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

RollieFingers wrote: »

I never said I agreed with the attitudes of the No side either, the carry on of both sides has badly let them down in my opinion, thus I'll be abstaining!

That's your right of course.

But abstaining is sending the message that you don't care about inequality or discrimination.

Personally I find it odd that you appear more animated by angry reactions by people regarding a popular votes on the rights of a minorty (which is understandable given the lives and relationships of the minority are now subject to public debate) than you are by the inequality being suffered by that minority.

Perhaps you were never really that bothered by the inequality in the first place - in which case it is your general disinterest rather than any particular behaviour by either side that is making you abstain.

It's the only way i can make sense of your position.

ixoy wrote: »

Because that's their marriage: between a man and a woman. If my marriage, as a man, is to another man then it doesn't impact on their marriage. What they seek is to impose their form of a marriage on to me whereas I don't expect my preferred form of a marriage (a same-sex marriage) to be pushed on to them.

"they" are not pushing or imposing anything on to you, by having an opinion.

would you also be offended or feel put out by the no voters in the last referendum of this kind (divorce) or those who maybe voting no against abortion for example?

homerjay2005 wrote: »

but why would ask them again, if they have already told you their answer which in this case for example is as you said, that marriage should be between a man and a woman? people should not have to explain in anymore detail and certainly to somebody who wont accept the answer they give.

if you keep pushing somebody and dont accept their answer, of course they are going to get angry. likewise, i am sure you are doing it (pushing them to explain their beliefs) because you are angry.

there is nothing bigoted about that by the way, its just that they dont happen to agree with you. and it certainly isnt homophoic either.

"Because it's should be" isn't a reason for anything. If you can't answer why it should be, you haven't offered any reasoning for your position.

And if you wish to maintain inequality without offering a reason why it should remain so, then your position is an arbitrary and unjustified form of discrimination.

I don't say that to call people names or insult them - it's just that if you can't offer any compelling reason other than "it's what I believe" for denying certain groups rights it is discrimination.

And nobody has to give any reason for how they will vote. But it is how debate and discourse works - people offer reasons for their position and others offer reasons why that position should change.

homerjay2005 wrote: »

but why would ask them again, if they have already told you their answer which in this case for example is as you said, that marriage should be between a man and a woman? people should not have to explain in anymore detail and certainly to somebody who wont accept the answer they give.

if you keep pushing somebody and dont accept their answer, of course they are going to get angry. likewise, i am sure you are doing it (pushing them to explain their beliefs) because you are angry.

there is nothing bigoted about that by the way, its just that they dont happen to agree with you. and it certainly isnt homophoic either.

If someone is voting no then it's pretty self evident that it is because they want marriage to remain between a man and a woman. So simply stating that isn't actually explaining anything at all. I don't get angry in those situations. There really is no point. I genuinely want to understand why someone would vote No because I am (possibly naively) hopeful that I can be given something that, while I may not agree with, makes sense.

This is generally how the conversation goes:

Joe Bloggs: I'm voting no.

Me: Do you mind me asking why?

JB: Because I think marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Me: And can I ask why that is?

JB: What do you mean?

Me: Well I'm just wondering why you feel marriage should be limited to opposite genders.

JB: Because that's what marriage should be.

Me: But why should it be like that?

JB: Because that's what marriage is.

Me: So you don't think it should change?

JB: Exactly.

Me: But what would be wrong about it changing.

JB: Ah you're getting ridiculous now. Sure don't they have civil partnership?

Me: But that's not the same thing is it?

JB: Ah look you're just trying to paint me as a homophobe here

Me: Honesty I'm not. I'm just asking you a question.

JB: Yeah well you can just f*** off.



Now if someone said they'd rather not talk about it then fair enough I'll leave it there, but can you not see how ridiculous the above conversation is? At no time have they actually explained anything. Instead when asked to expand on why they believe something they cannot answer and then make all sorts of claims about what I'm trying to do.

The simple truth is I'm just trying to understand. At no time am I trying to tell them they are wrong or tell them how they should vote. That's not up to me to do. But I have yet to hear a coherent, logical and relevant argument as to why someone would vote No. I'm not crying bigotry for the sake of it. I'm left with no other conclusion to come to. And I don't think it's overt and conscious bigotry. I think it's an accepted viewpoint that hasn't been challenged until now and so hasn't been addressed. Now that it is being challenged it is coming to the surface and people have to face it. I don't believe that the majority of these people are bad people who are raging, bible bashing homophobes. I just think they haven't faced this reality before and so haven't unlearned their behaviour. Which is completely normal and human. But now that the viewpoint is being challenged I think we each have a responsibility to think it through properly. And I honestly believe that if most do that they'll reach the same conclusion. And that is that voting Yes is the "right" thing to do.

Mother and fathers are resorting to two year old articles now to scare people and rule up their base.

Depressing that a 5 second Google shows how out of date it is

Debate on Newstalk for the last while. Waters is threatening to combust each times he speaks. I'm not even sure what he's trying to say, such are his ascending levels of indignation.

kylith wrote: »

Traditionally a man was deemed incapable of raping his wife. She was his chattel, as you say, so could not legally refuse to have sex with him.

This was seen (after too long imo), as unfair and unjust and, despite it meaning that traditional marriage would be redefined (much more so than the current referendum proposes) the law was changed to make marital rape an offence. Despite marriage having traditionally meant that a man could force sex on his wife it was changed. Therefore that something 'traditional' may be changed is no reason not to go changing things.

Not only that, but it's not even traditional that marriage has only been between a man and a woman. In fact the Christian church had a special sacrament for joining two men together.

You say the Christian church had a "special" sacrament for joining two men together. So the difference in same sex relationships was acknowledged. The sacrament was not the same as for a man and woman.

gstack166 wrote: »

What I mean is, I presume these would be catholic weddings? Or am I wrong? Why try seek entry into something that doesn't want you & doesnt recognise you?

Yes, you are wrong.

They're civil marriages.

Catholic marriages are not what are being debated here.

RobertKK wrote: »

Always believed marriage is between and a man and a woman irrespective of whether religious or civil. Long before anyone talked about same sex marriage.
People will vote for what they believe to be, not what they are told to believe it to be.
You often hear 'get married, have a family...', so when people want children not talked about and how these children are conceived, they are missing what many perceive marriage to be a route to.
I looked at countries where they brought in same sex marriage without letting the people vote, there were massive protests and it was arguments about the family that was the centre of the protests.

Family was always going to be an issue when it says this in the constitution: The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

The snag with what is said in the constitution about the family above is that it does NOT define what the family is. One must be meant to assume, with the mention of "Social Order" and "Welfare of the Nation and the State" that the family must be what our court's read it to mean, a Man and a Woman, and it was expected of that family that it would provide children to provide and be part of the Social Order necessary for the Welfare of the Nation and State in the traditional manner, via the marital bed.

Re the part about "get married, have a family...... and how children are conceived, that is a perfect example of what I wrote above, It was the way things happened, things were done and expected to be done, what marriage was about. BUT, again it was and still is, not specified in the constitution, it's only what it read's as, marriage equates with family.

Because it was probably not thought credible back in '37 that human donor births were possible or the concept of same sex couples being married an unthinkable idea, no one thought of putting a specific gender mix (man and woman) into the constitution as the family. No one probably thought that infertile heterosexual married couples could be given, via AHR or surrogacy, a child of their own.

Re the part where there were protests when SSM was brought in without a vote, I'm glad that we are a democratic, even adult enough, society to allow us vote on the issue. We are 78 years on from when our constitution was written and have reached a maturity where the previously unthinkable has arrived on the doorstep.

On Friday next, we have the opportunity to bring our constitution up to scratch with the present day to day life of thousands of our fellow citizens in a way that will not detract from other citizens existing rights in any way.
It's up to us on Friday whether we open the door and let SSM in or slam the door on it and our fellow homosexual citizens looking for the same access to Civil Marriage on the same basis that heterosexual couples have here, the free and unfettered choice of the partner they wish to marry, not just the one presumed to be written into the family in section 41.