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

Doctor Jimbob · 25-01-2015 12:08am

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

Not true. This referendum WILL make same sex marriage = mixed sex marriage.....when clearly they are not.

The referendum isn't suddenly going to allow gay couples to reproduce with each other. It is simply going to make same and opposite sex marriages equal in the eyes of the law. Hope this clears up any confusion.

RobertKK · 25-01-2015 12:11am

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

No, the state is simply verifying the marriage in the eyes of the state/law. It isn't defining it. It's simply a contract.

And what exactly do we do about polygamous divorces? A complete mess from a legal standpoint. I get what you're saying, and in a perfect world it would be lovely, but it's a massive oversimplification to just say we can toss out state involvement in marriage.

More freedom, yes, but also much less protection. I feel like you haven't thought this through fully.

We will be voting on a new definition for marriage, so whether it is a verifying a contract, it still comes from the definition that the state gives as being the marriage.
To me I would be only married in a church wedding, the civil papers would not be the marriage, but lets someone is an atheist, my marriage wouldn't be what they would view as marriage. I wouldn't have a problem with that.

I said earlier a solicitor would be needed, we really should have agreements on who owns what and what happens if a marriage fails or if someone dies.There is no reason why it shouldn't be as simple as a will is to make and it would make pre-nuptial agreements a thing the people getting married would have to discuss, rather than having it something awkward as if to say the marriage is going to fail before they are even married.
Pre-nuptial agreements would have to be made legal rather than being used as a guide in the courts, and changes would have to be made when children arrive.

Blahblah2012 · 25-01-2015 12:11am

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The referendum isn't suddenly going to allow gay couples to reproduce with each other.

I don't think any referendum will manage that I'm afraid

reprise · 25-01-2015 12:12am

sup_dude wrote: »

But wasn't well thought out, nor justified.

Accidents happen. What about people who can't have children? Are their marriages lesser than those who can? As for the opposing gender, this is what this and many other threads are talking about.

eviltwin wrote: »

I'd like more explanation of that point. Tell me why I should vote no. Tell me why my marriage is under threat is the referendum passes.

wtf!

I am not canvassing here. Vote whatever way your heart desires.

I offered a very benign reason why a lot of people may vote no and feel quite justified in doing so based on the core institution of marraige, whether you like it or not, or have kids or not.

Ozymandius2011 · 25-01-2015 12:12am

Breda O'Brien in today's Irish Times is on about the importance of the biological link between mother-father and child. That sounds to me like an argument against adoption. It was also interesting a few nights ago on Tonight with Vincent Browne that on the episode (archives are on tv3 website) featuring Fidelma Healy Eames and a woman from Catholic Comment opposing gay marriage, that both admitted they either had a child that was not biologically related to them or to being a single parent i.e. Eames admitted she's an adoptive parent, while the Catholic Comment woman said she is a single parent. So it seems a matter of some prominent persons on the no side saying "do as I say not as I do".

reprise · 25-01-2015 12:16am

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Yes of course accidents happen but if marriage exists as a foundation for the family unit surely those who do not wish or are not able to have Children should also be denied permission to marry.

*I don't actually think this of course, but it seems like the logical path to take from your argument.

No, that's known as Reductio ad absurdum

Doctor Jimbob · 25-01-2015 12:16am

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

I don't think any referendum will manage that I'm afraid

Well, no. Obviously.

eviltwin · 25-01-2015 12:18am

reprise wrote: »

wtf!

I am not canvassing here. Vote whatever way your heart desires.

I offered a very benign reason why a lot of people may vote no and feel quite justified in doing so based on the core institution of marraige, whether you like it or not, or have kids or not.

Apologies, I thought this was your opinion.

Its something that I've heard a lot from the No side and I was hoping someone could elaborate on it.

Doctor Jimbob · 25-01-2015 12:19am

reprise wrote: »

No, that's known as Reductio ad absurdum

How? It naturally follows that if marriage is for producing families, those unable to have families should not be allowed to marry. That's literally part of the argument you're using against SSM. Why is it a logical fallacy to extend this to opposite sex couples who are infertile, for example?

Ave Sodalis · 25-01-2015 12:19am

reprise wrote: »

wtf!

I am not canvassing here. Vote whatever way your heart desires.

I offered a very benign reason why a lot of people may vote no and feel quite justified in doing so based on the core institution of marraige, whether you like it or not, or have kids or not.

I was looking for a well thought out, justified, factual, well presented argument for voting no. You can have reasons like that but if you can't argue them, then how's that any better?

mad muffin · 25-01-2015 12:25am

Of course yes. Why would you vote any other way?

RobertKK · 25-01-2015 12:25am

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't really understand the point you are making.

If you support a church wedding as the only real wedding then are you not letting the church define what your marriage is, is the fact the church has expectations of married couples not defining your marriage.

All we did was turn up on a day and say our vows - which we wrote by the way. We didn't have to promise to have children or to stay together forever or anything like that. The state didn't tell me what my marriage should be, we define our marriage every day. The state simply witnessed and facilitated it so that an offical record exists to show that he is my husband and I am his wife.

I respect those who choose to marry in a church but not everyone can, not everyone wants to. Why should only a Catholic marriage be valid in a country where we have people of all faiths and none. In your example I wouldn't have been able to get married at all as I'm not eligible to marry in a church. The state at least gave me that option.

Nowhere did I say a Catholic marriage be the only valid marriage. I actually opened up marriage as being what the people getting married define it as, you said in your case you defined it, that is my point. But I question the need for the state's role in it as it is only since the 1830's when we were in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland that civil marriage was brought in, in England and Wales, and from the mid 1840's for Ireland.
Before then it was religious groups in the UK (Christian and Jews) who married and there was no marriage for atheists, muslims and others
I think they went wrong then with the civil marriage, they should have allowed the atheists and whoever else do their own marriages and not the state taking control of it.

reprise · 25-01-2015 12:29am

eviltwin wrote: »

Apologies, I thought this was your opinion. Its something that I've heard a lot from the No side and I was hoping someone could elaborate on it.

That's my point. It's a simple argument, it doesn't require a thesis, it's easily understood and it will not succumb to hysteria and accusations of homophobia. Quite the opposite in fact.

Whether the yes side wants to deal with it or not, this is a referendum changing a substantial pillar of the traditional marriage contract.

We dont have ssm in this country and there are too many arrogant idiots on the yes side that are acting like this referendum is taking something away and not the other way around.

Summer wind · 25-01-2015 12:31am

Just because my husband and I are a man and woman it doesn't mean we love each other more than John and Michael or Susan and Mary do. We all deserve to live, love and be happy. For this reason I'd vote yes.

RobertKK · 25-01-2015 12:36am

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That's actually sayign the exact opposite: that the church has a right to dictate state policy regarding inheritance rights and taxations for married couples.

Why should married couples get special taxation policies over single people?
Couldn't one just put it on their tax returns how many dependents they are supporting and take it from there?
Inheritance rights - have a solicitor involved.

Ozymandius2011 · 25-01-2015 12:39am

Red C poll says: 77% to vote yes - of which 44% have no reservations and 33% have some reservations. 22% to vote no according to twitter. Source #marref

emersyn · 25-01-2015 12:46am

@all the people who have started saying that they’re going to vote no because the nasty gays have become too rude and grating for their tastes: what does it feel like to have the power and privilege to literally be able to dangle human rights above our heads like a carrot and only give them to us providing we pander to your feelings? Listen to yourselves

pablomakaveli · 25-01-2015 12:50am

Can't vote since i don't live in Ireland no more but if i had it would have been a Yes vote from me.

I'm glad my gay and lesbian friends back in Ireland will finally get the equality they deserve.

There's no valid reason to vote no. A lot of those who are voting no are being dishonest as to their reasons as well. There's only one reason why they're voting no but they dont like to admit it.

reprise · 25-01-2015 12:52am

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Can't vote since i don't live in Ireland no more but if i had it would have been a Yes vote from me.

I'm glad my gay and lesbian friends back in Ireland will finally get the equality they deserve.

There's no valid reason to vote no. A lot of those who are voting no are being dishonest as to their reasons as well. There's only one reason why they're voting no but they dont like to admit it.

You've lost me, what's the secret reason?

RobertKK · 25-01-2015 12:56am

reprise wrote: »

You've lost me, what's the secret reason?

No one will marry us whether heterosexual or homosexual...

Lau2976 · 25-01-2015 1:07am

I don't think it's fair to suggest that all those voting no are homophobic. I've had this conversation with my own mother (who is passionately for the yes vote) about my own reservations to voting yes. I don't believe that makes me homophobic.

Are certain people who are voting no homophobic? Yes

Are all? No.

Unless you have interviewed every single person in the country voting no and found it to be for homophobic reasons then keep your generalizations to yourself please.

osarusan · 25-01-2015 1:08am

If God had meant people of the same sex to marry each other, he wouldn't have made me bigoted.

Think about that.

pablomakaveli · 25-01-2015 1:10am

reprise wrote: »

You've lost me, what's the secret reason?

As far as i know labelling people homophobic on here is a bannable offence or has that changed?

Ave Sodalis · 25-01-2015 1:11am

Lau2976 wrote: »

I don't think it's fair to suggest that all those voting no are homophobic. I've had this conversation with my own mother (who is passionately for the yes vote) about my own reservations to voting yes. I don't believe that makes me homophobic.

Are certain people who are voting no homophobic? Yes

Are all? No.

Unless you have interviewed every single person in the country voting no and found it to be for homophobic reasons then keep your generalizations to yourself please.

Homophobic or not, I've yet to find a well reasoned, justified argument for the no side.

emersyn · 25-01-2015 1:12am

Lau2976 wrote: »

I don't think it's fair to suggest that all those voting no are homophobic. I've had this conversation with my own mother (who is passionately for the yes vote) about my own reservations to voting yes. I don't believe that makes me homophobic.

Are certain people who are voting no homophobic? Yes

Are all? No.

Unless you have interviewed every single person in the country voting no and found it to be for homophobic reasons then keep your generalizations to yourself please.

Actually I've heard the opinions of quite a few people planning to vote no and all of them have thus far indeed been homophobic. Are you going to back up your complaint with a non-homophobic reason for voting no or are you just going to throw it out there?

Holsten · 25-01-2015 1:12am

I'll be voting YES.

emersyn · 25-01-2015 1:13am

pablomakaveli wrote: »

As far as i know labelling people homophobic on here is a bannable offence or has that changed?

Wait, so openly homophobic people don't get banned but people complaining about homophobic people do? Progressive.

reprise · 25-01-2015 1:17am

pablomakaveli wrote: »

As far as i know labelling people homophobic on here is a bannable offence or has that changed?

I think it's as ever - if you make ad hominem statements, you are sanctioned. Rants are tolerated to a point.

K4t · 25-01-2015 1:19am

reprise wrote: »

I think it's as ever - if you make ad hominem statements, you are sanctioned. Rants are tolerated to a point.

Or you could just, you know, refute the statements or even ignore them. And we all live happily ever after.

reprise · 25-01-2015 1:21am

K4t wrote: »

Or you could just, you know, refute the statements or even ignore them. And we all live happily ever after.

I was trying to flesh out what the statement was.

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

Comments