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

RedPaddyX · 08-05-2015 02:42PM

BoatMad wrote: »

I have asked you to explain your point of view , you have consistently refused to do that

My friend I am genuinely trying to engage your points/questions.

Question

(a) How is " equality " a twist on words.
As above because clearly this ref is only as you say seeking to extend marriage to 2 same sex, but no further. Hence a form of inequality (to say polygamists). My point is there is always a form of inequality - that is inherent to defining a relationship.

(b) How will a specific amendment , lead to allowing more then 2 people to marry , when the text is specific
It removes any logical reason for objection to further redefinition - the only argument I've heard so far is: nobody wants it yet.

(c) Are you actually saying you are voting No because you would prefer an amendment that support you marrying 8 women !

No mate, I'm simply flagging the inconsistency of argument.

Ave Sodalis · 08-05-2015 02:42PM

smash wrote: »

It's quite sad actually. Donegal is well known for the protest vote and if the surveys and reports are to be believed, for this referendum it will happen again.

I've a little bit more faith in my county still

As with a lot of the country, it'll be down to the younger generation to go vote though so hopefully.

gravehold · 08-05-2015 02:42PM

Motley Crue wrote: »

It is offensive to either partner to introduce a third person into a marriage, be it a same sex marriage or otherwise...unless such a situation is agreed upon by both parties beforehand for some reason. That is my firm belief.

Polygamous relationships all agree to be together it woule be the same in their marriage. Not sure how you could have a surprise polygamy marriage

Zubeneschamali · 08-05-2015 02:43PM

RedPaddyX wrote: »

Ok let me rephrase my point: please explain to me why marriage (regardless of this ref) should be limited to 2 people?

Marriage is between two people now. Marriage will be between two people whether this referendum passes or fails. So voting Yes or No this time has nothing to do with polygamy.

If you want to marry several women and a gay penguin, go ahead and start a campaign to have a referendum on that issue.

Meanwhile, why would you deny your gay fellow citizens the right to marry by voting No this time?

smash · 08-05-2015 02:43PM

gravehold wrote: »

Polygamous relationships all agree to be together it woule be the same in their marriage. Not sure how you could have a surprise polygamy marriage

Give over

frostyjacks · 08-05-2015 02:45PM

This thread is a flat circle. Everything we've ever done or will do, we're gonna do over and over and over again.

jobbridge4life · 08-05-2015 02:45PM

RedPaddyX wrote: »

No mate, I'm simply flagging the inconsistency of argument.

No you are not. You haven't pointed out one inconsistency. Not a single one. You've made what you think is a 'point' but it isn't and you've been embarrassingly shown up in the last few pages.

smash · 08-05-2015 02:46PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

This thread is a flat circle. Everything we've ever done or will do, we're gonna do over and over and over again.

groundhog thread

gravehold · 08-05-2015 02:47PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Meanwhile, why would you deny your gay fellw citizens the right to marry by voting No this time?

Maybe cause they make fun of their relationship and say things like this

'If you want to marry several women and a gay penguin, go ahead'

tigger123 · 08-05-2015 02:47PM

(I should follow my own advice, but...)

Don't feed the troll.

BoatMad · 08-05-2015 02:48PM

it'll be down to the younger generation to go vote though so hopefully.

Yes but these are not voters, middle Ireland is where the people that vote are.

Personally I think it will be carried by a simple Dublin majority

Hyzepher · 08-05-2015 02:49PM

Surely those interested in a polygamous marriage would support the ssm as apart from anything else it gets them a step closer. There is no polygamous relationship that doesn't involve same sex interaction.

ixoy · 08-05-2015 02:51PM

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I just find it sickening that anyone could want to vote against it purely because they don't like the current government.

Agreed. Voting no to spite the government is, to me, worse than voting no for Iona's reasons. It's petty and selfish and an insult to others.

There were a couple of posters near me advocating a no vote over Irish Water. Angered me no end and, given the fact they didn't last long, angered others too.

Zubeneschamali · 08-05-2015 02:52PM

gravehold wrote: »

Maybe cause they make fun of their relationship and say things like this

'If you want to marry several women and a gay penguin, go ahead'

No, I said that, and I'm straight and already married.

kunst nugget · 08-05-2015 02:52PM

Thread roundup:

Blah, blah, babies, blah, blah, polygamy, blah, blah, I'm not a homophobe, blah, blah, women, blah, blah, bullying, blah, blah, posters, blah, blah, not equality, blah, blah…

Ave Sodalis · 08-05-2015 02:53PM

BoatMad wrote: »

Yes but these are not voters, middle Ireland is where the people that vote are.

Personally I think it will be carried by a simple Dublin majority

I'm not so sure for this one. I know in my home town that people tend to get stubborn headed about things but it just so happens that the majority of people I've seen/talked to are voting Yes. It's just about making sure they actually go out and vote.

RedPaddyX · 08-05-2015 02:54PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Marriage is between two people now. Marriage will be between two people whether this referendum passes or fails. So voting Yes or No this time has nothing to do with polygamy.

If you want to marry several women and a gay penguin, go ahead and start a campaign to have a referendum on that issue.

Meanwhile, why would you deny your gay fellow citizens the right to marry by voting No this time?

But why the limitation on 2? What is so special about 2 people?

Ave Sodalis · 08-05-2015 02:56PM

RedPaddyX wrote: »

But why the limitation on 2? What is so special about 2 people?

Because that's what is legal at the moment.

tayto lover · 08-05-2015 02:57PM

RedPaddyX wrote: »

But why the limitation on 2? What is so special about 2 people?

Special is having zero wives.

Not a NSA agent · 08-05-2015 02:58PM

RedPaddyX wrote: »

But why the limitation on 2? What is so special about 2 people?

It would require a reworking of a lot of legislation. Everything is from the perspective of 2 people splitting things 50:50.

With multiple people can they get married one by one or do they need to be married as a group? Is everyone married to everyone else or does John mary Ann and Mary but Mary and Ann arent married?

The referendum is to allow 2 people to marry regardless of their genders. Nothing is preventing a referendum on polygamy.

jobbridge4life · 08-05-2015 02:59PM

RedPaddyX wrote: »

But why the limitation on 2? What is so special about 2 people?

Why just 'people'? What is so special about people?

RedPaddyX · 08-05-2015 03:00PM

sup_dude wrote: »

Because that's what is legal at the moment.

So are you personally ok with extending this to multiple persons if it came up as referendum next year? You care about equality afterall.

Zubeneschamali · 08-05-2015 03:00PM

RedPaddyX wrote: »

But why the limitation on 2? What is so special about 2 people?

What is special about 2 people is that that is the current definition of marriage. Similarly, marriage is between two humans at present, no other species are allowed. Changing this would also require a referendum.

So a guy, three girls and a gay penguin is right out, and you'll need to start a campaign for change if that is what you want.

But it is nothing to do with the current referendum.

Ave Sodalis · 08-05-2015 03:00PM

RedPaddyX wrote: »

So are you personally ok with extending this to multiple persons if it came up as referendum next year? You care about equality afterall.

I'd have no problem with it.

Maximus Alexander · 08-05-2015 03:00PM

RedPaddyX wrote: »

So are you personally ok with extending this to multiple persons if it came up as referendum next year? You care about equality afterall.

Herp derp

Not a NSA agent · 08-05-2015 03:01PM

Hyzepher wrote: »

Surely those interested in a polygamous marriage would support the ssm as apart from anything else it gets them a step closer. There is no polygamous relationship that doesn't involve same sex interaction.

I doubt anyone bringing it up are actually interested in it.

gravehold · 08-05-2015 03:02PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Marriage is between two people now. Marriage will be between two people whether this referendum passes or fails. So voting Yes or No this time has nothing to do with polygamy.

If you want to marry several women and a gay penguin, go ahead and start a campaign to have a referendum on that issue.

Meanwhile, why would you deny your gay fellow citizens the right to marry by voting No this time?

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Why just 'people'? What is so special about people?

Consent

MrWalsh · 08-05-2015 03:03PM

RedPaddyX wrote: »

So are you personally ok with extending this to multiple persons if it came up as referendum next year? You care about equality afterall.

Yeah Id be in favour too. Why not? If Truples or Quadruples or Octuples want to marry who am I to stop them?

Ill bet itd be very complicated to arrange legally though so probably wont ever happen.

RedPaddyX · 08-05-2015 03:03PM

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

It would require a reworking of a lot of legislation. Everything is from the perspective of 2 people splitting things 50:50.

With multiple people can they get married one by one or do they need to be married as a group? Is everyone married to everyone else or does John mary Ann and Mary but Mary and Ann arent married?

The referendum is to allow 2 people to marry regardless of their genders. Nothing is preventing a referendum on polygamy.

Yes totally agree. But my point is this referendum is therefore not really about equality. In the words of a yes campaign, "there is no such thing as nearly equal"

jobbridge4life · 08-05-2015 03:04PM

RedPaddyX wrote: »

So are you personally ok with extending this to multiple persons if it came up as referendum next year? You care about equality afterall.

What you are attempting to do is so glaringly obvious and even if it weren't we've been through this almost word for word in this thread and in others.

The referendum is not about 'equality' as some abstract total goal. If it were it would surely about the abolition of marriage in its entirety.

So glib, so shallow. So pseudo-intellectual.

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

Comments