SSM why are you voting no?

FreudianSlippers · 12-05-2015 02:32PM

neemish wrote: »

I'm voting No because I don't agree with the wording. Simple as. I think that the constitution should be as wide as possible and then legislate for marriage within the Oireachtas.

The Oireachtas can and already does legislate for marriage.

TheChizler · 12-05-2015 02:51PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The Oireachtas can and already does legislate for marriage.

This point can't be made enough. All this amendment does is remove sex/gender from the criteria that the Oireachtas may define. (also limit it to two people but noone seems to care)

johnnyskeleton · 12-05-2015 02:54PM

Godge wrote: »

The problem with this argument is that it is based on the assumption that marriage is a right. A person may hold a view that marriage is not a right but something only inherently available to heterosexual couples.

To use the example, an apple may be green or red (married or single) but an orange can never be green.

This view of the world is not one I subscribe to (I am voting yes) but it can be a legitimately held view and therefore deserving of respect and also an argument to vote no.

I suppose the counter argument is that if Marriage isn't a right but is only available to certain people then we as a society should say that is fine, but we should not recognise the special place of marriage at all if that's the case.

Marriage could then be a heterosexuals only institution that has no greater nor lesser consitutional recognition than any other family relationship.

johnnyskeleton · 12-05-2015 02:56PM

Godge wrote: »

A further argument for voting no that I saw recently in a newspaper letter is that marriage has been about heterosexual couples for hundreds of years but civil partnership has only been for a few years and that we should wait a while further before making such a fundamental change.

Again not an argument I agree with but a legitimate argument for voting no.

Or perhaps because Marriage has only existed for a few hundred years in the thousands of years of human history, there is nothing set in stone about it and we are free to reshape it as we like? Homosexual relationships have been around for longer than the concept of marriage (see, e.g. the Symposium by Plato), so maybe we should wait before deciding that marriage is only limited to heterosexuals?

jobbridge4life · 12-05-2015 02:58PM

gypsy79 wrote: »

Many reasons:

Not the most offensive part of said article

That is a reason to fight for another referendum to amend the offending element as you see it and certainly not one to reject the current referendum which deserves to be viewed on its own merits.

gypsy79 wrote: »

Could have been done without a referendum

That is entirely unclear. Some academics and legal minds felt that way others didn't. Furthermore the only way to ensure constitutional protection was by passing the referendum thereby negating the possibility of a challenge. Regardless we are where we are today and that is with a referendum in the next few days so previous notions about its necessity have no bearing on whether it ought to pass now.

gypsy79 wrote: »

Why rewrite a tiny part of a broken document to pander to minor groups

You see it becomes difficult to accept your bona fides when you use pejoratives like 'pander' and 'minor groups'. LGBT people and their families may be a minority but each single individual is fully entitled to their rights it should not be dependent on how many of them there are in society.

gypsy79 wrote: »

Been pissed off that governments keep using referendums as a ego builder

I don't think that is necessarily true and even if it is I don't think it really counts as a legitimate reason to vote no. The rejection of this referendum would embarrass FG and Labour for a period but the long term implications for them are negligible. The people who will suffer are LGBT people and their families.

gypsy79 wrote: »

The constant bullying by the Yes side

I apologise if you have felt bullied. Please accept that many LGBT people find this entire process to be humiliating and degrading in the extreme. Thats not an excuse just an explanation. Again though IMO the referendum ought to be decided on its own merits not because some people on either side are acting like dicks. Especially as a no vote in retaliation will affect countless innocent LGBT people including those not yet even born.

Before anyone suggests it I am not telling anyone how to vote I am trying to encourage people to vote yes. That is all. Its not bullying, its advocating/campaigning or like we used to call it politics.

gypsy79 · 12-05-2015 03:02PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

That is a reason to fight for another referendum to amend the offending element as you see it and certainly not one to reject the current referendum which deserves to be viewed on its own merits.

That is entirely unclear. Some academics and legal minds felt that way others didn't. Furthermore the only way to ensure constitutional protection was by passing the referendum thereby negating the possibility of a challenge. Regardless we are where we are today and that is with a referendum in the next few days so previous notions about its necessity have no bearing on whether it ought to pass now.

You see it becomes difficult to accept your bona fides when you use pejoratives like 'pander' and 'minor groups'. LGBT people and their families may be a minority but each single individual is fully entitled to their rights it should not be dependent on how many of them there are in society.

I don't think that is necessarily true and even if it is I don't think it really counts as a legitimate reason to vote no. The rejection of this referendum would embarrass FG and Labour for a period but the long term implications for them are negligible. The people who will suffer are LGBT people and their families.

I apologise if you have felt bullied. Please accept that many LGBT people find this entire process to be humiliating and degrading in the extreme. Thats not an excuse just an explanation. Again though IMO the referendum ought to be decided on its own merits not because some people on either side are acting like dicks. Especially as a no vote in retaliation will affect countless innocent LGBT people including those not yet even born.

Before anyone suggests it I am not telling anyone how to vote I am trying to encourage people to vote yes. That is all. Its not bullying, its advocating/campaigning or like we used to call it politics.

That is the most reasoned response I have had. I suspect if this was ran without a Yes campaign at all it would have passed easier.

It leaves a bad taste in my mouth as someone who has many LGBT friends

galljga1 · 12-05-2015 03:16PM

gypsy79 wrote: »

That is the most reasoned response I have had. I suspect if this was ran without a Yes campaign at all it would have passed easier.

It leaves a bad taste in my mouth as someone who has many LGBT friends

Then we would just have threads full of adoption, surrogacy, think of the children, tradition, family values......

Oh!!! Never mind.

ssmith6287 · 12-05-2015 04:11PM

I will vote yes simply because I dont care. It wont effect me either way. If I was to argue for and against either side id say

Yes: Pros, everyone is happy, everyone gets treated the same.
More people to cater for children taken under dept of social protection
Local Economy improves with more weddings

Yes: Cons, I fear that with the extra people looking to adopt there is potential for baby factorys, that is women selling babies
It should be no longer accepted for gay positive exclusion as in gay clubs, gay parades etc. If straight people cant have straight clubs or straight parades, everyone should b treated equally.

This is an uneducted every day opinion, I'm not an expert in any of these matters

gravehold · 12-05-2015 04:15PM

ssmith6287 wrote: »

I will vote yes simply because I dont care. It wont effect me either way. If I was to argue for and against either side id say

Yes: Pros, everyone is happy, everyone gets treated the same.
More people to cater for children taken under dept of social protection
Local Economy improves with more weddings

Yes: Cons, I fear that with the extra people looking to adopt there is potential for baby factorys, that is women selling babies
It should be no longer accepted for gay positive exclusion as in gay clubs, gay parades etc. If straight people cant have straight clubs or straight parades, everyone should b treated equally.

This is an uneducted every day opinion, I'm not an expert in any of these matters

That's a good point once gay are fully equal after the yes vote parades should be stooped and not allowed.

Mark Tapley · 12-05-2015 04:28PM

A - Black is white.

B - No it is not - link

A - What about yellow?

B - Yellow has got nothing to do with it.

A - Stop bullying me.

I swindled the NSA · 12-05-2015 04:32PM

ssmith6287 wrote: »

If straight people cant have straight clubs

You mean like the hundreds of nightclubs which exist around the country ?

gravehold wrote: »

That's a good point once gay are fully equal after the yes vote parades should be stooped and not allowed.

Fortunately article 40.6.1 of the constitution says otherwise

ssmith6287 · 12-05-2015 05:01PM

I swindled the NSA wrote: »

You mean like the hundreds of nightclubs which exist around the country ?

Fortunately article 40.6.1 of the constitution says otherwise

Not really, I don't think i've ever attended a straight bar

Also this should be changed, I don't think we could have a straight pride parade, so with all things being free and equal, gay people shouldnt either

TheChizler · 12-05-2015 05:09PM

ssmith6287 wrote: »

I don't think we could have a straight pride parade, so with all things being free and equal, gay people shouldnt either

Work away! Under what legal grounds would you be stopped?

I swindled the NSA · 12-05-2015 05:09PM

ssmith6287 wrote: »

I don't think we could have a straight pride parade, so with all things being free and equal, gay people shouldnt either

Theres nothing stopping you however unless you can cite:
1) Current or historical Instances where heterosexuality has been stigmatised, oppressed and discriminated against
2) Parts of the world where hetrosexuals live in fear of their lives

Then I doubt if you'll have too many people show up.

ssmith6287 wrote: »

Not really, I don't think i've ever attended a straight bar

Ive been to dozens although I prefer the atmosphere in gay ones TBH (and my missues agrees !)

LordNorbury · 12-05-2015 05:14PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

You say this like it's axiomatically a bad thing.

You're saying, "this referendum will remove the legal right to discriminate against gays" like this is a bad thing.

Please: explain how it's a bad thing.

But now that you mention it, here is exactly why I disagree with gay adults being allowed to raise children & this is exactly why I disagree that we should change our constitution to meet their crazy demands... A woman named Dil Wickremasinghe, a lesbian who is strongly campaigning for the yes side and is currently moderating an account called @ireland on Twitter, she is also a broadcaster, has tweeted these views within the hour:

Basically her view of having a child is that a child born with male genitalia is not assumed to be a boy, and the same holds true for a girl! This is before we get into the sexual persuasion of someone, this is automatically refusing to accept as a starting assumption, that a child born with a penis is a boy, and a child born with a vagina is a girl.

If this is what you want to expand our constitution to protect then fair play to but I'm not running with any more of this politically correct insanity.

BoJack Horseman · 12-05-2015 05:17PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

A woman named Dil Wickremasinghe, a lesbian who is strongly campaigning for the yes side and is currently moderating an account called @ireland on Twitter, she is also a broadcaster, has tweeted these views within the hour:
Bas

Solo....

No gender defining He-man or Barbie dolls in Newstalk Dil's house.

Might as well vote 'no' on her painting her kids room a gender neutral Magnolia'!

LordNorbury · 12-05-2015 05:18PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Solo....

No gender defining He-man or Barbie dolls in Newstalk Dil's house.

Might as well vote 'no' on her painting her kids room a gender neutral Magnolia'!

You are missing the point, this is a downright refusal to call a child born with a penis a boy and a child born with a vagina a girl. I wouldn't let someone with such clearly disturbed views look after a cat let alone rear a child.

fergus1001 · 12-05-2015 05:20PM

The militias in the yes camp are pissing me off I'm not voting

Tearing down posters and lambasting people who try to debate the point is not winning the yes side alot of support

That's not democracy.

TheChizler · 12-05-2015 05:22PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

But now that you mention it, here is exactly why I disagree with gay adults being allowed to raise children & this is exactly why I disagree that we should change our constitution to meet their crazy demands... A woman named Dil Wickremasinghe, a lesbian who is strongly campaigning for the yes side and is currently moderating an account called @ireland on Twitter, she is also a broadcaster, has tweeted these views within the hour:
Bas

So she won't encourage her child to play with certain toys/do certain activities that would be considered gender appropriate for the sake of them being gender appropriate. Is this unique to the gays? I wouldn't discourage any child I may have from doing something considered inappropriate for their gender, and I see this as increasingly common.

This woman (Dil) is actually getting a lot of nasty comments in general about her personal life. I'm not saying this against you or anybody in particular but I feel the fact that she's not Irish originally/white doesn't help in terms of people making her a target. Just for a moment think that this is a person with a life, family, and feelings.

Timberrrrrrrr · 12-05-2015 05:25PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

But now that you mention it, here is exactly why I disagree with gay adults being allowed to raise children & this is exactly why I disagree that we should change our constitution to meet their crazy demands... A woman named Dil Wickremasinghe, a lesbian who is strongly campaigning for the yes side and is currently moderating an account called @ireland on Twitter, she is also a broadcaster, has tweeted these views within the hour:

Basically her view of having a child is that a child born with male genitalia is not assumed to be a boy, and the same holds true for a girl! This is before we get into the sexual persuasion of someone, this is automatically refusing to accept as a starting assumption, that a child born with a penis is a boy, and a child born with a vagina is a girl.

If this is what you want to expand our constitution to protect then fair play to but I'm not running with any more of this politically correct insanity.

You seemed to miss this so i will ask again

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

OK

So if gay couples can adopt children now

what will change in relation to this if a no vote is successful?

what will change in relation to this if a yes vote is successful?

BoJack Horseman · 12-05-2015 05:27PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

You are missing the point, this is a downright refusal to call a child born with a penis a bit and a child born with a vagina a girl. I wouldn't let someone with such clearly disturbed views look after a cat let alone rear a child.

My Lord, its you that misses the point.

Treating a kid 'gender neutral' isnt about some grey androgynous dystopia....

Its about letting the child grow as they prefer.

If a girl wants to kick ball & play in the muck... Then fine.
If a little boy wants to play 'tea party' & mess with mommy's make up, then also fine!

You are using a misinterpretation as a bad straw man argument.

Weak sauce.

LordNorbury · 12-05-2015 05:28PM

TheChizler wrote: »

So she won't encourage her child to play with certain toys/do certain activities that would be considered gender appropriate for the sake of them being gender appropriate. Is this unique to the gays? I wouldn't discourage any child I may have from doing something considered inappropriate for their gender, and I see this as increasingly common.

This woman (Dil) is actually getting a lot of nasty comments in general about her personal life. I'm not saying this against you or anybody in particular but I feel the fact that she's not Irish originally/white doesn't help in terms of people making her a target. Just for a moment think that this is a person with a life, family, and feelings.

I couldn't give a fiddlers where she is from, it is irrelevant to me where she comes from. She is saying that to call a child born with male genitalia, a boy, or a girl born with female genitalia, a girl, she has stated that to do that, is to gender stereotype that child. She is one step away from saying that in fact we actually should remove the child's genitalia immediately after birth until it has had a chance to decide what gender is chooses to be!

This is what we are going to be opening up marriage to if we vote yes, this kind of crazy and insane politically correct bullshít that has no place in a civilised society.

MrWalsh · 12-05-2015 05:29PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

But now that you mention it, here is exactly why I disagree with gay adults being allowed to raise children & this is exactly why I disagree that we should change our constitution to meet their crazy demands... A woman named Dil Wickremasinghe, a lesbian who is strongly campaigning for the yes side and is currently moderating an account called @ireland on Twitter, she is also a broadcaster, has tweeted these views within the hour:

Basically her view of having a child is that a child born with male genitalia is not assumed to be a boy, and the same holds true for a girl! This is before we get into the sexual persuasion of someone, this is automatically refusing to accept as a starting assumption, that a child born with a penis is a boy, and a child born with a vagina is a girl.

If this is what you want to expand our constitution to protect then fair play to but I'm not running with any more of this politically correct insanity.

I think you misunderstand what gender stereotyping is.

What you say above is completely wrong. A complete misinterpretation.

Huntergonzo · 12-05-2015 05:32PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

I couldn't give a fiddlers where she is from, it is irrelevant to me where she comes from. She is saying that to call a child born with male genitalia, a boy, or a girl born with female genitalia, a girl, she has stated that to do that, is to gender stereotype that child. She is one step away from saying that in fact we actually should remove the child's genitalia immediately after birth until it has had a chance to decide what gender is chooses to be!

This is what we are going to be opening up marriage to if we vote yes, this kind of crazy and insane politically correct bullshít that has no place in a civilised society.

So basically you're voting No and denying an entire community the simple right to have their marriage recognized in our constitution just because you don't like one Yes campaigner called Dil Wickremasinghe?

Am I right or is there more substance to your argument?

I swindled the NSA · 12-05-2015 05:33PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

This is what we are going to be opening up marriage to if we vote yes, this kind of crazy and insane politically correct bullshít that has no place in a civilised society.

So what part of

Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex

deals with toys, adoption or any of the other off-topic horse$h1t that people keep insisting on dragging up ?

Bannasidhe · 12-05-2015 05:36PM

I swindled the NSA wrote: »

So what part of

deals with toys, adoption or any of the other off-topic horse$h1t that people keep insisting on dragging up ?

'sex'.

LordNorbury · 12-05-2015 05:36PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

I think you misunderstand what gender stereotyping is.

What you say above is completely wrong. A complete misinterpretation.

It is no misinterpretation at all, this is a million miles away from someone identifying as gay at some point in their lifetime, this is setting out as a starting assumption that the child born as a boy may well wish to become a girl and vice versa so there is subtle yet real refusal to accept that a child born with male genitalia is a boy and same for a girl. It is the stuff of Frankenstein. Maybe you are completely fine with denying a child's physical gender at birth so that you are not "discriminating" against that child, but it sounds completely unacceptable & nothing short of absolutely outrageous to me.

Timberrrrrrrr · 12-05-2015 05:37PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

It is no misinterpretation at all, this is a million miles away from someone identifying as gay at some point in their lifetime, this is setting out as a starting assumption that the child born as a boy may well wish to become a girl and vice versa so there is subtle yet real refusal to accept that a child born with male genitalia is a boy and same for a girl. It is the stuff of Frankenstein. Maybe you are completely fine with denying a child's physical gender at birth so that you are not "discriminating" against that child, but it sounds completely unacceptable & nothing short of absolutely outrageous to me.

Would you let your son play with a Barbie doll? Would you allow your son to play with his Mothers make up?

LordNorbury · 12-05-2015 05:38PM

Huntergonzo wrote: »

So basically you're voting No and denying an entire community the simple right to have their marriage recognized in our constitution just because you don't like one Yes campaigner called Dil Wickremasinghe?

Am I right or is there more substance to your argument?

Go back & read the whole thread, I've set out very comprehensively why I will be voting no & very little of it has to do with Dil Wickremasinghe.

Huntergonzo · 12-05-2015 05:41PM

LordNorbury wrote: »

Go back & read the whole thread, I've set out very comprehensively why I will be voting no & very little of it has to do with Dil Wickremasinghe.

Listen I don't have time to read the whole thread in all honesty, just give me the short version, bullet points will do if you want, I'm just curious as to why people are voting No, if you don't have time that's fair enough.

SSM why are you voting no?

Comments