Same Sex Marriage (Poll on The Journal)

Pushtrak

http://www.thejournal.ie/poll-how-would-you-vote-if-there-was-a-referendum-on-same-sex-marriage-today-1149409-Oct2013/

I've seen this topic come up, and it seems to me a lot of people think that if it were put to a referendum, then it'd pass easily. I think it's ridiculous that peoples rights should be put to a popular vote... I also have always had skepticism it'd pass with ease.

Currently, the poll has 46% of people in opposition, 44% in favour, 6% wouldn't vote and 2% are undecided. Now, the way I see things, if attitudes were really markedly in favour, then the journal would be a shining example for where we'd see that borne out in polls.

I figured it'd be an interesting discussion, and also would be good to present the exact same poll as the one in The Journal to see how closely aligned the poll results are.

the_syco

Put a similar poll in The Sun, just to get in all sections of the population...

Grayson

Pushtrak wrote: »

I think it's ridiculous that peoples rights should be put to a popular vote... I also have always had skepticism it'd pass with ease.

There's a bit in the newsroom where they say they're not going to be fair and balanced because it's stupid. If The US republicans said the world was flat, being balanced would be getting someone on to argue with them.
Climate change is another example 97% of scientists agree that is is caused by man and is getting worse, but in discussions they always have someone to debate the other side.

This is even worse. It's a right bestowed on everyone except those of a different sexual orientation. And it's because some people feel queasy at the thought of two men having sex. Not so much about two women doing it for some reason.

These people are just wrong, both morally & logically

Pushtrak

Looking at the poll results, it's little surprise the conventional attitude is a take it for granted it'd pass.

carlmango11

Wow, I really didn't expect such high opposition. Really embarrassing.

Rayne Wooney

What are the main arguments against it?


People should mind their own business, you've too much time on your hands if you're worrying about who other people are marrying.

Shanotheslayer

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

What are the main arguments against it?

Religion I imagine

poundapunnet

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

What are the main arguments against it?


People should mind their own business, you've too much time on your hands if you're worrying about who other people are marrying.

(Just to be clear, I'm in favour of gay marriage)

The reasons that people present when they're trying to pretend it's not because they're religious or homophobic:

Somebody think of the children

Next thing we'll be marrying goats

Friends will get married for tax reasons (same thing is perfectly possible now ffs)

It's icky

Friend Computer

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

What are the main arguments against it?

It "redefines marriage" or "dilutes the purity of marriage" or something like that. Because we all know gay people are inferior and anything that suggests they might be equal to anyone else is to be opposed tooth and nail.

Rubberchikken

have no issue with same sex unions, marriage or otherwise.
but to be honest, if put to the public in a referendum tomorrow, i couldn't see it passing. don't think ireland is there yet.

Mint Sauce

Why does this have to go to a Referendum anyway? Just had a quick look through the Family and Marriage articles of The Constitution, and I cant see where it says marriage is between a man and woman. Plenty on spouses, person(s) and family, but with no mention to gender, apart from...

2. 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within
the home, woman gives to the State a support without which
the common good cannot be achieved.

2.2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that
mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

Doesn't say it has to be a woman though.

Links234

Anyone, and I mean ANYONE who is against marriage equality has issues of their own. Someone else's marriage has absolutely no bearing on your own, and if you think it does, if you think it somehow lessens yours, then it mustn't have had that great a foundation to begin with. You need a much stronger basis for your marriage than mere exclusivity.

Absoluvely

Grayson wrote: »

This is even worse. It's a right bestowed on everyone except those of a different sexual orientation.

I wouldn't bring sexual orientation into the debate at all.

In Ireland, only women are eligible to marry me - men aren't.
Your legal rights are assigned to you based on what your genitals looked like when you were born.

It's the most blatant sexism.

The constitution and laws should be completely gender-indifferent.

Some people are against same-sex marriage because they want civil marriage to be abolished completely. That's the only non-sexist anti-same-sex marriage view. I don't really have a view on whether we need civil marriage and all the tax implications that go with it or not. What's more important is that the list of people who a man is eligible to marry should be the same as the list of people who a woman is eligible to marry. Otherwise, sexism.

padd b1975

Feel free to copy and paste your replies from 3 months ago, not much has changed in the meantime.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056994904

Yellow121

Am, the people in the book were called Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

kneemos

A Hugh voting demographic in Ireland is older people.Motivated by church and conservatism I doubt a lot of them would vote in favour of gay marriage.

The Big Smoke

That journal poll really puts in perspective the ignorance of a large population of this country. ****ing depressing.

Femme_Fatale

TheJournal.ie is very popular among the brainless though. I don't think the intention with it was for it to turn into another Sun, but it has become that.

Yellow121

God
Abhors
You

Yellow121

If you have the gay you get aids.

The Big Smoke

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

TheJournal.ie is very popular among the brainless though. I don't think the intention with it was for it to turn into another Sun, but it has become that.

Unfortunately, a vast amount of this country listen to what tabloids tell them.

Yellow121

My asshole is just for sh1tting.

Banned.

cletus van damme

kneemos wrote: »

A Hugh voting demographic in Ireland is older people.Motivated by church and conservatism I doubt a lot of them would vote in favour of gay marriage.

i don't doubt you have a point.
But the idea of older people being conversative and younger people being liberal jsut isn't true,

plenty of prejustice in younger people under 50 - and a lot of them don't have the churches teaching as an excuse cos they're not religious.

super_furry

Don't see why gay people shouldn't have the same chances as straight people to be trapped in loveless, miserable marriages.

I would vote yes, not because I'm in favour, rather, I have no objection to it.
It's not really my place to foist my opinions over the happiness, legal status, etc of others.

hatrickpatrick

Yes and no.
I have no moral issue with same sex marriage, but personally I believe that the state has completely decimated and destroyed the entire institution of marriage altogether in recent years through various divorce laws and so on, so to be honest, although same-sex marriage would be the lesser of two evils, I'd actually much prefer if the state got out of the business of getting involved in people's relationships altogether and the institution of marriage was left to religion. All the state has managed to do is wreck it.

wexie

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

although same-sex marriage would be the lesser of two evils, I'd actually much prefer if the state got out of the business of getting involved in people's relationships altogether and the institution of marriage was left to religion. All the state has managed to do is wreck it.

Could you explain that? you've confused me a bit.

Links234

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Yes and no.
I have no moral issue with same sex marriage, but personally I believe that the state has completely decimated and destroyed the entire institution of marriage altogether in recent years through various divorce laws and so on, so to be honest, although same-sex marriage would be the lesser of two evils, I'd actually much prefer if the state got out of the business of getting involved in people's relationships altogether and the institution of marriage was left to religion. All the state has managed to do is wreck it.

Do you not see that not having divorce IS itself the state getting involved in people's relationships? And by no sense is marriage a religious institution.

Fukuyama

If there is a referendum - I hope it's in parallel to another issue so more people will get out an vote.

I can see many people who would vote 'yes', assuming it will get passed and not bothering their asses to spend fifteen minutes going to the polling station.

This would give the god fearing Catholics / conservatives / bigots a lead in quashing the amendment.

kneemos

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Yes and no.
I have no moral issue with same sex marriage, but personally I believe that the state has completely decimated and destroyed the entire institution of marriage altogether in recent years through various divorce laws and so on, so to be honest, although same-sex marriage would be the lesser of two evils, I'd actually much prefer if the state got out of the business of getting involved in people's relationships altogether and the institution of marriage was left to religion. All the state has managed to do is wreck it.

Could never really understand how the institution of marriage is lessened by someone getting a divorce.
Living together in misery surely makes a mockery of it?

Pherekydes

kneemos wrote: »

Could never really understand how the institution of marriage is lessened by someone getting a divorce.
Living together in misery surely makes a mockery of it?

You don't need a divorce to live separately.

padd b1975

Dean0088 wrote: »

If there is a referendum - I hope it's in parallel to another issue so more people will get out an vote.

I can see many people who would vote 'yes', assuming it will get passed and not bothering their asses to spend fifteen minutes going to the polling station.

This would give the god fearing Catholics / conservatives / bigots a lead in quashing the amendment.

People should not need an incentive to get off their holes to vote.

poundapunnet

Pherekydes wrote: »

You don't need a divorce to live separately.

Yeah but it helps. Surely people getting the tax/inheritance benefits that come with marriage while not living together is making a bit of a mockery of the whole thing? And what if one partner wants to get married again?

Pherekydes

poundapunnet wrote: »

Yeah but it helps. Surely people getting the tax/inheritance benefits that come with marriage while not living together is making a bit of a mockery of the whole thing? And what if one partner wants to get married again?

I agree. I was just saying you don't need to be divorced to live separately. My ex lived in the UK for 16 years before divorcing me. I was separated for 6 years before divorce was even legal.

kneemos

Pherekydes wrote: »

I agree. I was just saying you don't need to be divorced to live separately. My ex lived in the UK for 16 years before divorcing me. I was separated for 6 years before divorce was even legal.

How does being separated or divorced lessen the institution of marriage?

Pherekydes

kneemos wrote: »

How does being separated or divorced lessen the institution of marriage?

You're asking the wrong person. I'm separated, divorced and remarried and the catholic neighbours' marriages haven't fallen apart, my kids haven't been bullied, our house hasn't been targetted, our pet hasn't been poisoned. In fact, the very fabric of society doesn't seem to be falling asunder around here.

I'm totally in favour of second marriages! Everyone should try it!

poundapunnet

Pherekydes wrote: »

You're asking the wrong person. I'm separated, divorced and remarried and the catholic neighbours' marriages haven't fallen apart, my kids haven't been bullied, our house hasn't been targetted, our pet hasn't been poisoned. In fact, the very fabric of society doesn't seem to be falling asunder around here.

I'm totally in favour of second marriages! Everyone should try it!

I get what you're saying now, think your first reply to kneemos made it look like you were saying there was no need for divorce because people could just separate, happily everyone's on the same page

Manach

There does seem to be a large difference between Boards and Journal (No voter btw)

MadsL

Yellow121 wrote: »

Am, the people in the book were called Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

Adam and Eve weren't married as I recall.

padd b1975

kneemos wrote: »

How does being separated or divorced lessen the institution of marriage?

It cheapens the vows.

"For better, for worse........." etc etc.

Annasopra

Yellow121 wrote: »

Am, the people in the book were called Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

Eve was made from one of Adams ribs

poundapunnet

padd b1975 wrote: »

It cheapens the vows.

"For better, for worse........." etc etc.

Aren't those from the specifically religious vows though? How does it lessen the value of marriage as an institution? I always kind of thought one of the primary functions of marriage (once you take religion out of it) was to provide a formalised family unit to raise children in, I'd say it lessens the value of marriage to, for example force children to be raised under the same roof as an alcoholic or a violent parent or something like that?

padd b1975

poundapunnet wrote: »

Aren't those from the specifically religious vows though? How does it lessen the value of marriage as an institution? I always kind of thought one of the primary functions of marriage (once you take religion out of it) was to provide a formalised family unit to raise children in, I'd say it lessens the value of marriage to, for example force children to be raised under the same roof as an alcoholic or a violent parent or something like that?

Far from exclusive to a church wedding, to the best of my knowledge.

In all the weddings I have been to in my lifetime (church and non-religious) I have never heard the care of children mentioned in the vows.
I have however heard the phrase "for better, for worse" more times than I care to recall.

As regards your point regarding an alcoholic or abusive parent, whether the parent is married or not has no bearing on these 'traits' coming to the surface.

Without sounding flippant, the phrase "You can chose your friends, but you can't chose your family" comes to mind.

hfallada

I wouldnt call the type of individual who read journal.ie a fair representation of the irish public. There is certainly a lot of people with unique views and values on it.

But I cant understand why giving its acceptable in 2013, to deny someone their human rights on the ground of their sexual orientation. Im reading a book at the moment that says 20% of LGBT people seriously considered committing suicide and many others suffer with mental health issue. What message do you send to a 14 year old struggling with their sexuality, that they are a second class citizen in Ireland?

poundapunnet

padd b1975 wrote: »

Far from exclusive to a church wedding, to the best of my knowledge.

In all the weddings I have been to in my lifetime (church and non-religious) I have never heard the care of children mentioned in the vows.
I have however heard the phrase "for better, for worse" more times than I care to recall.

As regards your point regarding an alcoholic or abusive parent, whether the parent is married or not has no bearing on these 'traits' coming to the surface.

Without sounding flippant, the phrase "You can chose your friends, but you can't chose your family" comes to mind.

I'm sure they're used outside of church weddings, they are specifically religious in origin though right? If a couple gets married without using those standard vows are they less married? Is it ok for them to get a divorce because they didn't say that?

Married doesn't have an effect on those traits, but the person's age and the length of the relationship does (somebody who's a funny drunk at 20 can be a mess by 30, somebody who never had a drink til they were 30 can be a mess by 40, somebody could have an untreated mental illness which both gets progressively worse and makes them very unsuitable to be around children). The longer the relationship, the more likely the people are to be married.

That's a bad way of not sounding flippant, you sound flippant enough for me to assume you've been lucky enough to never have lived with anyone violent or suffering from alcoholism, particularly when you're half their size and flippant people are saying "deal with it because marriage"

steel_balls

Manach wrote: »

There does seem to be a large difference between Boards and Journal (No voter btw)

boards is a relentless onslaught of right on liberalism 24 - 7 so that's hardly surprising

wouldn't surprise me in the least if a referendum past but I doubt it would be a beat beyond single figures percentage wise

Splendour

Grayson wrote: »

And it's because some people feel queasy at the thought of two men having sex. Not so much about two women doing it for some reason.

I would feel more queasy at the thought of 2 women having sex than two men. Although it is not something that crosses my mind very often!

The Big Smoke wrote: »

That journal poll really puts in perspective the ignorance of a large population of this country. ****ing depressing.

You can't call someone ignorant just because they don't your viewpoint. They could just as easily call you ignorant for not agreeing with them.

Femme_Fatale

steel_balls wrote: »

boards is a relentless onslaught of right on liberalism 24 - 7 so that's hardly surprising

Oh yeh letting people who have nothing to do with you get married is real "right on liberalism".

poundapunnet

Splendour wrote: »

I would feel more queasy at the thought of 2 women having sex than two men. Although it is not something that crosses my mind very often!




You can't call someone ignorant just because they don't your viewpoint. They could just as easily call you ignorant for not agreeing with them.

I wouldn't call them ignorant. If someone opposes it on religious grounds that's fine by me, they're free to believe what you want. I fundamentally cannot relate to the basis of their argument, we're not going to agree. Difference is I'm not forcing them to run out and marry a member of the same sex, or denying their partner parental rights over children they've raised for years.

If someone disagrees on non religious grounds, I still wouldn't call them ignorant, "wrong" does just fine.

steel_balls

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Oh yeh letting people who have nothing to do with you get married is real "right on liberalism".

right on pc liberalism involves supporting pre approved sacred cows unconditionally , no questions asked

these sacred cows can be groups like travellers and muslims or causes like gender equality or so called marriage equality to name just two

Drakares

Wow.. Almost 10% against. I didn't think 1 out of 10 people on this forum are still in the 18th century. How sad.