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

LordSutch wrote: »

The institution of Marriage is for couples who can attempt to procreate by themselves. (Non hetrosexual couples cannot do this) hence the word 'marriage' does not currently apply.

Other than in the religious sense, there is no such thing as the institution of Marriage for couples who can attempt to procreate. Legally... Marriage supports the family. Family is man + woman with or without children.

Whats wrong with the term "Civil partnership" for gay & lesbian couples? I presume its as good as marriage? But if not, then it should be urgently amended so that to all intents and purposes Civil Partnership is marriage, but by a different name, Why? (see the 1st sentence again).

So after all that you would still be happy to oppress gay couples. Sit down at the back Rosa, sure aren't you lucky you were let on the bus at all?

Woodville56 wrote: »

Or perhaps they're not weighed down with a massive oppressive chip on their shoulder ?

All that the gay community are asking for is to be included in marriage, and look at the massive uproar it causes!

Sure, things are better than they were. But there is a way to go yet, and the gay rights movement is still very young. Homosexuality has only been decriminalized quite recently, for fecks sake!

If you are part of a privileged majority then you tend not to notice the obstacles life places in the path of non-members of that group. They may be small to you, and different people may consider them bigger or smaller handicaps, but it is very short-sighted to pretend they do not exist just because they do not seem to bother you or don't seem to bother your extensive circle of gay friends.

In a country where 95% of publicly funded schools are legally entitled to sack you for being gay,all they ask is to be included in the institute of marriage. And just look at the flurry of activity to keep even that from happening! Look how offended people are, how scared that gay people may even want to be treated equally in other areas too! 90% of the no-side narrative is not about the effects of gay marriage itself - it is about what would happen if we actually started treating gay people equally. They are all slippery slope arguments. They try to warn us: if we let gay people have this, they will want other things later!

That alone shows us that there is some ground yet to cover. And I think this is a good place to start.

LordSutch wrote: »

Marriage is between a man and a woman who then have the option of creating new life . . .

Yes many married couples can't have babies for lots of reasons, and yes of course many couples create babies without being married, none of this is news! But what is news is that people may very well vote for two men to marry each other, or for two women to marry each other, even though they would be incapable of making babies (without external help), ie adoption. Therefore the word "Marriage" would not be the applicable term for such unions.

The institution of Marriage is for couples who can attempt to procreate by themselves. (Non hetrosexual couples cannot do this) hence the word 'marriage' does not currently apply.

Whats wrong with the term "Civil partnership" for gay & lesbian couples? I presume its as good as marriage? But if not, then it should be urgently amended so that to all intents and purposes Civil Partnership is marriage, but by a different name, Why? (see the 1st sentence again).

You're description of marriage is exactly what I was taught in school. Catholic school that is. The point of marriage is procreation. We asked what about infertile couples and our answer was that "God can change that".

If there's no difference between the words marriage and Civil partnership then why not swap them. Let gay people marry and straight people be in partnerships. Could you imagine the outrage.

by the way, what you're describing is sometimes called separate but equal. It was the reasoning behind the jim crow laws.

There's a M/phone recording on facebook of a yellow-jacketed gent in Greystones yesterday taliking to some teen schoolkids about their Yes badges and telling them that same sex marriage is bad, then asking them if they thought it was OK, quote; for one man to stick his cock up another man's bottom:unquote...

Folks remember. No selfies are allowed in the polling station on pain of the vote being spoiled. I appeal especially to younger voters to pay heed. Also you are not allowed bring yes badges or T-shirts in with you.

Cold War Kid wrote: »

However the "Know your place" stuff towards gay people on foot of this campaign is very unsettling. You've got your well meaning "no" voters who don't hate gay people but just have a very set notion as to what marriage is, especially older generations. They aren't necessarily homophobic in fairness and I think it's better to try and reason with them rather than shout them down.

I was having lunch in a small cafe yesterday (pretending to do work on my laptop but actually posting here ) and an elderly man & woman were chatting at the table beside mine. I wasn't listening to them, but occasionally overheard some of what they said and ignored it. I did hear her say she could not find a pen so I leaned over and offered her mine. I continued to "work" and they chatted. Then they lowered their voices and began to chat about the referendum. The conversation was mostly too low for me to hear (and I wasn't trying). From time to time other tables would go quiet (eating) and the pair could be heard:

- "I think it's too soon"

- "I have no problem with them at all, I think they should be allowed have relationships, and. . . "

- "Yes, of course"

- "But I won't be voting for it, it's just too soon"

- "No, too soon"

Now I don't know the full conversation, maybe they had moved on to talk about something else, maybe the fact that I was reading stuff from here at the time coloured my view. Maybe I've just become too quick to spot intolerance, or to think I'm hearing intolerance. But I was disappointed to hear this from people who considered themselves moderates. It reminded me of those people on the news in the USA at the time of the Obama election, saying things like "I think we've moved on from our past and we are an open and tolerant society now, but it's just too soon for a black president".

But as I say, maybe I just did not overhear it correctly.

pmasterson95 wrote: »

But that side have never minded a bit of manipulation, propaganda and "woe me" victim playing. They yes have definitely fought dirtier than the no side in their quest for justice.

I'm posting from a bus that's travelling along the Cabra Road right now. Every 100 metres or so, there's a Vote No poster with with biblical verses on them saying homosexuality is against God.

Oh, and to top it off, there was Kermit's bigotry last night.

Woodville56 wrote: »

I'm not convinced that there's as widespread hatred, persecution and intolerance of gay people as portrayed in some postings and the broader media.

You can't deny that there is widespread, institutionalized discrimination.

For example, can you believe in this day and age that a gay couple cannot get married in a registry office? It's true, look it up!

Woodville56 wrote: »

I dunno what world you inhabit but I've yet to hear any gay people I know ( quite a few actually, believe it or not ) speak of being hated or persecuted or harassed. Most are successful in their careers and social life, have no religious persecution complexes either and are totally accepted in their communities. Perhaps playing the victim/martyr card on this occasion works though.

My first Dublin Pride, location City Hall; woman running up alongside parade shouting at us that we all should be shot dead, we should be killed was an eye-opener for me. Only then did I truly understand that there are real haters out there.

LordSutch wrote: »

Whats wrong with the term "Civil partnership" for gay & lesbian couples? I presume its as good as marriage? But if not, then it should be urgently amended so that to all intents and purposes Civil Partnership is marriage, but by a different name, Why? (see the 1st sentence again).

First of all you presume wrong. You could try and inform yourself of things before you start waffling on about them. It's not that hard you know.

Secondly, you've no problem giving same sex couples every right that goes along with marriage, you just want to call it marriage? What the hell does it matter if it's called marriage so? It's just a word. If it is the same thing in everything but name, why not just call it the same thing? And for the record the first sentence of that post is not a reason for not calling it marriage.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Folks remember. No selfies are allowed in the polling station on pain of the vote being spoiled. I appeal especially to younger voters to pay heed. Also you are not allowed bring yes badges or T-shirts in with you.

Probably best to not bother with the arseless chapps as well just for the day.

White Ecco shoes are fine for the "ladies" though.

Time to lighten the mood, I think?

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'm posting from a bus that's travelling along the Cabra Road right now. Every 100 metres or so, there's a Vote No poster with with biblical verses on them saying homosexuality is against God.

Oh, and to top it off, there was Kermit's bigotry last night.

To counter this I noticed multiple houses with Yes posters and stickers etc up in the windows this morning. I didn't see one with any No posters.

I did get a pamphlet in the door from the Blanchardstown Baptist Church though last night which warned me that we will suffer the same fate as Sodom if we vote Yes. So fire and brimstone will destroy this country on Saturday if we vote Yes? Crikey!

Also there will be loads of synthetic children running around too.

Seriously, you just have to laugh at this stuff now. It's hilarious.

I'm not registered, gutted, so thats one less Yes vote. Going to find out if my brother is voting which he more than likely is not because he is too lazy, and give him a lift to the polling station.