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

1…229230232234235…327

Comments

  • #6932
    keeponhurling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭keeponhurling


    ronivek wrote: »
    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.

    True and it's a fair point, gay marriage could be a step on the road to equality, however no further steps have been outlined or even discussed, there is no roadmap there.

    A Yes vote could be one step, and we move towards equality (or it might not).
    The message seems to be to vote Yes now, and sure everything else later will look after itself. One inequality at a time.

    But if you consider this amendment in isolation without speculating on possible future changes, it simply increases the number of people whom unmarried people and their children are considered subordinate to.


  • #6933
    Riverireland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 833 ✭✭✭Riverireland


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Great so it should be no trouble to share it with gay people. Please vote yes.

    I have decided not to vote on Friday. As you can see I don't see the value of marriage so I'll stay out of it. The whole presidential thing doesn't intrest me enough either. First time ever missing a vote other than when abroad.


  • #6934
    timetogo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 990 ✭✭✭timetogo


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

    Probably if you google for the 160 differences between a civil partnership and marriage, that'd be a good start.


  • #6935
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    CaveCanem wrote: »
    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.

    You do know the court subsequently found that, as a matter of fact, that vote was outright discrimination which serves no legitimate purpose whatsoever.

    So yea, pretty terrible example for you to pick.


  • #6936
    keeponhurling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭keeponhurling


    Vivisectus wrote: »
    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.

    Yes something like ensuring child's benefits and allowance are completely equal, regardless of who looks after the child, as long as they are competant parents.

    Does this amendmnet not increase the number of people to whom children of unmarried couples are considered less important to?


  • Advertisement
  • #6937
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    arayess wrote: »
    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.

    The extension of the redefinition of marriage is that we allow same sex marriages. That's it. My marriage is not altered and no heterosexual marriages will be redefined in the future. The referendum has no impact on me personally in any way, shape or form.

    You see a tolerant country, I see a country that's still got a hell of a long way to go in terms of its tolerance of others - the Refugee centres in this country in particular are a black stain on the notion of us being a tolerant country. A Yes vote for me would show that this country is willing to care about the treatment of minorities in our society.


  • #6938
    Riverireland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 833 ✭✭✭Riverireland


    timetogo wrote: »
    Probably if you google for the 160 differences between a civil partnership and marriage, that'd be a good start.

    Why go looking for problems? We are perfectly happy as we are as are a lot of our friends both with and without children. Commitment, love and honesty are what we both value and thankfully we have that, no piece of paper can provide those three things.


  • #6939
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Riverireland wrote: »
    I have decided not to vote on Friday. As you can see I don't see the value of marriage so I'll stay out of it. The whole presidential thing doesn't intrest me enough either. First time ever missing a vote other than when abroad.

    Well I try and appeal to you to please vote. Not voting is the same as a no vote. If you have any children, if your children have any children they might be gay or your friends or family or you know even just a stranger. We are not trying to take anything away or change anything we just want to be equal under the law. Please consider a yes vote you never know you might one day be proud to say it to a gay relative or friend.


  • #6940
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Riverireland wrote: »
    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.

    There are many very serious reasons to get married.

    For example, if you are run over by a bus tomorrow, your new partner may not be allowed into your hospital room. You might die without ever seeing them again.

    If you die, they will have an uphill battle with the courts to establish exactly what they own of your shared stuff. They may not get a say in the funeral arrangements. They may not even be invited.

    And if there are kids involved, it gets worse.


  • #6941
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Well I try and appeal to you to please vote. Not voting is the same as a no vote.

    But if the person was going to vote no then surely not voting is a yes vote? :confused:

    Not say Riverireland intended voting no btw…


  • Advertisement
  • #6942
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,894 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    keeponhurling wrote: »
    But if you consider this amendment in isolation without speculating on possible future changes, it simply increases the number of people whom unmarried people and their children are considered subordinate to.
    But when you consider this referendum resulting in a majority vote for no, it means that the number of people and children who are considered subordinate will not decrease.

    I've never seen a positive thing (same sex couples getting equal marriage rights) twisted in such a way - "it will mean that those without rights will now be considered unequal to a greater number of people" - when this is because some of those who were previously similarly subordinate are no longer so.

    Jesus, that's baffling.


  • #6943
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,744 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    keeponhurling wrote: »
    Well,
    keeponhurling wrote: »
    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?
    1) Religious marriage in the joining of people in the eyes of a god. Civil marriage is the joining of assets (as well as of people). Because taxes and rights re things like inheritance are different for married people than single ones the government needs to keep a civil record of marriage. It doesn't matter if you get married in the biggest church in the country, by the holiest priest in the country, in the most elaborate ceremony the land has ever seen: until you sign the civil register it doesn't mean jack in the eyes of the state.
    2) What about non-religious people? Should we never be able to get married or should we just get up in front of friends and family and lie through our teeth?
    keeponhurling wrote: »
    3. Why do you think it just so happens to be only allowed between 2 adults, one male and one female?

    Christian influence from the middle ages onward. Previous to that there was SSM within the Christian church. Many, many pre-Christian cultures had SSM.


  • #6944
    CaveCanem
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 150 ✭✭CaveCanem


    floggg wrote: »
    You do know the court subsequently found that, as a matter of fact, that vote was outright discrimination which serves no legitimate purpose whatsoever.

    So yea, pretty terrible example for you to pick.

    The point is that saying Ireland is intolerant and homophobic if this is not approved by the majority of voters is like saying perhaps the most liberal state in the U.S. is just like Russia when it comes to attitudes to sexuality and relationships.


  • #6945
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,894 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Riverireland wrote: »
    no piece of paper can provide those three things.
    But it can provide constitutional protection - that was what you asked right - something that paper provides.

    There's your answer.

    In your marriage it didn't mean much, but it obviously means a lot to a lot of people.

    There's a big difference between you not caring about what is important to those peoples, and disagreeing that it is important.


  • #6946
    keeponhurling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭keeponhurling


    osarusan wrote: »
    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?

    Don't really want to go down this road, but there are around 200 countries in the world.
    I think the number who allow gay mariage was 18(?), meaning 90%+ does not allow gay mariage, rightly or wrongly.

    The vast majority of the world has nothing like we have in civil partnership.

    Fine if you want the whole world to embrace gay marriage, but these posts about Ireland being some intolerent backwater needing to get up to speed, are tiresome.


  • #6947
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 22,371 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    I had to move my vote to my current address (at the last minute of course) and just checked the supplementary register this morning and everything is in order, just in case anybody is wondering where their polling station is, as you may not get a polling card in the post.


    Well done to the relevant civil servents for being great with this.


  • #6948
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    keeponhurling wrote: »
    these posts about Ireland being some intolerent backwater needing to get up to speed, are tiresome.

    Not to sound like a mammy here but just because everyone else does it, doesn't make it right.


  • #6949
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,744 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Riverireland wrote: »
    Why go looking for problems? We are perfectly happy as we are as are a lot of our friends both with and without children. Commitment, love and honesty are what we both value and thankfully we have that, no piece of paper can provide those three things.

    You're right that no piece of paper can make a good relationship, but don't you think that those who do want that piece of paper should be able to get it?


  • #6950
    Riverireland
    Closed Accounts Posts: 833 ✭✭✭Riverireland


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    There are many very serious reasons to get married.

    For example, if you are run over by a bus tomorrow, your new partner may not be allowed into your hospital room. You might die without ever seeing them again.

    If you die, they will have an uphill battle with the courts to establish exactly what they own of your shared stuff. They may not get a say in the funeral arrangements. They may not even be invited.

    And if there are kids involved, it gets worse.

    Honestly, I think that is just scaremongering. Things go wrong inside of marriage too, I've been there. Relationship break up causes all those problems.


  • #6951
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    CaveCanem wrote: »
    The point is that saying Ireland is intolerant and homophobic if this is not approved by the majority of voters is like saying perhaps the most liberal state in the U.S. is just like Russia when it comes to attitudes to sexuality and relationships.

    I'm not saying that all of the No vote will come from homophobia but it will come from an intolerance based on an inability to embrace change.


  • Advertisement
  • #6952
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,894 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    keeponhurling wrote: »
    Fine if you want the whole world to embrace gay marriage, but these posts about Ireland being some intolerent backwater needing to get up to speed, are tiresome.
    no need to twist my words - I never said anything like that.

    What i did say was in response to people arguing that a society's level of tolerance must be based on a wider net than just gay marriage (which I agree with) is that a vote to deny gay marriage is a pretty significant negative in any society with otherwise high levels of tolerance.

    I don't think there is anything controversial about that. Sure, gay marriage isn't the only criterion (and we shouldn't argue that it is), but it is a significant one (and we shouldn't argue that it isn't).


  • #6953
    southstar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 465 ✭✭southstar


    Woodville56 wrote: »
    If the referendum passes it may well be a Pyrrhic victory for the gay community given the amount of bad blood, name calling and divisiveness stirred up in the course of the debate which won't be forgotten. The fact will remain that probably close to 50% of those eligible to vote won't bother to do so and dont give a toss either way about same sex marriage. So while they may win the day, the gay community still have a bit to travel in achieving the widespread respect and acceptance they would proclaim with a victory on Friday. Certain activists on the pro same sex marriage side both here and in other social media have persisted throughout this campaign in labeling anyone who opposed their views in the most demeaning and pejorative fashion, calling them idiots, bigots, homophobes, imbeciles and worse. This will ultimately damage public perceptions of the gay community and may well be a rather unfortunate legacy of this fractious debate. But sure it's the end result that matters, gays will be able to get married and win their equality battle, if not the full
    acceptance and respect of the broader population. The end justifies the means etc
    ..

    Funny that we keep hearing repeated nonsense about name calling coming from the YES side towards the NO campaign. This cynical tactic characterizes how the No side have engaged with the debate....hopefully the undecided voter will not be hoodwinked by cheap con tricks...by the way numerous people on the YES campaign have been called Dykes.******s Homos....recognize any of those terms?


  • #6954
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Vivisectus wrote: »
    Why not just have religious marriages

    I've a better idea: why not stop talking about religious marriages?

    This amendment is about civil marriage in the Constitution. It has absolutely nothing to do with "sacraments".

    And if anyone thinks we should abolish civil marriage rather than let the gays get their hands on it, perhaps you should reflect on why you feel that way.

    [Edit: I did not mean to write that last as if Vivisectus feels that way - sorry]


  • #6955
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,894 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    kylith wrote: »
    You're right that no piece of paper can make a good relationship, but don't you think that those who do want that piece of paper should be able to get it?

    good question - I hope RiverIreland will answer.


  • #6956
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    keeponhurling wrote: »
    True and it's a fair point, gay marriage could be a step on the road to equality, however no further steps have been outlined or even discussed, there is no roadmap there.

    A Yes vote could be one step, and we move towards equality (or it might not).
    The message seems to be to vote Yes now, and sure everything else later will look after itself. One inequality at a time.

    But if you consider this amendment in isolation without speculating on possible future changes, it simply increases the number of people whom unmarried people and their children are considered subordinate to.

    But your total dedication is to correcting this is to continue the discrimination against gay people.

    Look there is a referendum tomorrow that can relieve the discrimination faced by thousands of your fellow citizens. A vote no is a vote to continue that discrimination. Nothing more. Now you can justify that to yourself anyway you choose but that will be the effect.

    If you want to campaign to have single status elevated etc then by all means please do so but don't suggest that a vote against gay marriage in anyway benefits such a notion.


  • #6957
    joe40
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,813 ✭✭✭joe40


    Hi I at this late stage I would love to hear from No voters as to their reasons for voting no. However I would rather leave out the following
    1. Religious reasons - This is religious dogma, and it would be impossible to discuss otherwise. I do not agree but I get that people feel that way and secular arguments will hold no sway
    2. You simply do not like gay people - This is just bigotry and not worthy of discussion.
    If you do not see yourself in any of the above groups I would love to hear reasons for voting no bearing in mind:

    Civil Partnership already exists so Same sex couples can apply to adopt as it stands. A no vote will not alter this.

    Same sex marriage is legal in France, Surrogacy is illegal. The two are not linked. No-one is claiming that infertile heterosexual couples will have a right to surrogacy

    I am not Gay I am mid forties, married with 2 children but would love to see Ireland as a tolerant country that promotes equality for all.


  • #6958
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    Riverireland wrote: »
    I have decided not to vote on Friday. As you can see I don't see the value of marriage so I'll stay out of it. The whole presidential thing doesn't intrest me enough either. First time ever missing a vote other than when abroad.

    I've no idea what age you are but I've noticed with myself that I see value in different things as each year goes by.


  • #6959
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    Ive parked my car, complete with rainbow flags and mirror covers and YES sticker in the back window, right under a No poster. Might as well let it sit there merrily for the day before I de-rainbow it for voting tomorrow!


  • #6960
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    CaveCanem wrote: »
    the most liberal state in the U.S.

    California is a big place, and parts of it are very conservative indeed.


  • Advertisement
  • #6961
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    But if the person was going to vote no then surely not voting is a yes vote? :confused:

    Not say Riverireland intended voting no btw…

    Well yes in that instance of course.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement