How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

reprise · 25-01-2015 6:49pm

floggg wrote: »

You might think it benign but i think most others would see it as absurd.*

The idea that my marriage to my bf would teat asunder others marriage is frankly farcical. Those who marry make a life long commitment to each other, to remain faithful to each other, to love, support, protect and cherish each other and any family they may or may not build together.

I doubt there is anybody in the world who's marriage is predicated on the fact that two men or women are unable to marry, or whose commitment to each other would in any way be altered by any such marriage. If their commitment was so altered, then the same sex couple really aren't the problem.

*I don't use the word absurd or farcical to ridicule, demean, belittle or condescend to no voters. I use it because they are the words which most appropriately describe the argument. Seriously, how in the world does my relationship threaten or affect anybody else's? How in the world could somebody see same sex couples being excluded from the institution of marriage as being fundamental to their own relationship? Those arguments just dont make sense to me.

Thanks, but I think you are missing my point. It's nothing to do with you personally or gay people in general, it's everything to do with what some people perceive marraige to be. As I have stated previously, it's about removing a core pillar of what has constituted marriage since there was such a concept and side stepping the family component as trivial rather than pivotal.

Add to that the very substantial link between state and religious marraige and the fact the church will never move on its stance and you have a formidable force for no.

floggg · 25-01-2015 7:10pm

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

No, but it is the reason society has made marriage an elevated institution.

Not a very positive reason.

once again, hardly a ringing endorsement.
Why are we overthrowing millennia of marriage structures for something that doesn't do much?

It doesn't do much harm, or any for that matter.

It does an awful lot of good for many people - LGBT people and the children and families of LGBT families.

And our current marriage structure is less than 100 years old. The idea of women being entitled independently own property, resist marital rape and being viewed as equal partners rather than their husbands chattels were far more radical changes than marriage equality.

And nor will marriage equality overturn or affect any heterosexuals marriage or family structure.

floggg · 25-01-2015 7:15pm

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

If you are going to change the Constitution and affect hundreds of pieces of legislation then a stronger justification than "we might as well" is needed.A more mature debate is needed, but doesn't seem likely, especially in After Hours.

If your going to treat one group of society unequally to others, then a stronger justification than "its the status quo" is needed.

floggg · 25-01-2015 7:25pm

Lau2976 wrote: »

I certainly disagree that the state hasn't skimmed over abortion, they passed a bill that they thought would placate the masses but still didn't actually get to the issue. But this isn't only about abortion.

Euthanasia? the rights of asylum seekers? Adoption rights? To name the few that come to mind right now.

Why should we deal with the rights of asylum seekers or euthanasia when there are issues like marriage equality which remain to be dealt with?

If you approached debates like that, you would never fix anything or progress as a society as somebody would always argue that priorities should be elsewhere.

Lets deal with issues as the are put before us. If you think other issues needed to be advanced, then the appropriate response is to work to draw greater attention to that issue - not to refuse to make positive changes in other areas until your issues is addressed.

floggg · 25-01-2015 7:47pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah but on those issues there's no right or wrong answer, just different perspectives, and that's why I'd always see them as discussions rather than debates. There's not a whole lot of debate going on in marriage equality threads when the vast majority are overwhelming in favour of marriage equality, yet they seem to ignore the fact that the onus isn't on the 'no' side to come up with any argument to change the constitution. They only have to turn up on the day, tick the box, and toddle off.

This issue isn't nearly as contentious as it's being made out to be here where for every 'no' poster there are 20 'yes' posters going out of their way to entertain their irrelevant arguments, like the polygamy and the children and the this that and the other.

I just think people here aren't giving the Irish people enough credit, that they think Iona or YD could ever influence the outcome of the referendum. Most people don't even know who Iona or YD are, let alone does their opinion have any bearing on ordinary Irish people's opinions.

EDIT:

Exactly! You just said it better!

If you look at the history of referenda on social issues in this State, muddying the waters of the debate with artificial concerns for children and unrelated issues is a highly effective and successful tactic.

So i think there is legitimate reason to fear that Iona's and YDs diversionary tactics will be effective.

reprise · 25-01-2015 7:58pm

floggg wrote: »

If your going to treat one group of society unequally to others, then a stronger justification than "its the status quo" is needed.

You are entitled to marry under the current definition of marraige subject to the lawful definition of marraige. That's arguably all the equality you are entitled to. You are in danger of overplaying your hand.

One eyed Jack · 25-01-2015 8:03pm

floggg wrote: »

If you look at the history of referenda on social issues in this State, muddying the waters of the debate with artificial concerns for children and unrelated issues is a highly effective and successful tactic.

So i think there is legitimate reason to fear that Iona's and YDs diversionary tactics will be effective.

You don't think society has evolved in the last 20 or so years?

A referendum like this would have been unthinkable in 1994, yet now Irish society is in a position where some 70 odd % of the electorate support marriage equality. People are thinking for themselves more than ever, and the likes of Iona and YD simply don't have the influence in society that they once had.

I see no reason to give them any regard whatsoever, there's no real 'debate' to be had here, and Iona and YD wouldn't court half the attention they do if people simply paid them no heed, but concentrate on encouraging the 70 odd % of people that already support marriage equality to come out and vote, instead of being taken up with the 25 or so % that are guaranteed to vote no.

Venus In Furs · 25-01-2015 9:00pm

It disturbs me a bit that people who already have marriage rights get to decide in relation to those who don't have marriage rights. **** the fundamental meaning of marriage tbh - it's going way way way back, it's not relevant any more.
Traditional marriages won't go away - they'll still be the majority of marriages.

conorh91 wrote: »

Equality for all, except threesomes and unmarried couples in long-term relationships!1!!!

Who's saying they shouldn't be equal and what's stopping them from lobbying for more rights?

Areyouwell · 25-01-2015 9:06pm

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum?

If I was in Ireland when it's on, I would vote no. Simply because I believe the institution of marriage has become a joke. Too many friends of mine have been burned and hurt by it. So my advice to homosexual couples would be - don't do it.

Blahblah2012 · 25-01-2015 9:08pm

Areyouwell wrote: »

If I was in Ireland when it's on, I would vote no. Simply because I believe the institution of marriage has become a joke. Too many friends of mine have been burned and hurt by it. So my advice to homosexual couples would be - don't do it.

I'd have to agree..It certainly is one way to get fûcked...and taken to the cleaners.

Shrap · 25-01-2015 9:11pm

Areyouwell wrote: »

If I was in Ireland when it's on, I would vote no. Simply because I believe the institution of marriage has become a joke. Too many friends of mine have been burned and hurt by it. So my advice to homosexual couples would be - don't do it.

No, I'm sorry. Imposing your opinion by casting your vote is not the same thing as giving advice.

Not sure if you realise how condescending it is to say to grown adults who want to commit to each other for life that you're saying no to their decision.

Homosexual couples are not looking for your advice in much the same way as newly engaged heterosexual couples wouldn't appreciate your advice not to marry.

Shrap · 25-01-2015 9:15pm

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

I'd have to agree..It certainly is one way to get fûcked...and taken to the cleaners.

Interestingly, my husband was paid in full (over the odds) for the house he co-bought with his first wife. First I paid her share. Then I bought his half from him. Not my problem if he blew the whole lot on a holiday and a very mid-life-crisis motorbike. He still thinks it's his house. But you and I are completely off topic.

conorh91 · 25-01-2015 9:16pm

Venus In Furs wrote: »

Who's saying they shouldn't be equal and what's stopping them from lobbying for more rights?

I don't make that claim. Such a claim would be totally ridiculous. I think you're putting forward a strawman really aren't you.

The term marriage equality has taken on a silly, teleological dimension; it is an oxymoron in itself: we have an inner circle called "marriage" and granting the right of marriage to same-sex unions will herald "equality". Except, those who are not invited into the circle (close relatives, threesomes, unmarried couples) are of course unequal.

All people are equal but some are more equal than others etc etc.

The idea of marriage equality is just fundamentally ridiculous. If you want to give it to everyone, it becomes meaningless babble.

By the way, I'm not opposed to this same-sex marriage amendment, I object only to these lefty sermons on marriage equality.

ebbsy · 25-01-2015 9:19pm

We are now getting so far away from normality......what is next ????????

Shrap · 25-01-2015 9:23pm

conorh91 wrote: »

The term marriage equality has taken on a silly, teleological dimension; it is an oxymoron in itself: we have an inner circle called "marriage" and granting the right of marriage to same-sex unions will herald "equality". Except, those who are not invited into the circle (close relatives, threesomes, unmarried couples) are of course unequal.

All people are equal but some are more equal than others etc etc.

The idea of marriage equality is just fundamentally ridiculous. If you want to give it to everyone, it becomes meaningless babble.

It's no strawman. Interestingly, your unmarried couples there above are welcome to get married if they so desire, so long as they're hetero. So that doesn't count.

With "close relatives and threesomes" you are trying to conflate these with legally recognised relationships. If you want these relationships recognised, start a campaign. Stop muddying this one.

Marriage equality between two consenting adults regardless of gender is what is being sought here. Equality for all as to how couples are recognised by law. Note: I did say couple, didn't I? Oh, yes I did.

Shrap · 25-01-2015 9:27pm

ebbsy wrote: »

We are now getting so far away from normality......what is next ????????

Eh?

My mother thinks her version of "normal" is right and everyone who doesn't conform isn't right in the head. It's abnormal to her to sleep in till 10am, and a person rewarding themselves for a hard week's work by staying partying till 3am is the sign of a "slut".

What is normal exactly? Do you agree with my mother, or do we all get to decide what is normal?

TheBeardedLady · 25-01-2015 9:28pm

ebbsy wrote: »

We are now getting so far away from normality......what is next ????????

A joint referendum to ban straight couples and to force people to wear multi-coloured clothing and tiny bowler hats.

Shrap · 25-01-2015 9:31pm

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

A joint referendum to ban straight couples and to force people to wear multi-coloured clothing and tiny bowler hats.

I'm with that!!! Oh...wait. No straight couples???? I feel oppressed. Why can't I marry my man? What's your reasoning? :pac:

TheBeardedLady · 25-01-2015 9:33pm

Shrap wrote: »

I'm with that!!! Oh...wait. No straight couples???? I feel oppressed. Why can't I marry my man? What's your reasoning? :pac:

Well if you could marry your man then we'd have to let the animals and vegetables marry too! Where would it end!

Put on your bowler hat and zip it! :mad:

conorh91 · 25-01-2015 9:38pm

Shrap wrote: »

It's no strawman. Interestingly, your unmarried couples there above are welcome to get married if they so desire, so long as they're hetero. So that doesn't count.

Perhaps they are not yet eligible for a divorce for another four or five years. Perhaps they can't afford a divorce because they're busy subsidising marriage through their taxes, in other words, earning less take-home pay than married couples and civil partners at the end of the month. Doesn't seem very equal, does it?

The Yes campaign are clinging to this "marriage equality" meme because, after all, who opposes equality in and of itself? But the term is being used entirely without cause. Marriage, by definition, is about affording greater rights to certain people over others.

With "close relatives and threesomes" you are trying to conflate these with legally recognised relationships.

This is why I said the term is teleological. Only admitting "legally recognized" relationships into a discussion about marriage equality is profoundly stupid. At that rate, you could have excluded gay people from the discussion, prior to the enactment of the Civil Partnerships Act in 2010.

Shrap · 25-01-2015 9:39pm

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Well if you could marry your man then we'd have to let the animals and vegetables marry too! Where would it end!

Put on your bowler hat and zip it! :mad:

But I only want to marry my man. Why would you take a stand against our commitment to each other?

Just because some couples split up and people get bitter and twisted about other couples marrying based on their own experiences doesn't mean our experience will be the same! Have a heart?!

I mean, my relationship is recognised in law, but not my solemn commitment. A vegetable can't make a commitment - it's not the same!

I like the bowler hat part though.

Shrap · 25-01-2015 9:44pm

conorh91 wrote: »

Perhaps they are not yet eligible for a divorce for another four or five years. Perhaps they can't afford a divorce because they're busy subsidising marriage through their taxes, in other words, earning less take-home pay than married couples and civil partners at the end of the month. Doesn't seem very equal, does it?

And? So what? Yeah, I'm in the position of not affording a divorce actually, but do you hear me whinging that because "my rights" are not included in this referendum, I won't vote on it because I didn't get a mention? What are we, playing tit for tat on the playground here?

Ditto for the rest of your post, so I can't be arsed answering to "well, they didn't include ME!"

To Elland Back · 25-01-2015 9:48pm

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

I'll be voting no for 3 reasons.
1. I seen on another thread on this site how the homosexual posters ganged up on another poster, the end result being that she closed her account.
A cohort of people who demand to be treated equally and want tolerance seem to want to force their views on others by shouting the loudest and intimidating people.

2. I will not vote for anything this government proposes, Enda's due another wallop...

and

3. I believe that the ideal family unit is a married hetrosexual couple and their children.

I couldn't thank your post as although I fully agree with you on point 1, not so much on points 2 and 3

conorh91 · 25-01-2015 9:56pm

Shrap wrote: »

And? So what?

I can't be any more clear.

Marriage Equality is a misnomer.

If Ireland levies a tax on blacks, Asians and Jews, and after extensive negotiation, Jews are emancipated from this tax, the outcome is not "equality".

What's happening here is that we're being told that the proposed amendment is a referendum on marriage equality. It patently is not. It's about one group attempting to enjoy greater rights than everyone else, by allying themselves with the original beneficiary of discrimination. That can never be equality.

Venus In Furs · 25-01-2015 9:58pm

To Elland Back wrote: »

I couldn't thank your post as although I fully agree with you on point 1, not so much on points 2 and 3

I find it bizarre to agree with "Some of the people voting one way are really annoying me so I'll vote the opposite to them just for that", which is what point 1 is.

Blahblah2012 · 25-01-2015 10:01pm

Shrap wrote: »

Interestingly, my husband was paid in full (over the odds) for the house he co-bought with his first wife. First I paid her share. Then I bought his half from him. Not my problem if he blew the whole lot on a holiday and a very mid-life-crisis motorbike. He still thinks it's his house. But you and I are completely off topic.

U obviously stayed out of the courts. Lucky enough

Dacelonid · 25-01-2015 10:01pm

Personally I would like to vote no. Maybe I am old fashioned, or coloured by my parents prejudices, or maybe it is the fact that of all the gay people that I personally know, I hate them all and their campness. Or maybe it is just that I can't buy the clothes I like any more, because the shops are full of clothes that I would classify as gay.

However I will be voting yes. I will be voting yes as a big f*** you to the likes of the iona institute, and the catholic church, and the other organisations that will use fear/intimidation/manipulation to get people to vote no.
But I think the biggest reason I will vote yes, is because I don't want my two toddlers to grow up in a society that would prevent them from enjoying their lives, if they were gay.

Annasopra · 25-01-2015 10:15pm

Venus In Furs wrote: »

I find it bizarre to agree with "Some of the people voting one way are really annoying me so I'll vote the opposite to them just for that", which is what point 1 is.

To be honest I doubt thats their main reason for voting no.

floggg · 25-01-2015 10:30pm

reprise wrote: »

Thanks, but I think you are missing my point. It's nothing to do with you personally or gay people in general, it's everything to do with what some people perceive marraige to be. As I have stated previously, it's about removing a core pillar of what has constituted marriage since there was such a concept and side stepping the family component as trivial rather than pivotal.

Add to that the very substantial link between state and religious marriage and the fact the church will never move on its stance and you have a formidable force for no.

I dont think I did miss you point. I was dont think the point is vey well made though.

I dont think that the fact that two men or two women cant marry is a core pillar of anybodys marriage. Nor is the fact that they are of opposite genders. Its because they are in love and want to commit to each other for life.

Further, any argument based on the traditional nature of marriage is also not very well made. It would be incorrect to argue that gender has been at the core of marriage since the invention of marriage, since there is evidence of same sex marriage dating back almost as far as the first evidence of marriage itself.

And any appeal to the traditional nature of marriage falls apart when you consider just what traditional or historical marriage was - a property transaction whereby a man acquired one or more wives from their fathers, who became his property and lacked any independent sense of self or rights.

You can't argue that we should maintain any historical version of marriage since that was destroyed when we allowed married women to work, own property, divorce, refuse sex, use contraception, exercise free will and we criminalised domestic violence, marital rape etc.

As for the churches stance on marriage, it is frankly irrelevant to the debate. the church has no say or control over how the state defines marriage (hence divorce laws), and the state cannot look to any one religion to define its marriage laws.

floggg · 25-01-2015 10:32pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You don't think society has evolved in the last 20 or so years?

A referendum like this would have been unthinkable in 1994, yet now Irish society is in a position where some 70 odd % of the electorate support marriage equality. People are thinking for themselves more than ever, and the likes of Iona and YD simply don't have the influence in society that they once had.

I see no reason to give them any regard whatsoever, there's no real 'debate' to be had here, and Iona and YD wouldn't court half the attention they do if people simply paid them no heed, but concentrate on encouraging the 70 odd % of people that already support marriage equality to come out and vote, instead of being taken up with the 25 or so % that are guaranteed to vote no.

Look at the Childrens Rights referendum and how easily scare mongering and allusions to unintended consequences can sow doubt and muddy the waters.

DeJa VooDoo · 25-01-2015 10:37pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

To be honest I doubt thats their main reason for voting no.

Give up with your persecution complex, it's boring if not a little pathetic.

floggg · 25-01-2015 10:37pm

reprise wrote: »

You are entitled to marry under the current definition of marraige subject to the lawful definition of marraige. That's arguably all the equality you are entitled to. You are in danger of overplaying your hand.

That argument is absurd, and I don't believe anybody could really make it in good faith.

It was one used by supporters of the ban on interracial marriage - that each race was free to marry within their race on equal terms - and was found to be completely without merit then.

Unless and until the state recognises my relationship on equal terms as it does my brothers, that is not equality.

gg2 · 25-01-2015 10:39pm

When is it?

Ave Sodalis · 25-01-2015 10:42pm

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

Give up with your persecution complex, it's boring if not a little pathetic.

You really don't think "someone said something I don't like (most likely in defense of something ridiculous/nasty that was said to them) so I'm going to punish the thousands of others and enable the nastiness" sounds a tad like it's a bad reason to vote no?

the_syco · 25-01-2015 10:44pm

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

- Remarks by Iona members have further alienated me from their cause. On Morning Ireland a few days ago, Breda O'Brien compared same-sex marriage to a mother marrying her daughter. This reminds me of the rhetoric of the Christian Right in the US Deep South.

For this to be an issue, Iona would have to support Mothers marrying their sons...

Baggy Trousers · 25-01-2015 10:55pm

Make no mistake, this one will be very tight.

I have been listening to the misinformation and propaganda on the media over the past week or so and the No vote is gathering momentum. There are a lot of people trying to derail this referendum and many people are buying their nonsense.

And Enda will get personally involved which is another liability (how are those Senate reforms going Enda?).

We don't need to wait for a 2nd referendum on this one.

Annasopra · 25-01-2015 10:56pm

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

Give up with your persecution complex, it's boring if not a little pathetic.

Lol. Im just doubting anyone would seriously decide:

Someone said something mean on the internet so Im going to be their enemy and vote against them.

reprise · 25-01-2015 10:56pm

floggg wrote: »

I dont think I did miss you point. I was dont think the point is vey (
) marriage laws.

I'm sorry flogg, but to tackle my points and totally disregard what I am saying about family and children is simply disingenuous. You will never be able to wish away the family aspect of what marriage is designed for.

I will say again, unequivocally, that my marriage will be neither enhanced or diminished by anyone else's inclusion or exclusion in the definition of marriage and that, again, is a pointless accusation.

reprise · 25-01-2015 11:02pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Lol. Im just doubting anyone would seriously decide:

Someone said something mean on the internet so Im going to be their enemy and vote against them.

I don't believe you. I think just about the worst thing that could happen to you is that you were treated equally. Really, really, big bad world equally.

floggg · 25-01-2015 11:05pm

reprise wrote: »

I'm sorry flogg, but to tackle my points and totally disregard what I am saying about family and children is simply disingenuous. You will never be able to wish away the family aspect of what marriage is designed for.

I will say again, unequivocally, that my marriage will be neither enhanced or diminished by anyone else's inclusion or exclusion in the definition of marriage and that, again, is a pointless accusation.

While firstly LGBT couples can and do have children, so any child related purposes of marriage is equally applicable to LGBT couples.

Secondly, the state has never made children, or child production capacity a requirement of marriage. it never will.

It allows married couples to have kids if they wish, and supports them if they do, but it has never been a requirement. the state views a childless marriage as equal to one which has produced children.

LGBT people are in no different position to infertile couples, and so they argument that lgbt couples are incapable of marriage is fallicous when infertile couples quite plainly are.

floggg · 25-01-2015 11:10pm

reprise wrote: »

I don't believe you. I think just about the worst thing that could happen to you is that you were treated equally. Really, really, big bad world equally.

What the f...?

To Elland Back · 25-01-2015 11:11pm

Venus In Furs wrote: »

I find it bizarre to agree with "Some of the people voting one way are really annoying me so I'll vote the opposite to them just for that", which is what point 1 is.

Because bullies should never win

floggg · 25-01-2015 11:14pm

To Elland Back wrote: »

Because bullies should never win

So all LGBT people should be disadvantaged legally because you want to teach some people you consider bullies a lesson?

That's hardly fair, is it? And taking such a stance erodes an moral high ground which you might seek.

Edit - actually, as pointed out above, by voting No would you not be rewarding the bullies on the No side. There are lots, some of which have been saying some incredibly nasty things about LGBT people, their parents and their families.

Ave Sodalis · 25-01-2015 11:17pm

To Elland Back wrote: »

Because bullies should never win

Oh right, so when someone says "gay people shouldn't have children because they can't possibly be good parents and will mess up the child" that's fine. When someone says "gay people are sin. They should be shunned and excluded and looked down upon" that's fine aswell. When someone says "gay people are wrong. They make me sick, the whole lot of them" that's fine. When someone says "I'm not going to give an entire group of people their rights because I don't agree with it" that's perfectly okay. When someone starts name calling and spitting out nasty and/or ignorant comments, that's grand.

But when someone says "you know what, feck that, why do I have to put up with that? Come up with a rational argument or shut up"... that's the worse thing that could possibly happen and you're going to deny thousands of people rights just because a few people got fed up. Bullying isn't the former but is the latter?

Can you point out the logic there?

One eyed Jack · 25-01-2015 11:21pm

floggg wrote: »

Look at the Childrens Rights referendum and how easily scare mongering and allusions to unintended consequences can sow doubt and muddy the waters.

Y'know that's exactly the referendum I was thinking of, lowest ever turnout of the electorate to vote, because they weren't directly affected by the outcome -

http://m.rte.ie/news/2012/1111/345129-counting-of-childrens-referendum-votes-begins/

The same will happen with this referendum if the yes campaign, not to put too fine a point on it but if they don't get their shìt together, it's likely this referendum will suffer from the same voter apathy, because while 70% of the electorate support marriage equality, the fact is that those who aren't directly affected by the outcome aren't likely to bother coming out and voting in favour of it.

reprise · 25-01-2015 11:36pm

floggg wrote: »

While firstly LGBT couples can and do have children, so any child related purposes of marriage is equally applicable to LGBT couples.

Surely you aren't trying to suggest that a biological parent would have less rights on account of ssm? That kind of talk could lose the referendum right there.

floggg wrote: »

Secondly, the state has never made children, or child production capacity a requirement of marriage. it never will.

It allows married couples to have kids if they wish, and supports them if they do, but it has never been a requirement. the state views a childless marriage as equal to one which has produced children.

You are right, child birth has never been compulsory. Hasn't stopped it happening in the overwhelming majority of cases mind

floggg wrote: »

LGBT people are in no different position to infertile couples, and so they argument that lgbt couples are incapable of marriage is fallicous when infertile couples quite plainly are.

You could make the same arguments for brothers. It's not persuasive.

Shrap · 25-01-2015 11:51pm

conorh91 wrote: »

I can't be any more clear.

Oh, you could if you tried real hard.

Marriage Equality is a misnomer.

If Ireland levies a tax on blacks, Asians and Jews, and after extensive negotiation, Jews are emancipated from this tax, the outcome is not "equality".

What's happening here is that we're being told that the proposed amendment is a referendum on marriage equality. It patently is not. It's about one group attempting to enjoy greater rights than everyone else, by allying themselves with the original beneficiary of discrimination. That can never be equality.

I don't think this makes the sense you think it means. If you are trying to say that the yes side (by allying themselves with gay people who are discriminated against by their lack of marriage rights) are trying to have greater rights than the no side, that is patently untrue.

We live in a democracy, we're ALL going to vote on the issue. That is the very definition of fairness as to what rights we are entitled to.

floggg · 25-01-2015 11:59pm

reprise wrote: »

Surely you aren't trying to suggest that a biological parent would have less rights on account of ssm? That kind of talk could lose the referendum right there.

I neither suggested or inferred anything of the sort. And I can see little basis for you jumping to that conclusion.

Do people believe that marriage equality would give lgbt people the right to snatch children away from their parents or something? That certainly seems to be the case given some of the arguments we've seen.

I think it is worth noting as well as that heterosexual parents are completely free to marry people other than their child's other parent at the minute, so if an LGBT person with a child from a previous heterosexual relationship subsequently marries their partner, then it would be no different a situation to those heterosexual couples.

reprise wrote: »

You are right, child birth has never been compulsory. Hasn't stopped it happening in the overwhelming majority of cases mind

That doesn't change the analysis however. Children or the ability to conceive has never been the purpose of marriage in the Irish State.

reprise wrote: »

You could make the same arguments for brothers. It's not persuasive.

You really couldn't, and it would be absurd to try.

Two brothers do not (or at leat should not) enter into a life long commitment and sexual and romantic union with one another, and their relationship is in no way comparable to the relationship between a couple, gay or straight.

I can only assume you don't have siblings, because I could never even begin to describe my relationship with my brother as being anything akin to my relationship with my boyfriend or any form of marriage.

The argument that they are is absurd, and is again one that I cannot believe is being made in good faith.

conorh91 · 26-01-2015 12:02am

Shrap wrote: »

Oh, you could if you tried real hard.

I don't think this makes the sense you think it means. If you are trying to say that the yes side (by allying themselves with gay people who are discriminated against by their lack of marriage rights) are trying to have greater rights than the no side, that is patently untrue.

I wrote five lines, and you still misinterpret what I said. Maybe you shouldn't vote at all.

I did not say that the Yes side are trying to "have greater rights than the no side".

Marriage equality is a misnomer because what is actually being sought is greater rights than are available to other types of conjugal or committed relationships of a family nature, such as certain unmarried couples in heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

B_Wayne · 26-01-2015 12:04am

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

Give up with your persecution complex, it's boring if not a little pathetic.

Seems pretty fair, nobody in this topic has produced a reason to vote no. Some say they'd prefer to be voting on other things, that's not a reason to limit a person's rights. Another doesn't agree with marriage, well we're voting on the existing structure. Campaign against marriage in general but don't limit the rights of one group because you don't agree with anyone marrying...

To Elland Back wrote: »

Because bullies should never win

The opposition to the referendum have already referred to incest and marrying one's relative in the last week. They've consistently lied about same sex parenting and happily scare monger to limit the rights of others. That's behaving like a bully tbh.

How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

Comments