot of hetrophobia anc honestly don't like the way the yes side is acting so high and mighty and would prefer if we removed our freedom for a referendum and just forced it through.

Every irish citizen get a vote and people should be aloowed to make up their mind how to use it without one side calling them names crom up on their high horse

Zubeneschamali · 06-05-2015 08:39PM

gravehold wrote: »

Every irish citizen get a vote

Yes.

and people should be aloowed to make up their mind how to use it

Yes.

without one side calling them names crom up on their high horse

Nope.

gravehold · 06-05-2015 08:42PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes.

Yes.

Nope.

Keep being all high and mighty preaching that people are bigots you are sure to win over the fence sitters to go out of there way to vote for you on something that won't effect them in any way.

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

Comments