SSM why are you voting no?

C14N · 09-05-2015 10:56PM

Royal Legend wrote: »

I do not have an issue with your view because it is your own personal view. my own view of what is described as homophobic behaviour is different to yours that is all.

My main point is that some people on the No side, or are not sure to vote yes or no, are afraid to express themselves because of the fear of been pigeon holed as been homophobic when they do not dislike gay people, and that is is the mainstream media that is propagating this theory that they are lesser people.

Perhaps it could be handled with some more tact, I'll grant that. However, No voters do also need to come to terms with the fact that this is the price you pay for holding views that are inherently discriminatory. I'm sure many of the angrier people you may have heard from are those who either are gay or are close to someone who is gay and people need to realise that if they are told that someone doesn't think they should be allowed to have a right that the rest of us take for granted, that is very insulting, no matter how diplomatically one might phrase it or what their reasoning for believing it is. It is a view that is unambiguously disrespectful to them, and it is therefore nearly impossible for them to give respect back.

This is very different to most referenda that we have had in the past few years. In the case of things like EU treaties or the Seanad, it is much easier to disagree with someone and still respect their views. That is not the case because by being against the proposal, one is not simply disapproving of a diplomatic decision, but is also tacitly disapproving of how other people live their personal lives in a way that has no direct bearing on their own. Given how much bullying and unfairness gay people have had to endure, they will also typically have little sympathy for anyone who gets an earful for voting to block their rights to marriage.

For what it's worth, I am neither gay nor particularly close to anybody gay (as far as I know at least) so I can view this in a rather detached way. If I was gay though, I'm sure I would be quite incensed at hearing so many people say that they have nothing against me and don't want people to think they treat me worse than anyone else but they still intend to actively prevent me from gaining the basic martial rights as they and so many others take for granted.

I swindled the NSA · 09-05-2015 10:57PM

Royal Legend wrote: »

But a lot of people who may vote No do not dislike or are prejudiced against gay people, not understanding homosexuality is not prejudice, you cannot dislike someone if you don't know them.

Ive heard anti-Semitic opinions expressed by people who have probably never met a Jewish person in their life.

Not understanding something is generally a precursor to prejudice against it.

househero · 09-05-2015 11:20PM

The Magnificent Falcowboys wrote: »

Because its wrong

That's an opinion.

Not a reason.

oscarBravo · 09-05-2015 11:38PM

Royal Legend wrote: »

People can be uncomfortable around people because they do not understand their culture, creed or beliefs, it does not make them xenophobic, it just means they are uncomfortable with the unknown or something they are unfamiliar with.

On the contrary, that's practically a dictionary definition of xenophobia.

The Magnificent Falcowboys · 10-05-2015 01:16AM

househero wrote: »

That's an opinion.

Not a reason.

I was only messing,Ill be voting yes

constance tench · 10-05-2015 02:25AM

It's easy for us all to get lost in the wilderness
so I thought I'd leave this post here.

Denying a Conjunct: (false dilemma)

I am not both homophobic and a yes voter
I am not a yes voter
Therefore I am homophobic

I am not both a yes voter and homophobic
I am not homophobic
Therefore I am a yes voter.

Penny Tration · 10-05-2015 11:39AM

wupucus wrote: »

I will be voting no because I think marriage should be confined to the union of a man and a woman - I think the idea of two men getting married is quite frankly, ridiculous and yes you are right I am homophobic - I find the concept of homosexuality repulsive

While I absolutely hate your views, I 100% applaud your honesty.

C14N · 10-05-2015 11:48AM

constance tench wrote: »

It's easy for us all to get lost in the wilderness
so I thought I'd leave this post here.

Denying a Conjunct: (false dilemma)

I am not both homophobic and a yes voter
I am not a yes voter
Therefore I am homophobic

I am not both a yes voter and homophobic
I am not homophobic
Therefore I am a yes voter.

That's really more confusing than anything.

Billy86 · 10-05-2015 03:15PM

Royal Legend wrote: »

Googled it, this is the first definition

Homophobia is the hatred or fear of homosexuals - that is, lesbians and gay men - sometimes leading to acts of violence and expressions of hostility. Homophobia is not confined to any one segment of society, and can be found in people from all walks of life.

I am sure that there are people who are voting No who hate homosexuals and also people who are hostile towards them as well. but there are also people who don't feel or act that way who will be voting No, so according to this definition they are not homophobic.

That's not true though, note how it says sometimes leading to hostility and violence, not always.

constance tench · 10-05-2015 03:44PM

Billy86 wrote: »

That's not true though, note how it says sometimes leading to hostility and violence, not always.

What is it that is not true?

Billy86 · 10-05-2015 03:59PM

constance tench wrote: »

What is it that is not true?

"According g to this definition they are not homophobic" - according to that defines it on you do not have to be openly hostile or violent towards gay people to be ck sidereal homophobic.

constance tench · 10-05-2015 04:05PM

Billy86 wrote: »

"According g to this definition they are not homophobic" - according to that defines it on you do not have to be openly hostile or violent towards gay people to be ck sidereal homophobic.

Want to try again?

The sentence in quotation, where is that stated in the comment?

stefanovich · 10-05-2015 04:12PM

Royal Legend wrote: »

People can be uncomfortable around people because they do not understand their culture, creed or beliefs, it does not make them xenophobic, it just means they are uncomfortable with the unknown or something they are unfamiliar with.
Yes there are homophobic people that will definitely vote No, but there are also others that will vote No because they do not fully understand the amendment and will look to keep the status quo and others that will vote No because the church they worship in says vote No, it does not make them homophobic.

This unfair labelling of people, this Political Correctness that you must have the popular view or else you get labelled a racist or a homophobe is getting worse by the day.

Exactly. I sensed a lot of people in the Philippines were uncomfortable around me because they weren't used to white people. There was no way they were racist though. (Although funnily there nazi symbolism is quite trendy, you see teenagers wearing tshirts with swastikas)

constance tench · 11-05-2015 06:27PM

constance tench wrote: »

It's easy for us all to get lost in the wilderness
so I thought I'd leave this post here.

Denying a Conjunct: (false dilemma)

I am not both homophobic and a yes voter
I am not a yes voter
Therefore I am homophobic

I am not both a yes voter and homophobic
I am not homophobic
Therefore I am a yes voter.

A prime example of this logical fallacy in operation here:

Former Love/Hate star Robert Sheehan has claimed that anyone who votes 'No' in the upcoming marriage equality referendum is "homophobic".

In a video which he posted to his Twitter page yesterday, Robert said: "Let's face it, if you vote 'no' you are saying that gay people shouldn't have the same rights as straight people and you are basically homophobic. So vote 'yes".

http://www.independent.ie/style/celebrity/celebrity-news/lovehates-robert-says-no-voters-are-homophobic-31208468.html

https://twitter.com/robmsheehan

Hotblack Desiato · 12-05-2015 09:05AM

Royal Legend wrote: »

Enda Kenny will not debate this issue

Enda Kenny will not debate any issue.

Royal Legend wrote: »

P.S I have not decided what way to vote yet, but people's assertion that if I or anyone votes No makes them homophobic is complete BS.

Believing that black people are inferior and should be denied equal rights = racist

Believing that women are inferior and should be denied equal rights = sexist

Believing that gay people are inferior and should be denied equal rights = NOT homophoblic, somehow?!?

All we hear from the NO side is that gay people are inferior, but they dress it up as 'protect the definition of marriage' i.e. don't let the gays in because gay relationships are not deserving of equal recognition. Or about how biological parents are the only acceptable form of parents, therefore gay people are inferior. These arguments are absolutely homophobic by definition.

Ironically the 'mammies and daddies' arguments come from the same people who a couple of years ago were telling us that adoption was the solution to any crisis pregnancy, and until the 70s the catholic church was snatching children from biological parents they didn't approve of.

constance tench · 12-05-2015 10:23AM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Enda Kenny will not debate any issue.

Believing that black people are inferior and should be denied equal rights = racist

Believing that women are inferior and should be denied equal rights = sexist

Believing that gay people are inferior and should be denied equal rights = NOT homophoblic, somehow?!?

All we hear from the NO side is that gay people are inferior, but they dress it up as 'protect the definition of marriage' i.e. don't let the gays in because gay relationships are not deserving of equal recognition. Or about how biological parents are the only acceptable form of parents, therefore gay people are inferior. These arguments are absolutely homophobic by definition.

Ironically the 'mammies and daddies' arguments come from the same people who a couple of years ago were telling us that adoption was the solution to any crisis pregnancy, and until the 70s the catholic church was snatching children from biological parents they didn't approve of.

I have highlighted for your benefit, the flaws in your reasoning.

LordNorbury · 12-05-2015 11:25AM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Enda Kenny will not debate any issue.

Believing that black people are inferior and should be denied equal rights = racist

Believing that women are inferior and should be denied equal rights = sexist

Believing that gay people are inferior and should be denied equal rights = NOT homophoblic, somehow?!?

All we hear from the NO side is that gay people are inferior, but they dress it up as 'protect the definition of marriage' i.e. don't let the gays in because gay relationships are not deserving of equal recognition. Or about how biological parents are the only acceptable form of parents, therefore gay people are inferior. These arguments are absolutely homophobic by definition.

Ironically the 'mammies and daddies' arguments come from the same people who a couple of years ago were telling us that adoption was the solution to any crisis pregnancy, and until the 70s the catholic church was snatching children from biological parents they didn't approve of.

Nobody is saying that gay people or their relationships are inferior, however it is a simple biological and inescapable fact that a same sex couple cannot conceive children. Some people happen to believe that this not insignificant ability to procreate, is what is at, or is what ought to be at, the centre of what the constitution is protecting when it protects the family.

I happen to believe that, it doesn't make me a homophobe when I state openly and clearly that I believe that there is a very fundamental and simple difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple and that one is deserving of constitutional protection because one can procreate and can develop into a family unit, and the other simply cannot.

No amount of screaming at me that some heterosexual married couples cannot conceive children is going to make me change that reasonably held view that I have set out above. No amount of screaming at me that this has nothing to do with family or children and screaming at me that I'm not allowed to discuss concerns about family and in particular children, is going to make me change that view, because if you think that children, family and marriage are not very closely interconnected, then I think you have a fundamental problem with your assessment of how we procreate as a species.

And as for our great leader Enda refusing to come out and debate this, that is the icing on the cake for me as a no voter who is not up for changing.

oscarBravo · 12-05-2015 11:28AM

LordNorbury wrote: »

Nobody is saying that gay people or their relationships are inferior, however it is a simple biological and inescapable fact that a same sex couple cannot conceive children. Some people happen to believe that this not insignificant ability to procreate, is what is at, or is what ought to be at, the centre of what the constitution is protecting when it protects the family.

I happen to believe that, it doesn't make me a homophobe when I state openly and clearly that I believe that there is a very fundamental and simple difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple and that one is deserving of constitutional protection because one can procreate and can develop into a family unit, and the other simply cannot.

So we shouldn't allow 70-year-olds to marry?

galljga1 · 12-05-2015 11:32AM

LordNorbury wrote: »

Nobody is saying that gay people or their relationships are inferior, however it is a simple biological and inescapable fact that a same sex couple cannot conceive children. Some people happen to believe that this not insignificant ability to procreate, is what is at, or is what ought to be at, the centre of what the constitution is protecting when it protects the family.

I happen to believe that, it doesn't make me a homophobe when I state openly and clearly that I believe that there is a very fundamental and simple difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple and that one is deserving of constitutional protection because one can procreate and can develop into a family unit, and the other simply cannot.

No amount of screaming at me that some heterosexual married couples cannot conceive children is going to make me change that reasonably held view that I have set out above. No amount of screaming at me that this has nothing to do with family or children and screaming at me that I'm not allowed to discuss concerns about family and in particular children, is going to make me change that view, because if you think that children, family and marriage are not very closely interconnected, then I think you have a fundamental problem with your assessment of how we procreate as a species.

And as for our great leader Enda refusing to come out and debate this, that is the icing on the cake for me as a no voter who is not up for changing.

Please do not take this as screaming, I am actually very calm:
I have no problem with you voting no for nonsense reasons.

TheChosenOne_ · 12-05-2015 11:33AM

In my god honest opinion, the yes side are a bunch of hypocrites. Simple as

galljga1 · 12-05-2015 11:38AM

TheChosenOne_ wrote: »

In my god honest opinion, the yes side are a bunch of hypocrites. Simple as

Thanks for that, very enlightening.

LordNorbury · 12-05-2015 11:43AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

So we shouldn't allow 70-year-olds to marry?

More completely warped logic, what on earth has a heterosexual elderly people who are simply beyond childbearing age, who wish to marry, got to do with giving people who can simply never conceive children, by virtue of them both being of the same sex, a right to be a family and to have a family under our constitution? What sort of warped logic puts these two couples, who cannot conceive for a completely different set of reasons, into the same box?

Answer me this... There are 6 million odd citizens in this country. As a rule of thumb, it is claimed that 10% of our population would designate themselves as being gay. Last year there were 6 adoptions where a child was adopted into a completely different family. If we work off a figure of 6 million citizens, this suggests that approximately 600,000 people in the state will designate themselves as being gay at some stage.

We are just about to give these 600,000 people the right to be a family. That's around 300,000 couples who are demanding the right to family status. Don't tell me that NONE of these 300,000 couples are going to want children, but yet not one of these couples will be able to conceive children?!?

Any chance we can have a discussion about where these thousands of children will come from, giving that only 6 adoptions occurred last year that resulted in a child being adopted into a completely separate family? Why are we being told that we cannot discuss this? Why are we being lied to when we say that giving a same sex couple a right to marry also confers upon them a right to have children, yet not a single one of these couples has the ability to conceive children?

oscarBravo · 12-05-2015 11:43AM

TheChosenOne_ wrote: »

In my god honest opinion, the yes side are a bunch of hypocrites. Simple as

Why?

oscarBravo · 12-05-2015 11:49AM

LordNorbury wrote: »

More completely warped logic, what on earth has a heterosexual elderly people who are simply beyond childbearing age, who wish to marry, got to do with giving people who can simply never conceive children, by virtue of them both being of the same sex, a right to be a family and to have a family under our constitution? What sort of warped logic puts these two couples, who cannot conceive for a completely different set of reasons, into the same box?

You brought up the ability to conceive as the reason for marriage. Now it turns out that you want to discriminate between couples on the basis of the reason for the inability to conceive; in other words you just want to discriminate against same-sex couples, not against couples who can't conceive.

Answer me this... There are 6 million odd citizens in this country. As a rule of thumb, it is claimed that 10% of our population would designate themselves as being gay. Last year there were 6 adoptions where a child was adopted into a completely different family. If we work off a figure of 6 million citizens, this suggests that approximately 600,000 people in the state will designate themselves as being gay at some stage.

We are just about to give these 600,000 people the right to be a family. That's around 300,000 couples who are demanding the right to family status. Don't tell me that NONE of these 300,000 couples are going to want children, but yet not one of these couples will be able to conceive children?!?

Lots of couples get married and are unable to conceive. It's not a basis for refusing to allow opposite-sex couples to marry, so why should it be a basis for refusing to allow same-sex couples to marry?

Any chance we can have a discussion about where these thousands of children will come from, giving that only 6 adoptions occurred last year that resulted in a child being adopted into a completely separate family? Why are we being told that we cannot discuss this?

Who told you you can't discuss it? Do they know you're discussing it? Are you going to get in trouble?

Why are we being lied to when we say that giving a same sex couple a right to marry also confers them a right to have children...

There is no "right" to have children; insofar as it could be argued that such a right exists, it's certainly not dependent on marriage.

If your problem is with same-sex couples having children (and I wonder why you might have a problem with it?), I'm afraid that that boat has sailed, and the outcome of this referendum won't make any difference.

Timberrrrrrrr · 12-05-2015 11:49AM

LordNorbury wrote: »

Nobody is saying that gay people or their relationships are inferior, however it is a simple biological and inescapable fact that a same sex couple cannot conceive children. Some people happen to believe that this not insignificant ability to procreate, is what is at, or is what ought to be at, the centre of what the constitution is protecting when it protects the family.

I happen to believe that, it doesn't make me a homophobe when I state openly and clearly that I believe that there is a very fundamental and simple difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple and that one is deserving of constitutional protection because one can procreate and can develop into a family unit, and the other simply cannot.

No amount of screaming at me that some heterosexual married couples cannot conceive children is going to make me change that reasonably held view that I have set out above. No amount of screaming at me that this has nothing to do with family or children and screaming at me that I'm not allowed to discuss concerns about family and in particular children, is going to make me change that view, because if you think that children, family and marriage are not very closely interconnected, then I think you have a fundamental problem with your assessment of how we procreate as a species.

And as for our great leader Enda refusing to come out and debate this, that is the icing on the cake for me as a no voter who is not up for changing.

Should a man and woman be allowed marry if they know that they (for whatever reasons) will never be able to procreate?

LordNorbury · 12-05-2015 11:57AM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Should a man and woman be allowed marry if they know that they (for whatever reasons) will never be able to procreate?

Invoking a male & female couple who cannot conceive due to a disability/fertility issue or else possibly due to the fact that the female may simply be beyond childbearing age age, invoking this couple as a means of arguing for same sex marriage is in my view, completely dysfunctional and warped logic.

The reasoning simply doesn't stack up, and where are all these babies going to come from, because it appears to me that even though a male/female couple and a same sex couple do not carry the same ability to reproduce and conceive a family and this is a simple biological fact, until they all have access to the exact same things, and by "things" I mean children, then discrimination and suppression will still be cited. So where are all these babies going to come from and why are we not allowed ask that fairly reasonable question or discuss this consideration of children???

galljga1 · 12-05-2015 12:02PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

Invoking a male & female couple who cannot conceive due to a disability/fertility issue or else possibly due to the fact that the female may simply be beyond childbearing age age, invoking this couple as a means of arguing for same sex marriage is in my view, completely dysfunctional and warped logic.

The reasoning simply doesn't stack up, and where are all these babies going to come from, because it appears to me that even though a male/female couple and a same sex couple do not carry the same ability to reproduce and conceive a family and this is a simple biological fact, until they all have access to the exact same things, and by "things" I mean children, then discrimination and suppression will still be cited. So where are all these babies going to come from and why are we not allowed ask that fairly reasonable question or discuss this consideration of children???

Do you think a yes vote is going to result in thousands of gay couples scouring the country/world for babies?
Do you think a yes vote will result in an increase in the number of gay couples scouring the country/world for babies?
If you answered yes to either of the above, please explain the logic by which you reached your answer.

oscarBravo · 12-05-2015 12:02PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

Invoking a male & female couple who cannot conceive due to a disability/fertility issue or else possibly due to the fact that the female may simply be beyond childbearing age age, invoking this couple as a means of arguing for same sex marriage is in my view, completely dysfunctional and warped logic.

That's a transparent evasion.

You've argued that marriage is for making babies, and therefore same-sex couples should be excluded from marriage because they can't make babies.

When it's pointed out to you that couples who can't make babies get married all the time, you retreat into arm-waving and bluster.

So, once again: if marriage is for baby-making, why can infertile couples get married?

The reasoning simply doesn't stack up, and where are all these babies going to come from, because it appears to me that even though a male/female couple and a same sex couple do not carry the same ability to reproduce and conceive a family and this is a simple biological fact, until they all have access to the exact same things, and by "things" I mean children, then discrimination and suppression will still be cited. So where are all these babies going to come from and why are we not allowed ask that fairly reasonable question or discuss this consideration of children???

Again with the not allowed. Why are you asking questions and then claiming not to be allowed to ask them?

There is no right to have children. It's a figment of your imagination. If you stop making things up to get cross about, you'll be less cross.

LordNorbury · 12-05-2015 12:08PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a transparent evasion.

You've argued that marriage is for making babies, and therefore same-sex couples should be excluded from marriage because they can't make babies.

When it's pointed out to you that couples who can't make babies get married all the time, you retreat into arm-waving and bluster.

So, once again: if marriage is for baby-making, why can infertile couples get married? Again with the not allowed. Why are you asking questions and then claiming not to be allowed to ask them?

There is no right to have children. It's a figment of your imagination. If you stop making things up to get cross about, you'll be less cross.

In the vast vast majority of occasions, children are conceived and raised by their biological parents. Attempting to invoke a tiny fraction of situations where this is not the case, is not sufficient grounds in my opinion for putting a same sex couple on the same constitutional standing with regard to having a family status, as a heterosexual couple. My honestly and genuinely held view is that there is a massive difference between a same sex couple and a male-female couple. No amount of trying to pretend that they are the same thing, with the same capabilities, in the name of "equality" is going to wash with me, because I simply do not believe that they are the same thing with the same capabilities. It might scare you to hear that there are many people I have been speaking to in the last week who hold the very same view.

EDIT: Do you agree or disagree that the vast vast majority of children that are conceived in this state are raised by their biological parents, or do you disagree with that fact? That is what I think is worthy of protection in terms of how our constitution strives to protect that basic unit of society. If this was just about two gay people wanting to marry, I'd vote yes no problem but it isn't just about that. It is about a whole lot more, and that "whole lot more", we are told we are not allow to discuss, so there isn't a chance I'm voting yes on this.

Timberrrrrrrr · 12-05-2015 12:10PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

Invoking a male & female couple who cannot conceive due to a disability/fertility issue or else possibly due to the fact that the female may simply be beyond childbearing age age, invoking this couple as a means of arguing for same sex marriage is in my view, completely dysfunctional and warped logic.

The reasoning simply doesn't stack up, and where are all these babies going to come from, because it appears to me that even though a male/female couple and a same sex couple do not carry the same ability to reproduce and conceive a family and this is a simple biological fact, until they all have access to the exact same things, and by "things" I mean children, then discrimination and suppression will still be cited. So where are all these babies going to come from and why are we not allowed ask that fairly reasonable question or discuss this consideration of children???

So gay couples shouldn't be allowed marry because they can't have children.

Straight couples should be allowed marry even though they can't have children

And yet you will still claim you are not homophobic. :rolleyes:

SSM why are you voting no?

Comments