Same Sex Marriage (Poll on The Journal)

hansfrei

Can bi people marry one of each?

Splendour

poundapunnet wrote: »

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.

'Wrong' is the same as calling them ignorant-they would equally say you are wrong. Who decides what's right and what's wrong? That is why we have a democratic voting system-if the people decide on a yes vote then the no camp have to shut up and put up and vice versa.

keeponhurling

Drakares wrote: »

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

I know, amazing right? People with differing views to yourself. Unbelievable.

It will blow your mind when I tell you that gay marriage is still illegal in over 90% of the countries in the world.

poundapunnet

Splendour wrote: »

'Wrong' is the same as calling them ignorant-they would equally say you are wrong. Who decides what's right and what's wrong? That is why we have a democratic voting system-if the people decide on a yes vote then the no camp have to shut up and put up and vice versa.

Eh, no, those are two different words. Ignorant implies they don't know or understand what they're talking about, which is pretty patronising so I tend to avoid it. If someone says they don't like the Beatles, I wouldn't call them wrong, in the case of denying marriage to same sex couples I would, because they are, there is literally no good reason to continue it. we can argue it out point by point if you want? I'd prefer to see gay marriage brought in democratically for sure, it would make it a bit more future proof and be a guard against those "gay agenda" arguments, but up to and including when that does happen, I'll continue to say it's objectively wrong to oppose it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

steel_balls wrote: »

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

steel_balls wrote: »

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

Ah yes, those damn liberals again! Refer to something as "liberal" and suddenly everything is evil and it all makes sense! Throw in a P and a C and people don't even ask what the **** you're talking about - they just jump on the it-all-makes-sense bandwagon!

What the **** are you talking about?

Femme_Fatale

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Ah yes, those damn liberals again! Refer to something as "liberal" and suddenly everything is evil and it all makes sense! Throw in a P and a C and people don't even ask what the **** you're talking about - they just jump on the it-all-makes-sense bandwagon!

What the **** are you talking about?

He's banned. It's that guy that keeps re-regging over and over to spout angry bollox.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

He's banned. It's that guy that keeps re-regging over and over to spout angry bollox.

Dammit! Just when I thought I was going to get an answer to the PC question!

downonthefarm

let them get married why would anyone be bothered about what anyone else does in the privacy of their own homes?

poundapunnet

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Dammit! Just when I thought I was going to get an answer to the PC question!

Actually I think I know what he's talking about, you meet many, many, many people who hold liberal views re: marriage equality, sexism etc but they can't actually defend them any better than a lot of Biblebashing conservatives. You might think the typical liberal views are right (and I do) but people aren't arriving at them by thinking things through, they're just uncritically absorbing them from their peers and that damn pinko media :pac: And it does lead to a sacred cow situation, the best example is that if anyone asks "so what makes people gay" or "are there any significant differences between the abilities of different races for xyz" the conversation is shut down immediately with cries of homophobia and racism. I'd imagine it's just as frustrating as, for example, asking a Christian why they disagree with gay marriage and being told "because the Bible says so and you're going to hell that's why"

PS I love your username

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

poundapunnet wrote: »

Actually I think I know what he's talking about, you meet many, many, many people who hold liberal views re: marriage equality, sexism etc but they can't actually defend them any better than a lot of Biblebashing conservatives. You might think the typical liberal views are right (and I do) but people aren't arriving at them by thinking things through, they're just uncritically absorbing them from their peers and that damn pinko media :pac: And it does lead to a sacred cow situation, the best example is that if anyone asks "so what makes people gay" or "are there any significant differences between the abilities of different races for xyz" the conversation is shut down immediately with cries of homophobia and racism. I'd imagine it's just as frustrating as, for example, asking a Christian why they disagree with gay marriage and being told "because the Bible says so and you're going to hell that's why"

PS I love your username

Except that's not the point he made.

He was blaming "liberals" for something or postrulating that people who are liberal are automatically brainwashed or haven't reserched the topic. The posts I quoted weren't even on topic - he was just using it as a platform.

My opinons are based on my own experiences. I know plenty of gay people who lead happy living lives, both married and unmarried and I don't see why they should not have the same rights as straight married couples. There's no sacred "cow" involved.

I'd also like to point out that I know many conservative people who have no objections to gay marraige also.

Don't know any "PC" liberals though.

MadsL

mango salsa wrote: »

Eve was made from one of Adams ribs

That, and the fact they didn't exist.

Femme_Fatale

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Except that's not the point he made.

He was blaming "liberals" for something or postrulating that people who are liberal are automatically brainwashed or haven't reserched the topic. The posts I quoted weren't even on topic - he was just using it as a platform.

My opinons are based on my own experiences. I know plenty of gay people who lead happy living lives, both married and unmarried and I don't see why they should not have the same rights as straight married couples. There's no sacred "cow" involved.

I'd also like to point out that I know many conservative people who have no objections to gay marraige also.

Don't know any "PC" liberals though.

He keeps registering to pretend to himself that people who have views that he disagrees with are just trying to be trendy. And anyone who uses the terms "PC liberal leftie" is automatically an idiot.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

He keeps registering to pretend to himself that people who have views that he disagrees with are just trying to be trendy. And anyone who uses the terms "PC liberal leftie" is automatically an idiot.

Ah, so there's a chance he'll be back to answer my quesstion then?!

poundapunnet

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Except that's not the point he made.

He was blaming "liberals" for something or postrulating that people who are liberal are automatically brainwashed or haven't reserched the topic. The posts I quoted weren't even on topic - he was just using it as a platform.

My opinons are based on my own experiences. I know plenty of gay people who lead happy living lives, both married and unmarried and I don't see why they should not have the same rights as straight married couples. There's no sacred "cow" involved.

I'd also like to point out that I know many conservative people who have no objections to gay marraige also.

Don't know any "PC" liberals though.

Hey, I'm not accusing you of anything personally, I'm gay myself, and support gay marriage, also I know some gay people who don't support it. I agree that marriage equality is objectively right, but I do agree with that banned poster that there's such a thing as right-on automatic liberalism and I think it's actually damaging.

Edit: It's like in school, where one doesn't get marks just for writing down the correct answer without showing the work.

Henlars67

I've voted in every referendum and every election since I turned 18 over 12 years ago, however I would be highly unlikely to vote in a referendum on same-sex marriage.

I am in favour of it, and if I was to change my mind on whether to vote between now and whenever it happens I would definitely be voting Yes.

However, due to the fact that it is completely unnecessary to hold a referendum in order to allow for same sex marriage I don't feel like I should vote in it. The referendum would be a sham. the constitution does not need to be changed in any way in order for same-sex marriage to happen.

wexie

poundapunnet wrote: »

, also I know some gay people who don't support it. I

I gotta say I'm really quite curious as to what their motivation is.

Mike 1972

Henlars67 wrote: »

The referendum would be a sham. the constitution does not need to be changed in any way in order for same-sex marriage to happen.

A referendum can be held on issues which don't involve changing the constitution so while marriage equality SHOULD be introduced without a referendum boycotting such a referendum would be a rather unwise strategy.

Splendour

poundapunnet wrote: »

Actually I think I know what he's talking about, you meet many, many, many people who hold liberal views re: marriage equality, sexism etc but they can't actually defend them any better than a lot of Biblebashing conservatives. You might think the typical liberal views are right (and I do) but people aren't arriving at them by thinking things through, they're just uncritically absorbing them from their peers and that damn pinko media :pac: And it does lead to a sacred cow situation, the best example is that if anyone asks "so what makes people gay" or "are there any significant differences between the abilities of different races for xyz" the conversation is shut down immediately with cries of homophobia and racism. I'd imagine it's just as frustrating as, for example, asking a Christian why they disagree with gay marriage and being told "because the Bible says so and you're going to hell that's why"

PS I love your username

Not all Christians are against gay marriage-I'm a Christian and I wouldn't have a problem with it.I don't push my beliefs on anyone and think and state should be separate.
Btw-it does not say in the bible does say one will go to hell for being gay or being gay and getting married.

poundapunnet

wexie wrote: »

I gotta say I'm really quite curious as to what their motivation is.

They tend to be older, put up with terrible abuse over their sexuality for most of their lives and see it as condescending to the community as a whole for the straight establishment to deign to allow them to marry. They'd be people who I imagine have fond memories of a very separate and subversive LGBT community from fado fado and use words like "breeders" to refer to heterosexuals. Also because marriage is a bourgeois institution and should be done away with altogether (not my views, theirs, and not all of those views held by every person)

wexie

poundapunnet wrote: »

They tend to be older, put up with terrible abuse over their sexuality for most of their lives and see it as condescending to the community as a whole for the straight establishment to deign to allow them to marry. They'd be people who I imagine have fond memories of a very separate and subversive LGBT community from fado fado and use words like "breeders" to refer to heterosexuals. Also because marriage is a bourgeois institution and should be done away with altogether (not my views, theirs, and not all of those views held by every person)

hmm.....when you first said that I thought it was really quite illogical. But when you put it like this it makes sense in a kinda 'well **** you too then' way especially the 'allowed' bit.

catallus

I'm all for marriage between people of the same sex. No problems with it, it's only right that gay people have the right to have all the protections the state endows on the married.

What I do have a problem with is the stipulation that it can only occur between two people. Why should a person be limited to being married to one person? I'd like two or three wives, but it is a big no-no according to the law. What's with that??

poundapunnet

Splendour wrote: »

Not all Christians are against gay marriage-I'm a Christian and I wouldn't have a problem with it.I don't push my beliefs on anyone and think and state should be separate.
Btw-it does not say in the bible does say one will go to hell for being gay or being gay and getting married.

I know that, sorry, should have said "some Christians".

wexie wrote: »

hmm.....when you first said that I thought it was really quite illogical. But when you put it like this it makes sense in a kinda 'well **** you too then' way especially the 'allowed' bit.

Yeah, I get where they're coming from but I kind of feel the same way as I do towards other opponents of gay marriage "don't get gay married so". On a practical level the issues of inheritance/insurance/adoption etc are more important as far as I'm concerned.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

poundapunnet wrote: »

Hey, I'm not accusing you of anything personally, I'm gay myself, and support gay marriage, also I know some gay people who don't support it. I agree that marriage equality is objectively right, but I do agree with that banned poster that there's such a thing as right-on automatic liberalism and I think it's actually damaging.

Edit: It's like in school, where one doesn't get marks just for writing down the correct answer without showing the work.

Yeah, I know - but he's still soapboxing and has not a clue what he's talking about.

wexie wrote: »

I gotta say I'm really quite curious as to what their motivation is.

I know one who's not comfortable with the idea because he says gay men are too promiscuous. But then the straight ones aren't all saints either.

wexie

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I know one who's not comfortable with the idea because he says gay men are too promiscuous. But then the straight ones aren't all saints either.

What do you say to something like that? Just goes to show you get loonies of all varieties and sexual preferences.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

wexie wrote: »

What do you say to something like that? Just goes to show you get loonies of all varieties and sexual preferences.

Pointed out the fact about straight men!

Also something about gay men being adults and having the right to make a decision for themselves, which sparked off a debate about whether or not bannign gay marriage was a characterisitc of a nanny state. Don't remember what happened after that, it was in the George many years ago.

(Don't read anything into that last sentence)

SV

It takes a special kind of stupidity to care about what two other people do with each other and all parties are consenting. Gay people deserve every right that straight people deserve, and that includes marriage and all that comes with it.

MurdyWurdy

I have no problem with same sex marriage whatsoever. There's enough hate and badness in the world, we could do with a bit more love.

I really don't understand why people oppose it. Why do people care what two consenting adults do? I also hate the argument that it devalues the institution of marriage - I don't feel my marriage is any less valid because of other people's choices. I'm living my life and they're living theirs.

hansfrei

Is marriage a right, really? In reality marriage is restricted and bound by rules.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

hansfrei wrote: »

Is marriage a right, really? In reality marriage is restricted and bound by rules.

Which rules states that you have to be straight?

EDIT - In answer to your question yes, indeed it is.

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

timthumbni

Listen its obvious from the good book that god created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.......... That's all the evidence any sensible human being requires.

Now being serious a few years ago I would have been generally a wee bit homophobic and by extension against gay marriage etc. Nothing really a big deal just snide comments with friends etc. I have since grown up and have a very close gay friend now. I now would support gay marriage if nothing else so as they too can go through the sheer hell of marrying someone who you later discover you don't really want to be with and all the subsequent endless fun and lawyer based frolics later. Lol.

Its 2013. There is no sensible reason why 2 adult men etc can't get married if they really want to. (Apart from insanity about wanting to get married, lol)
Who really gives a fe&ck?

humbert

If you take After Hours to be 10% against and Journal.ie to be 40% against that would, in my estimation, make the Journal.ie readership four times as retarded as After Hours'.

Annasopra

wexie wrote: »

I gotta say I'm really quite curious as to what their motivation is.

There are two types
1: Conservative religious types
2: Radical queer types who feel that marriage has been an opressive institution towards women and that it is heteronormative and will mean lgbt people will be assimilated into heteronormative lifestyles.

Examples

1 http://richardtwaghorne.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/gay-marriage/

2 http://queerkidssaynomarriage.wordpress.com/

efb

humbert wrote: »

If you take After Hours to be 10% against and Journal.ie to be 40% against that would, in my estimation, make the Journal.ie readership four times as retarded as After Hours'.

Wait til Journal goes 'Full Retard'

FouxDaFaFa

How condescending is it to even have this brought to referendum?

Shall we "let" gay people get married? Seriously?

FFS.

Denying gay people something which straight people can enjoy unimpeded purely because of their sexual orientation is complete BS.

If you're against gay marriage you should rescind your right to get married in protest.

hansfrei

mango salsa wrote: »

There are two types
1: Conservative religious types
2: Radical queer types who feel that marriage has been an opressive institution towards women and that it is heteronormative and will mean lgbt people will be assimilated into heteronormative lifestyles.

Examples

1 http://richardtwaghorne.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/gay-marriage/

2 http://queerkidssaynomarriage.wordpress.com/

LGBT marriage too? Thats a whole range of marriages so. How does that work?

WeHaveToGoBack

If there were a referendum it certainly wouldn't pass as easily in this poll

the majority of people in favour would be younger propel, many of whom have no interest in politics or voting. Compare that with the older people who would see it as sin who always vote.

No dOubt it would pass though

Czarcasm

humbert wrote: »

If you take After Hours to be 10% against and Journal.ie to be 40% against that would, in my estimation, make the Journal.ie readership four times as retarded as After Hours'.

efb wrote: »

Wait til Journal goes 'Full Retard'

Yeah lads, well done, ye're all about "It's 2013, conservative idiots, should be equality for all, yada yada...", yet the pair of ye will still use
an archaic and insulting term that denigrates another minority in society.


I'm all for marriage equality and all myself, but AH is saturated with this shìte. The reality is that neither Boards, nor The Journal, are representative in any respect of Irish society, and there are swathes of young, non-religious people who are opposed to gay marriage, simply because "I don't like it!".

They don't have to argue or defend themselves on here (let's be honest, threads like these are only preaching to the choir so to speak), they just go into the booth and tick "NO", and opinions like the above are just as damning evidence that just because you support marriage equality, that doesn't exclude a person from being dismissed as an ignorant idiot.

humbert

Czarcasm wrote: »

Yeah lads, well done, ye're all about "It's 2013, conservative idiots, should be equality for all, yada yada...", yet the pair of ye will still use
an archaic and insulting term that denigrates another minority in society.

Your opinion which I do not share and which has been discussed at great length on that thread and therefore can do without being discussed on this one, I think.

Czarcasm

humbert wrote: »

Your opinion which I do not share and which has been discussed at great length on that thread and therefore can do without being discussed on this one, I think.

I was making an observation humbert, that was all, and as for your pointing out that one issue was discussed "at great length" on that ONE fcuking thread, you have to be having a laugh?

How many times has the issue of marriage equality been brought up again and again in AH, and you're getting pissy because I made one fcuking thread in feedback and left it at that?

Jesus fcuking wept - "I want my rights, as long as I have my rights I don't give a fcuk about anyone else"...

Sounds awful bloody familiar.

pharmaton

The thing about polls here is that they don't really provide a realistic reflection of Irish society. The last census of boards users gives a much clearer indication of the representation here and with an 80/20 male to female population it's possible that the journal has a different ratio with slightly more women in its user base.
not really sure what that says about boardsies but the results of polls here a few years ago were probably more inline with what the journal is showing today.

pharmaton

sorry I appear to have killed the thread, next time I'll say something more controversial.

Sunglasses Ron

Drakares wrote: »

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

And as late as the 1970's in this country one could find yourself being a social outcast in rural areas if you dared to air the opinion that Catholicism was bollocks.

Can't people just have a differing opinion without being railroaded into the "correct" one? Barring adoption rights I have no issue with gay marriage at all, but by god there are some Nazis on the pro side. People have differing opinions. As long as it doesn't involve them burning down their gay neighbours homes does it really make a difference to anyone else? What ever happened to the right to have an opinion that differs? What ever happened to democratic process? There is a disturbing trend these days of some sort of thought police mentality where you are wrong, damn damn wrong, if you oppose x y and z. The Nazis did it, the Catholic church did it, fundamentalist Islam did it, the Soviets did it, well connected BBC and general celebrity nonces did it throughout the 70's, and now people who would like nothing less than to be associated with the above groups are doing it.

Canard

The nazis also discriminated against gay people for no good reason, but that association doesn't stop the bigots, does it?

The anti-side might not be burning down houses, so what, should we thank them for their kindness? They're opposing human rights for absolutely no reason. There really is no way to justify it because any reason given ever (even adoption, but that's a whole other thread) has been completely torn down in previous threads.

Would you still ask about democratic process if we were voting on black people's right to marry?

Friend Computer

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

What ever happened to the right to have an opinion that differs?

Don't you mean "the right not to have your opinion questioned, challenged or criticised"? Because that seems to be what you're getting at.

People are free to hold what opinions they want and others are just as free to exercise their right to free speech in criticising them. It's not authoritarian, it's not wrong, stop being so melodramatic. If you can't hack being criticised then tough ****, frankly.

No one ever bats an eyelid when the social policies of other nations are called into question, this is nothing different.

FouxDaFaFa

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

As long as it doesn't involve them burning down their gay neighbours homes does it really make a difference to anyone else?

Well, yes. To gay people.

This mentality "sure my opinion isn't hurting anybody" is fundamentally untrue.
It's hurting gay people who are denied a right straight people possess for no reason but their sexual orientation.

And it sends a message that gay people are somehow "other" or less equal.

Imagine being a young teenager starting to realise that you are gay in a society where you will not be allowed to get married because there's something less convincing about the love that you experience as opposed to the love that straight people experience.

As for "I'm only opposed to the adoption bit", why exactly? I'm a woman. I could be a drug addict who hates kids and would make their lives hell but I would still be free to have children.

Why deny children and babies a loving home?

If your argument hinges on "I believe a family is a mother, father and children" then you should be lobbying to remove children from single-parent families and widows/widowers.

Czarcasm

Friend Computer wrote: »

Don't you mean "the right not to have your opinion questioned, challenged or criticised"? Because that seems to be what you're getting at.

I don't think that's what Ron was getting at at all tbh, I think it's the WAY in which you question, challenge and criticise a person's opinion, that can make all the difference between helping them understand your point of view, or quite simply telling you go fcuk yourself and they'll vote against marriage equality now simply because they don't like you as a person nor the way you've talked to them. They've now identified you as a person as the benchmark by which to judge their thoughts on the issue.

People are free to hold what opinions they want and others are just as free to exercise their right to free speech in criticising them. It's not authoritarian, it's not wrong, stop being so melodramatic.

Dose of your own medicine there FC.

If you can't hack being criticised then tough ****, frankly.

See above, because if the majority were to adopt your attitude, we would have a situation where you'd quickly be told marriage equality doesn't exist in Ireland, and if you don't like it, then tough shìt, frankly. End of discussion.

No one ever bats an eyelid when the social policies of other nations are called into question, this is nothing different.

The people who are adversely affected by the possible changing of those social policies bat plenty of eyelids and even nowadays still many refuse to accept them. Can you honestly see much of a change in attitude towards the LGBT community just because they'll be able to get married?

I can't. In fact it won't make any difference whatsoever IMO, because you can't force social change, it has to evolve naturally.

Sunglasses Ron

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

As for "I'm only opposed to the adoption bit", why exactly? I'm a woman. I could be a drug addict who hates kids and would make their lives hell but I would still be free to have children.

Why deny children and babies a loving home?

If your argument hinges on "I believe a family is a mother, father and children" then you should be lobbying to remove children from single-parent families and widows/widowers.

My opinion does not hinge on that at all. I wouldn't bother posting my reasons as it is utterly pointless to attempt to even rationally debate such an issue.

But that is all besides the point. My point (and I generally do have a live and let live attitude to the marriage issue) is that if I came on here and said in regards to the support for it "I can't believe how much society has declined and is composed of lemmings" I would likely be banned. Yet one can come on and call all those of an opposing viewpoint retards living in the 18th century and get away with it. It is scarily undemocratic and fascist to label all with a personal, differing opinion to somehow be morally inferior to those who share your own opinion. It is bigoted, thought police Talibanistic crap. "I'm right, if you don't agree with me you ****ing suck!"

FouxDaFaFa

Sunglasses Ron wrote: »

My opinion does not hinge on that at all. I wouldn't bother posting my reasons as it is utterly pointless to attempt to even rationally debate such an issue.

I am interested in your reasons, genuinely, and I wouldn't claim that I am morally superior. Would you mind sharing them? There are a lot of people who are opposed but it's not often you hear their argument.

People can think whatever they like, obviously. But they should recognise that actively lobbying or voting against gay marriage does harm gay people, even just in propagating a society that does not treat gay people equally.

Femme_Fatale

Friend Computer wrote: »

Don't you mean "the right not to have your opinion questioned, challenged or criticised"? Because that seems to be what you're getting at.

People are free to hold what opinions they want and others are just as free to exercise their right to free speech in criticising them. It's not authoritarian, it's not wrong, stop being so melodramatic. If you can't hack being criticised then tough ****, frankly.

No one ever bats an eyelid when the social policies of other nations are called into question, this is nothing different.

Amen. The "Boohoo, people are being mean to me because they're challenging my unsubstantiated views" stuff is hilarious. And likening it to the nazis and Taliban is just comedy gold! :pac:
Nobody's stopping people like David Quinn from airing his hate-filled, poorly supported views on a regular basis; where are the censors clamping down on him? But people can contest those views, which is also simply them doing the same thing as he's doing - airing an opinion.

It's actually pretty extreme conservatism that's becoming fashionable now, despite the claims that the "lefties" are trying to be "trendy".