Same Sex Marriage Referendum Mega Thread - MOD WARNING IN FIRST POST

Tenz · 14-05-2015 05:10PM

aloyisious wrote: »

Yes I would campaign. Because the Govt's can change what's in legislation, and courts can rule that what any Govt has brought in as uncostitutional. Nothing brought in as legislation is secure, making anything it mean's or intends secure for any citizen.

You know that's a very very good point.

Is it simply unconstitutional to make civil partnership equal to marriage, legislatively?

aloyisious · 14-05-2015 05:11PM

Tenz wrote: »

True.

But the whole referendum has given Iona etc a platform. And now many people who would otherwise have supported the notion of equality, are questioning it.

Regretfully, the referendum didn't give birth to the Iona Institute, it was born long before.

MrWalsh · 14-05-2015 05:12PM

Tenz wrote: »

You know, you would do the yes side far more favours, by at least trying to understand the opposing side, instead of just slinging 'homophone' at them. You are in danger of coming across as far more intolerant than many of the no voters I've spoken to.

I do understand the opposing side, they want to continue with legalised discrimination based on sexuality.

What other reason is there if not homophobic?

I have yet to see a reason from the no side that is not rooted in homophobia, although I remain open minded that there is one!

Theres been a lot of deflection and a pretence of concern really being concern about children etc... but even after solid refutation of these arguments most no posters around here are still trotting out the same old untruths.

aloyisious · 14-05-2015 05:18PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Adoption Rights Alliance has issued a strongly worded call for a Yes vote.

http://www.adoptionrightsalliance.com/ARA%20Marriage%20Equality%20PR_14-05-15.htm

Have to take a break now, the reading of so many Why's, thought that read VETO.

Vivisectus · 14-05-2015 05:18PM

I'm not interested in change of marriage I'm interested in keeping it as is for future generations to know what is natural for our species to procreate.

Oh deary dear. How exactly would gay marriage keep people from procreating? It will just allow gay people to marry. Also, homosexuality is quite natural, and has always been around. Marriage equality does not mean there will be more of it, or less.

It is almost like you believe it is only a law forbidding gay people from marrying which keeps marriage going. If that is the case, what a frail and unnatural institution it must be! What are we even doing with such a hothouse flower of an institution, and how can something that requires laws to keep it going ever be natural?

I don't want to dilute the terms of marriage.

That is an unpleasant thing to say - so if you let gay people into an institution like marriage, you dilute it? You make it less?

It's important to know that if you vote to allow gay marriage where do you stop.

Do tell me what you are afraid might happen if we allow gay marriage - what will those pesky gays be asking for next? Or is it other people you are worried about?

Tenz · 14-05-2015 05:22PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

I do understand the opposing side, they want to continue with legalised discrimination based on sexuality.

What other reason is there if not homophobic?

I have yet to see a reason from the no side that is not rooted in homophobia, although I remain open minded that there is one!

Theres been a lot of deflection and a pretence of concern really being concern about children etc... but even after solid refutation of these arguments most no posters around here are still trotting out the same old untruths.

I'm glad you can box people off so easily into a) homophobic or b) not homophobic.
Of course there are many shades of grey when it comes to sexuality, but none at all when it comes to opinions.

MrWalsh · 14-05-2015 05:23PM

Tenz wrote: »

I'm glad you can box people off so easily into a) homophobic or b) not homophobic.
Of course there are many shades of grey when it comes to sexuality, but none at all when it comes to opinions.

Do you know a valid reason to vote no that is not homophobic?

floggg · 14-05-2015 05:24PM

Tenz wrote: »

No. They didn't have an opinion. They never gave it any thought I expect. Then the referendum came along, and iona , and .....

And?

What exactly are we meant to do about it? Not ask the question?

StewartGriffin · 14-05-2015 05:33PM

aloyisious wrote: »

Why do i get the scent of a cleverly laid trap to ensnare and accuse some-one of abuse here?

About as cleverly laid as taking out a large shovel, digging a hole in front of everyone, laying a paper-bag over the top and putting up a sign saying: TRAP HERE!!

Bannasidhe · 14-05-2015 05:37PM

Tenz wrote: »

Because people, especially old people, feel they should vote. Some had family members who fought in the war of independence, almost all had neighbours who did.

You are assuming all old people are going to vote no... better tell my lot that as we have a 97 yr old (great grand uncle), a 95 yr old (great grand aunt), an 83 yr old (me dad), an 80 yr old (me mam), plus 78 and 76 year olds (the aunties) who are all firmly in the Yes Camp. They are all also pro-choice btw. Yes - liberal old folk...in Ireland...imagine that!

War of Independence - what the hell does that have to do with it??

That 97 year old - his brother was a member of the West Cork Flying Squad and was jailed - I remember him actually - lovely man, believed all citizens were equal.

The 95 year old was too young to fight in the WofI so he fought Nazis instead. He believesall citizens of a free republic should be equal too.

aloyisious · 14-05-2015 05:41PM

Tenz wrote: »

You know that's a very very good point.

Is it simply unconstitutional to make civil partnership equal to marriage, legislatively?

It would not be unconstitutional to do that. However as that would be through legislation, what I wrote applies. it can be changed by the same Gov't or the next Govt, or by way of the courts ruling all (or part) of it as unconstitutional. It'd be argued first through the Oireachtas by Iona lobbyists and the various religions here who have their own versions of marriage. I can't see LGBT people (in general) going along that line because they know that. I certainly wouldn't accept an upgrade which could be altered or struck off the law books at the political necessity of any Gov't to survive in office.

Tenz · 14-05-2015 05:43PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You are assuming all old people are going to vote no... better tell my lot that as we have a 97 yr old (great grand uncle), a 95 yr old (great grand aunt), an 83 ye old (me dad), an 80 yr old (me mam), plus 78 and 76 year olds (the aunties) who are all firmly in the Yes Camp. They are all also pro-choice btw. Yes - liberal old folk...in Ireland...imagine that!

War of Independence - what the hell does that have to do with it??

That 97 year old - his brother was a member of the West Cork Flying Squad and was jailed - I remember him actually - lovely man, believed all citizens were equal.

The 95 year old was too young to fight in the WofI so he fought Nazis instead. He believed all citizens of a free republic should be equal too.

You should read the thread before pillorying me.
I was asked how people who up until now had no opinion on SSM had sudden,my been forced into having one.
I said, because they feel they must vote.
And yes, I know liberal old people too. Nothing special about your lot, except perhaps their longevity. Good for them!
I also know people though, old and young, who never previously had an opinion on SSM and now feeling they must choose a side, have chosen no. Most of them are from the older generation.

floggg · 14-05-2015 05:43PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Do you know a valid reason to vote no that is not homophobic?

I canr think of a valid reason to vote no.

But I know people are likely to vote no because of confusion and ignorance (no thanks to Iona and MFM).

Others through ignorance and stupidity.

Dogmatic beliefs and intolerance of change. The tradition for traditions sake brigade.

While not all strictly homophobic, none of those who hold them.

I do think the no side gave been rather clever in how they have made the H word taboo, and painted themselves as it's victims.

We are now unable to call out homophobia even when it's presence is clear. Take for example the view that a child is better of with a mother and father than a same sex couple.

While the No side claim it is simply an expression of the view that being raised by a mother and father (even if non-biological) is preferable to bring raised by same sex couples, it carries the clear inference that same sex parents are lesser.

Given that all the evidence we suggests that there is no difference between same and opposite sex parents, that belief in the inferiority of same sex parents is unfounded and without basis - and is a form of prejudice.

But thanks to the clever spin by the No side, we can't call it for what it is.

drunkmonkey · 14-05-2015 05:44PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Do you know a valid reason to vote no that is not homophobic?

Believing marriage is between a man and a woman is not homophobic.

BMMachine · 14-05-2015 05:46PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Believing marriage is between a man and a woman is not homophobic.

why does marriage have to be between a man and a woman?

aloyisious · 14-05-2015 05:47PM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

About as cleverly laid as taking out a large shovel, digging a hole in front of everyone, laying a paper-bag over the top and putting up a sign saying: TRAP HERE!!

Sometimes the thing hidden in plain sight is the thing not seen. Hoping I'm not suffering a failure in sight here,

WoolyJumper · 14-05-2015 05:49PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Believing marriage is between a man and a woman is not homophobic.

maybe not but activity going out of your way to stop others getting married who for them marriage is between two men or two women is questionable.

jobbridge4life · 14-05-2015 05:53PM

Tenz wrote: »

Probably been asked on here already, but would really appreciate someone answering this.

If all the legislative differences between civil partnership and marriage were ammended (i.e. making 'marriage' and 'civil partnership' different only in their gender makeup, but equal in all other respects), would you still campaign for another referendum to introduce SSM. If yes, why?

Better question if civil partnership and marriage were really the exact same in every way would you(or anyone) really be so caught up about sharing the word?

osarusan · 14-05-2015 05:53PM

Tenz wrote: »

I also know people though, old and young, who never previously had an opinion on SSM and now feeling they must choose a side, have chosen no. Most of them are from the older generation.

The notion that they did so as a result of the negative actions of the Yes campaign is very very unlikely.

Anyway, as a declared Yes voter, I'm sure you will by trying to change their minds.

Bannasidhe · 14-05-2015 05:56PM

Tenz wrote: »

You should read the thread before pillorying me.
I was asked how people who up until now had no opinion on SSM had sudden,my been forced into having one.
I said, because they feel they must vote.
And yes, I know liberal old people too. Nothing special about your lot, except perhaps their longevity. Good for them!
I also know people though, old and young, who never previously had an opinion on SSM and now feeling they must choose a side, have chosen no. Most of them are from the older generation.

No matter when the Referendum happens people will have to choose - same as every referendum - if we wait 10 years, people would still have to choose and there will still be old people. Same as every other referendum - people had to make a choice about divorce. People had to make a choice about Children/Lisbon/X Case. That is what referendums are about and I am sure the elderly are well used to the concept given how many referendums we have in this country so I'm not sure what point you think you are making.

It is a simple choice being made complicated by the tactics of the No campaign.

Do all citizens have the right to enter a contract of marriage and gain Constitutional protection as a family or not.

jobbridge4life · 14-05-2015 05:58PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Believing marriage is between a man and a woman is not homophobic.

Using the power of the State to enforce your belief at the expense and against the beliefs of others however is definitely something though isn't it. What would you call it? And then what would you call it when the only reason for doing so was sexual orientation?

Tenz · 14-05-2015 06:01PM

osarusan wrote: »

The notion that they did so as a result of the negative actions of the Yes campaign is very very unlikely.

Anyway, as a declared Yes voter, I'm sure you will by trying to change their minds.

Not because of the yes campaign. They've been forced to have an opinion because there is a referendum, full stop.

Was hoping I'd find something on here to help change their mind.

Would it be unconstitutional to make civil partnership equivalent to marriage, legislativel? If that is the case, its a fine argument.

frostyjacks · 14-05-2015 06:03PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Of course I'd pick the loving couple. I'm not a monster, although I sometimes work for monsters.

Nobody got the film reference? Damn. It was Jeremy Irons ripping New York City a big one in Die Hard With a Vengeance. The second best film in the quadrilogy (I don't count Die Hard 5; an abomination of a movie)

Merry Prankster · 14-05-2015 06:03PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Believing marriage is between a man and a woman is not homophobic.

Until you explain why you believe this, it cannot be accepted as a valid reason.

osarusan · 14-05-2015 06:09PM

Tenz wrote: »

They've been forced to have an opinion because there is a referendum, full stop.

Was hoping I'd find something on here to help change their mind.

What are the reasons that made them choose the No side?

Haven't you found anything here that would address those reasons?

Tenz · 14-05-2015 06:13PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No matter when the Referendum happens people will have to choose - same as every referendum - if we wait 10 years, people would still have to choose and there will still be old people. Same as every other referendum - people had to make a choice about divorce. People had to make a choice about Children/Lisbon/X Case. That is what referendums are about and I am sure the elderly are well used to the concept given how many referendums we have in this country so I'm not sure what point you think you are making.

It is a simple choice being made complicated by the tactics of the No campaign.

Do all citizens have the right to enter a contract of marriage and gain Constitutional protection as a family or not.

Jesus. This entire thread is like a room full of elderly deaf people shouting at each other.

No one has a clue what anyone else has said, but we're all carrying on the conversation anyway.

Make that angry old deaf people.

I'm done.

ixoy · 14-05-2015 06:14PM

Tenz wrote: »

Would it be unconstitutional to make civil partnership equivalent to marriage, legislativel? If that is the case, its a fine argument.

I believe so as the constitution protects the institution of marriage. If something was made equal then our good pals could argue against it.

There's the other point: If it's not constitutional it can be reversed without the will of the people. That can't happen with marriage.

Bannasidhe · 14-05-2015 06:16PM

Tenz wrote: »

Jesus. This entire thread is like a room full of elderly deaf people shouting at each other.

No one has a clue what anyone else has said, but we're all carrying on the conversation anyway.

Make that angry old deaf people.

I'm done.

Speak up there young 'un.

I'm old and deaf.

:pac:

Dravokivich · 14-05-2015 06:17PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

Nobody got the film reference? Damn. It was Jeremy Irons ripping New York City a big one in Die Hard With a Vengeance. The second best film in the quadrilogy (I don't count Die Hard 5; an abomination of a movie)

Die hard 4 is the one everyone else tends to forget about.

K4t · 14-05-2015 06:23PM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Believing marriage is between a man and a woman is not homophobic.

Maybe not. But actively voting No in a referendum to allow marriage between same sex couples suggests homophobia.

Same Sex Marriage Referendum Mega Thread - MOD WARNING IN FIRST POST

Comments