Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

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

1228229231233234327

Comments

  • Posts: 7,344 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Honestly i'm tired. Physically I'm tired and emotionally drained from this referendum. I am also really sick of talking about being gay.

    I share your fatigue - and I am not even gay. But I have seen as much good and heartening as I have horrific and hateful. So I hope at the end it is a nice balance in my mind.

    The story about the Yes Bus Driver was nice. As were most of the stories I heard directly from people I know personally who worked on the bus - and indirectly through people I know of who met the bus. That group seems to have left good feeling every where it went and were wonderful ambassadors.

    Another friend of a friend has a story that examples many I have experienced directly and indirectly in the last weeks. He - a gay guy himself but living here as an Inpat from England - went over to check on his 85+ old neighbour as he usually does when he sees her out and about - especially as it was particularly rainy that morning. She informed him she was "off for a little pray" and then patting his hand said simply "by the way, I'm going to be voting Yes."

    A group of people came over to the house unannounced and very apologetic this week too. Since we are known to some in the area as having an odd relationship (mff) a couple of "yes" people thought to bring a small group of "no" people down to talk. They apologetically asked "Sorry to walk in unannounced but we were just hoping for an oul talk about things...." and I invited them in for tea and biccies and what turned out to be a long talk culminating in wine and cheese and crackers.

    And during it all the "no" people politely and enthusiastically raised their concerns and ideas - and we addressed them. It was a peaceful meeting of minds - and I was even able to bring up posts on boards.ie on my projector where concerns similar to theirs were raised - and we read through some of the "yes" responses. So you guys were great! Genuinely think we converted some - even most - maybe even all of them to "yes" voters by the time they left. And they had _loads_ of questions about our children and future children and how we viewed parenting in setups like our own - gay families - single parents - and more. They were really taken with our daugther and it was wonderful to show them a healthy - happy - engaging - intelligent 4 year old prospering wonderfully in a house with an alternative parenting configuration.

    We sat in a few public places with a couple of yes flags and tshirts over the time too. Keeping to ourselves but visible. And we had people come up - sit down - and ask us questions like we were - which was our intention really - an informal table/booth on the street canvassing. The kind of people who would not walk up to a real booth or table on the street - felt better approaching an informal group like ours. And our experiences there - especially with the "no" people - was very positive and I think we influenced people.

    But then there is the bad side. The Hateful letter sent to Una Mullally only the tip of the things I have read being sent to people - and even had a couple of (as always massively badly hand written with grammar errors galore) letters shoved into my door. The feeling that old hatreds and intolerances to any out of the ordinary PDAs has flared up again a little (my girlfriends have not had the worst of it but some audible tutting and name calling popping out of random passer bys - and one person who even literally hissed at them). And last weekend there were literally violently physically accosted on a dark public street.

    And as you say "The fact that my life has been debated for weeks on every media outlet in Ireland." is tiring even though we are affected by it less than you. It is still simply - draining is the word - to have the entire society you live in debate whether you are evil immoral or dangerous - whether you can be a good parent at all to the children you genuinely love - or whether you only have children as fashion accessories that you are abusing emotionally - mentally - and in the minds of some even physically - merely to tout your lifestyle to the world.

    As I say - the relationship we are in does not mean we are living in the world you are during this referendum - but we have one foot in each world in a way - and I can feel the drain and the fatigue. And it gives me at least enough perspective to get into the mind space you must be in.

    But chin up and hopes high. All my friends coming over with drinks and foods and fun stuff tomorrow. We go to vote en masse together - then we return to make a day party of it and celebrate come what may. Let us welcome our gay twin Jedward married presidential over lords :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭keeponhurling


    I think a No majority vote would put paid to any notion of it being a modern and tolerant country.

    <insert facepalm GIF here>


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,168 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Well,

    1. Why does (civil) marriage exist at all? The government leaves all the other sacrements for the various religious faiths to adminster, why take an interest in this one and keep a civil record?
    2. Does the government treat married and unmarried people differently?
    3. Why do you think it just so happens to be only allowed between 2 adults, one male and one female?

    For me, I'm torn between whether it is best to leave it as is, and accept that a married man+woman pairing is (generally speaking) better for producing/raising children, (thus government provides some financial benefits and tax-breaks for married couples),

    or,

    Get rid of civil marriage altogether, and leave it to the religions.
    Accept that it doesn't matter whether kids are raised in a hetro, homo, married, unmarried, single-parent, adoptive parent etc. background, as there are good and bad parents everywhere.
    If a child is not getting a proper upbring under any family structure, then it's an issue for social services, but we go for complete equality and no discrimination in any way.
    Essentially, the complete equality option.

    The proposed amendment doesn't seem like the answer to me.

    Aw now, we don't want religious war here, priests having fist-fights in the street over rights to marry people, that'd be too much to stomach.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    The government leaves all the other sacrements for the various religious faiths to adminster, why take an interest in this one and keep a civil record?

    It's unfortunate that the religious sacrament of marriage has the same name as the civil status. They are unrelated in most respects though.

    The purpose of religious marriage is whatever your church defines that to be. That's fine, nobody is proposing to change that. The state does not have any involvement in sacraments.

    The purpose of civil marriage is solely to register a union of two people (currently limited to one man and one woman) for the purposes of managing property & inheritance rights, pension rights, agency rights (the power to speak on your partner's behalf), guardianship, tax relief, etc. The value to the state is that having stable families (which is defined by the state as a married couple, including any children if they have them) is that it establishes mechanisms of care which reduce the burden on the state / taxpayer.

    It is only the latter non-sacramental marriage which is the subject of the referendum.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 4,680 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hyzepher


    Well,

    1. Why does (civil) marriage exist at all? The government leaves all the other sacrements for the various religious faiths to adminster, why take an interest in this one and keep a civil record?
    2. Does the government treat married and unmarried people differently?
    3. Why do you think it just so happens to be only allowed between 2 adults, one male and one female?

    For me, I'm torn between whether it is best to leave it as is, and accept that a married man+woman pairing is (generally speaking) better for producing/raising children, (thus government provides some financial benefits and tax-breaks for married couples),

    or,

    Get rid of civil marriage altogether, and leave it to the religions.
    Accept that it doesn't matter whether kids are raised in a hetro, homo, married, unmarried, single-parent, adoptive parent etc. background, as there are good and bad parents everywhere.
    If a child is not getting a proper upbring under any family structure, then it's an issue for social services, but we go for complete equality and no discrimination in any way.
    Essentially, the complete equality option.

    The proposed amendment doesn't seem like the answer to me.

    Is this supposed to be a serious post?

    If it is then I fear the referendum is set for a No result purely on the stupidity of the electorate


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 518 ✭✭✭FluffyAngel


    I share your fatigue - and I am not even gay. But I have seen as much good and heartening as I have horrific and hateful. So I hope at the end it is a nice balance in my mind.

    The story about the Yes Bus Driver was nice. As were most of the stories I heard directly from people I know personally who worked on the bus - and indirectly through people I know of who met the bus. That group seems to have left good feeling every where it went and were wonderful ambassadors.

    Another friend of a friend has a story that examples many I have experienced directly and indirectly in the last weeks. He - a gay guy himself but living here as an Inpat from England - went over to check on his 85+ old neighbour as he usually does when he sees her out and about - especially as it was particularly rainy that morning. She informed him she was "off for a little pray" and then patting his hand said simply "by the way, I'm going to be voting Yes."

    A group of people came over to the house unannounced and very apologetic this week too. Since we are known to some in the area as having an odd relationship (mff) a couple of "yes" people thought to bring a small group of "no" people down to talk. They apologetically asked "Sorry to walk in unannounced but we were just hoping for an oul talk about things...." and I invited them in for tea and biccies and what turned out to be a long talk culminating in wine and cheese and crackers.

    And during it all the "no" people politely and enthusiastically raised their concerns and ideas - and we addressed them. It was a peaceful meeting of minds - and I was even able to bring up posts on boards.ie on my projector where concerns similar to theirs were raised - and we read through some of the "yes" responses. So you guys were great! Genuinely think we converted some - even most - maybe even all of them to "yes" voters by the time they left. And they had _loads_ of questions about our children and future children and how we viewed parenting in setups like our own - gay families - single parents - and more. They were really taken with our daugther and it was wonderful to show them a healthy - happy - engaging - intelligent 4 year old prospering wonderfully in a house with an alternative parenting configuration.

    We sat in a few public places with a couple of yes flags and tshirts over the time too. Keeping to ourselves but visible. And we had people come up - sit down - and ask us questions like we were - which was our intention really - an informal table/booth on the street canvassing. The kind of people who would not walk up to a real booth or table on the street - felt better approaching an informal group like ours. And our experiences there - especially with the "no" people - was very positive and I think we influenced people.

    But then there is the bad side. The Hateful letter sent to Una Mullally only the tip of the things I have read being sent to people - and even had a couple of (as always massively badly hand written with grammar errors galore) letters shoved into my door. The feeling that old hatreds and intolerances to any out of the ordinary PDAs has flared up again a little (my girlfriends have not had the worst of it but some audible tutting and name calling popping out of random passer bys - and one person who even literally hissed at them). And last weekend there were literally violently physically accosted on a dark public street.

    And as you say "The fact that my life has been debated for weeks on every media outlet in Ireland." is tiring even though we are affected by it less than you. It is still simply - draining is the word - to have the entire society you live in debate whether you are evil immoral or dangerous - whether you can be a good parent at all to the children you genuinely love - or whether you only have children as fashion accessories that you are abusing emotionally - mentally - and in the minds of some even physically - merely to tout your lifestyle to the world.

    As I say - the relationship we are in does not mean we are living in the world you are during this referendum - but we have one foot in each world in a way - and I can feel the drain and the fatigue. And it gives me at least enough perspective to get into the mind space you must be in.

    But chin up and hopes high. All my friends coming over with drinks and foods and fun stuff tomorrow. We go to vote en masse together - then we return to make a day party of it and celebrate come what may. Let us welcome our gay twin Jedward married presidential over lords :)

    you win the internet on so many different ways ...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    <insert facepalm GIF here>

    Explain to me how you think it would still be considered a tolerant country when it was asked to vote on whether it would allow same-sex marriage, nothing else, and it decided that gay people weren't deserving of the same rights as straight people.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,829 ✭✭✭mailforkev


    Well,

    1. Why does (civil) marriage exist at all? The government leaves all the other sacrements for the various religious faiths to adminster, why take an interest in this one and keep a civil record?

    You do understand that marriage is only a sacrament if you're a Christian? It's not a sacrament to me or lots of other people.

    I had a non religious civil wedding as I'm non religious. Should this not be allowed?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    you win the internet on so many different ways ...

    Is this one of those "wins" where you have to return your name, address and bank details?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    Well,
    1. Why does (civil) marriage exist at all? The government leaves all the other sacrements for the various religious faiths to adminster, why take an interest in this one and keep a civil record?

    Man, you need to research history. The question is why did the church start getting involved in marriages in the first place? Power and control.
    2. Does the government treat married and unmarried people differently?

    Not what we're discussing. The referendum is about the government (law) treating heterosexual and homosexual couples differently.
    3. Why do you think it just so happens to be only allowed between 2 adults, one male and one female?

    Historic reasons and predominant influence of the RCC. Obviously, if we had a different religion the structure of marriage might be quite different.
    For me, I'm torn between whether it is best to leave it as is, and accept that a married man+woman pairing is (generally speaking) better for producing/raising children, (thus government provides some financial benefits and tax-breaks for married couples),

    Scientific research has shown that there is no difference.
    or,

    Get rid of civil marriage altogether, and leave it to the religions.
    Accept that it doesn't matter whether kids are raised in a hetro, homo, married, unmarried, single-parent, adoptive parent etc. background, as there are good and bad parents everywhere.
    If a child is not getting a proper upbring under any family structure, then it's an issue for social services, but we go for complete equality and no discrimination in any way.
    Essentially, the complete equality option.

    The proposed amendment doesn't seem like the answer to me.

    It kind of seems like you don't realise that there are different "marriages". That is, religious ceremonies, civil marriages, and civil partnerships.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 150 ✭✭CaveCanem


    I think a No majority vote would put paid to any notion of it being a modern and tolerant country.

    It's been voted down at least once in recent times in California when Proposition 8 was added to the ballot, I think the 'vote no for homophobia' argument is overplayed. It is about progressives vs conservatives.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭arayess


    I think a No majority vote would put paid to any notion of it being a modern and tolerant country.

    this is crap of the highest order.
    The yes side continually tell us that this is about marriage alone - nothing else.

    Accordingly the label of modern or tolerant cannot depend on a singular topic alone. - that is hyperbole in the extreme.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    aloyisious wrote: »
    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,. . .

    Have you a link to that? I'd love to see it


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭keeponhurling


    Hyzepher wrote: »
    Is this supposed to be a serious post?

    If it is then I fear the referendum is set for a No result purely on the stupidity of the electorate

    Points well made, and very respectful and convincing.
    Thanks.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    1. Why does (civil) marriage exist at all? The government leaves all the other sacrements for the various religious faiths to adminster, why take an interest in this one and keep a civil record?
    Marriage is older than any of the religious sacraments.
    The catholic sacrament of marriage is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about real marriage - the civil marriage.

    Paid bonding is older than humanity and is recognised as providing very important social protections by creating familial connections between individuals who are not related by blood but want to be related.
    Does the government treat married and unmarried people differently?
    Yes.
    Why do you think it just so happens to be only allowed between 2 adults, one male and one female?
    Because that's the been the most recent fashion in this part of the world. Marriage has changed throughout time and will continue to change. The law follows what society wants, not the other way around. In 500 years time marriage may only be permitted between a woman and her harem of up to five men, and people will scoff at the idea that a man should be permitted to choose a wife.
    accept that a married man+woman pairing is (generally speaking) better for producing/raising children
    So this is not correct. There is undisputed data worldwide that a man & a woman raising a child does not perform any better than any other family structure.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,919 ✭✭✭ronivek


    Well,
    1. Why does (civil) marriage exist at all? The government leaves all the other sacrements for the various religious faiths to adminster, why take an interest in this one and keep a civil record?
    It is the basic family unit on which Western society is built. Marriage in Ireland is not a religious sacrament at all; it is completely secular. The only aspect of it which is in any way religious is the fact many people chose to get married in a Catholic church; but they could equally get married in a registry office without a priest or religious person in sight.

    Marriage is no longer a religious construct; not in this country at least.
    2. Does the government treat married and unmarried people differently?

    Yes; particularly married and unmarried couples. That includes couples who are in a same sex civil partnership. Married couples are protected as a "Family" under the law; civil partners and cohabiting couples are not given various types of legal protection as a result. Only the "Family" receives all of those protections.
    3. Why do you think it just so happens to be only allowed between 2 adults, one male and one female?

    Because we just so happen to come from a Christian tradition where marriage was between two adults; one male and one female. There are religions in this world who practice various forms of marriage and partnership; including multiple wives, concubines, slaves, and so on. Western Christian nations however are all pretty much based on the one male one female.
    For me, I'm torn between whether it is best to leave it as is, and accept that a married man+woman pairing is (generally speaking) better for producing/raising children, (thus government provides some financial benefits and tax-breaks for married couples),

    There is no evidence suggesting that is the case; all the research indicates that same sex parents are just as good as heterosexual parents. Irrespective of any of that; marriage is not just about becoming a children factory. It's a legal and social construct that serves many other purposes.
    Get rid of civil marriage altogether, and leave it to the religions.
    Accept that it doesn't matter whether kids are raised in a hetro, homo, married, unmarried, single-parent, adoptive parent etc. background, as there are good and bad parents everywhere.
    If a child is not getting a proper upbring under any family structure, then it's an issue for social services, but we go for complete equality and no discrimination in any way.
    Essentially, the complete equality option.

    The proposed amendment doesn't seem like the answer to me.

    Nobody wants the religions to get control of marriage; and I doubt very much the religions themselves want that either.

    The proposed amendment isn't "the answer"; it is simply a step forward. Once we've taken this step we'll take another. And a few more. Maybe we have to take a step or two back; that's part of the process.

    The world and our society didn't suddenly become what it is; it's shaped over time by events such as this referendum on Friday. I implore you and everyone else to take that positive step forward on Friday and vote yes; even if you have your reservations.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    Well,
    1. Why does (civil) marriage exist at all? The government leaves all the other sacrements for the various religious faiths to adminster, why take an interest in this one and keep a civil record?

    It is not a sacrament. The government also have a civil register of birth, deaths and divorce.

    2. Does the government treat married and unmarried people differently?

    Because they govern according to the constitution and they constitution treats them differently. Marriage was much more important to people when the constitution was written and unmarried couples living together or having kids was seriously frowned upon. Hence, the home in Tuam where 100's of babies were buried. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/04/claim-of-800-childrens-bodies-buried-at-irish-home-for-unwed-mothers

    3. Why do you think it just so happens to be only allowed between 2 adults, one male and one female?

    Because that is the way it was seen traditionally although homosexuality has been around as long as humans. It's genetic.

    For me, I'm torn between whether it is best to leave it as is, and accept that a married man+woman pairing is (generally speaking) better for producing/raising children, (thus government provides some financial benefits and tax-breaks for married couples),

    or,

    Get rid of civil marriage altogether, and leave it to the religions.
    Accept that it doesn't matter whether kids are raised in a hetro, homo, married, unmarried, single-parent, adoptive parent etc. background, as there are good and bad parents everywhere.
    If a child is not getting a proper upbring under any family structure, then it's an issue for social services, but we go for complete equality and no discrimination in any way.
    Essentially, the complete equality option.

    The proposed amendment doesn't seem like the answer to me.

    So you don't wish to have an alienated part of society included and made equal?

    We are not being asked to vote on getting rid of it. We are being asked to make it inclusive. We can only vote on what is presented and that is to allow a minority to get civil married too.

    To remove marriage from society is a much bigger change to the constitution and unlikely to happen any time soon so let the minorirty avail of what is available to the rest of us. It is optional and so some will not want to get married.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    arayess wrote: »
    this is crap of the highest order.
    The yes side continually tell us that this is about marriage alone - nothing else.

    That's because it is only about marriage.
    arayess wrote: »
    Accordingly the label of modern or tolerant cannot weight on a singular topic alone. - that is hyperbole in the extreme.

    It is a powerful indicator of how we as a society empathise with others in our society, our ability to embrace change and how far we have progressed in terms of our views of homosexuality. You might think it's hyperbolic but whatever way the vote goes tomorrow, this is a watershed moment in our history.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 833 ✭✭✭Riverireland


    Hyzepher wrote: »
    Is this supposed to be a serious post?

    If it is then I fear the referendum is set for a No result purely on the stupidity of the electorate

    I've been married, am divorced and very happily living with someone else now, we laugh the odd time one of us mentions marriage. Neither of us sees any point at all in it.

    If gay people want to marry that's up to them but a lot of heterosexuals simply don't see why! Marriage is no different to living with someone other than signing a piece of paper and a big day out!

    Divorce, now that's another story...... Good luck with that minefield!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,894 ✭✭✭✭osarusan



    If gay people want to marry that's up to them but a lot of heterosexuals simply don't see why! Marriage is no different to living with someone other than signing a piece of paper and a big day out!

    What does signing the piece of paper get you?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭keeponhurling


    Zen65 wrote: »
    The purpose of civil marriage is solely to register a union of two people (currently limited to one man and one woman) for the purposes of managing property & inheritance rights, pension rights, agency rights (the power to speak on your partner's behalf), guardianship, tax relief, etc. The value to the state is that having stable families (which is defined by the state as a married couple, including any children if they have them) is that it establishes mechanisms of care which reduce the burden on the state / taxpayer.

    It is only the latter non-sacramental marriage which is the subject of the referendum.

    So this is saying that having stable homes is being rewarded, and will bring the state benefits in the longer term (which personally I agree with).

    But this seems like discrimination in itself, given that unmarried people and single parents, or gay couples, can offer just as stable a home for children, and raise great kids.
    It is taking a view on what is a suitable mechanism of care, I don't think in a secular society, the state should be taking a view on this.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    Well,

    1. Why does (civil) marriage exist at all? The government leaves all the other sacrements for the various religious faiths to adminster, why take an interest in this one and keep a civil record?
    2. Does the government treat married and unmarried people differently?
    3. Why do you think it just so happens to be only allowed between 2 adults, one male and one female?

    For me, I'm torn between whether it is best to leave it as is, and accept that a married man+woman pairing is (generally speaking) better for producing/raising children, (thus government provides some financial benefits and tax-breaks for married couples),

    or,

    Get rid of civil marriage altogether, and leave it to the religions.
    Accept that it doesn't matter whether kids are raised in a hetro, homo, married, unmarried, single-parent, adoptive parent etc. background, as there are good and bad parents everywhere.
    If a child is not getting a proper upbring under any family structure, then it's an issue for social services, but we go for complete equality and no discrimination in any way.
    Essentially, the complete equality option.

    The proposed amendment doesn't seem like the answer to me.

    I think you raise a valid point when you ask the question "why are we letting the government sanction some relationships but not others at all? Why not just have religious marriages, and go for some sort of universal child-based tax break or something?"

    But since we currently DO sanction relationships, and since gay people are asking to be included, I also think that is reasonable enough to allow them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    I've been married, am divorced and very happily living with someone else now, we laugh the odd time one of us mentions marriage. Neither of us sees any point at all in it.

    If gay people want to marry that's up to them but a lot of heterosexuals simply don't see why! Marriage is no different to living with someone other than signing a piece of paper and a big day out!

    Divorce, now that's another story...... Good luck with that minefield!

    Great so it should be no trouble to share it with gay people. Please vote yes.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,169 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    Probably best to not bother with the arseless chapps as well just for the day.

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

    Wow, homophobic "jokes". They were already over-used when Kermit decided to shit them all over this thread.


  • Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I've been married, am divorced and very happily living with someone else now, we laugh the odd time one of us mentions marriage. Neither of us sees any point at all in it.

    If gay people want to marry that's up to them but a lot of heterosexuals simply don't see why! Marriage is no different to living with someone other than signing a piece of paper and a big day out!

    Divorce, now that's another story...... Good luck with that minefield!

    Respectfully that's your opinion, marriage is important to many different people for a variety of reasons. This whole thread wouldent exist if all people felt like that.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭arayess


    That's because it is only about marriage.



    It is a powerful indicator of how we as a society empathise with others in our society, our ability to embrace change and how far we have progressed in terms of our views of homosexuality. You might think it's hyperbolic but whatever way the vote goes tomorrow, this is a watershed moment in our history.

    but not the definition - you talk of change as if we must accept change regardless.
    It's asking people to accept a change to how marriage is defined - it's not about our treatment of gay people.

    It may be a watershed moment but it certainly won't define us as a nation - which is what you said.
    There is a lot more to a tolerant society (which i believe Ireland is) that agreeing to change the definition of marriage, it's more a complete package of items.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,894 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    arayess wrote: »
    There is a lot more to a tolerant society (which i believe Ireland is) that agreeing to change the definition of marriage, it's more a complete package of items.
    A vote that denied same sex couples the right to civil marriage would a rather significant asterisk on that (in)complete package of items, don't you think?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    Ireland is a lot better than Russia (for example) with regards to how homosexuals are treated for sure. However, we could do MUCH more. Vote YES!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 833 ✭✭✭Riverireland


    osarusan wrote: »
    What does signing the piece of paper get you?

    Nothing tangible that I experienced other than an unnecessary legal document that cost a fortune to get into and out of, when the love left the relationship.

    I think it was useful years ago when children were considered illegimate if their parents were not married but see no point in it now.

    Maybe you could point them out to me? Bearing in mind that I have experienced it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,516 ✭✭✭matrim


    Zen65 wrote: »
    Time to lighten the mood, I think?


    Along similar lines



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement