Same Sex Marriage (Poll on The Journal)

OldNotWIse

theblaqueguy wrote: »

I just think marriage should be between a man and a woman

Since when does placing "I just think..." before a statement qualify it?

theblaqueguy

wprathead wrote: »

...how is it possible that everyone on planet will suddenly be gay?

Iv heard some daft "slippery slope" arguments but this takes the biscuit

Ok this is my doomsday scenario
An airborne virus is released into the air turning straight people into gay people and it his highly contagious eventually everyone on the planet will be gay and therefore we as a population won't be reproducing so eventually we will all die and there will be no new generation of children to replace us
Speaking of biscuits I'll have a chocolate digestive thanks

Absoluvely

theblaqueguy wrote: »

Ok this is my doomsday scenario
An airborne virus is released into the air turning straight people into gay people and it his highly contagious eventually everyone on the planet will be gay and therefore we as a population won't be reproducing so eventually we will all die and there will be no new generation of children to replace us
Speaking of biscuits I'll have a chocolate digestive thanks

And the vaccine for this virus; the solution to the doomsday scenario; is blocking civil marriage.

OldNotWIse

Daith wrote: »

Do you think that two gay people who are raising a child should not have the same rights as man and woman raising a child?

Indeed, and in fact the children of same sex parents are being denied the same rights as those of straight parents, insofar as they do not have the same stability.

theblaqueguy

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

May I ask why? (Honest question)

Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses.

Daith

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Indeed, and in fact the children of same sex parents are being denied the same rights as those of straight parents, insofar as they do not have the same stability.

Absolutely. The bloody constitution talks about the State will protect the family. Unless you're a same sex family.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

theblaqueguy wrote: »

Ok this is my doomsday scenario
An airborne virus is released into the air turning straight people into gay people and it his highly contagious eventually everyone on the planet will be gay and therefore we as a population won't be reproducing so eventually we will all die and there will be no new generation of children to replace us
Speaking of biscuits I'll have a chocolate digestive thanks

And that's an acceptable scenario on which to practically oppose gay marriasge...?

Sleepy

I think it's high time we separated the concept of legal and religious marriage anyway.

Agents of state should carry out all legal weddings and those who want religion brought into that can go have whatever ceremony they like carried out afterwards.

Thundercats Ho

Sarky wrote: »

Anything approaching a cogent argument against gay marriage this time round?

Anything?


Guys..?

I'm new to this thread, so it's possibly been covered, and i haven't read up on the bill, so it could be a stupid question.

I'm not in the stightest bit religous and have no beef with gay marriage.

Would this include church weddings? If so, can lay people change the rules of a religous organisation?
I know a referendum can change the laws within our country, but if we're talking about church weddings, do churches here have any say on the matter if the bill was passed, as it affects their own laws?

As i said, i've no objections to this either way. Morally, people should be able to make their own choices, but i'd be curious as to how it works legally as it affects both state and religous bodies.
(obviously i know civil ceremonies are not religous, and am just curious about the religous thing).

Grayson

cletus van damme wrote: »

I would have a similar opinion on my peers (30s/40s) who a decent minority would vote against it not for religious reasons but just cos they're given a choice and pick x instead of y

Technically it's x instead of y it's XX & XY Vs XX & XX or XY & XY

Daith

Thundercats Ho wrote: »

I'm new to this thread, so it's possibly been covered, and i haven't read up on the bill, so it could be a stupid question.

I'm not in the stightest bit religous and have no beef with gay marriage.

Would this include church weddings? If so, can lay people change the rules of a religous organisation?
I know a referendum can change the laws within our country, but if we're talking about church weddings, do churches here have any say on the matter if the bill was passed, as it affects their own laws?

As i said, i've no objections to this either way. Morally, people should be able to make their own choices, but i'd be curious as to how it works legally as it affects both state and religous bodies.
(obviously i know civil ceremonies are not religous, and am just curious about the religous thing).

When you get married in a church you basically have two wedding ceremonies. The religious one then the civil one.

Looking at the UK same sex marriage act it would protects religious orders who don't wish to perform a same sex marriage. The same would most likely happen here. So no church would have to marry same sex couples and they won't be sued if that don't.

Absoluvely

Thundercats Ho wrote: »

I'm new to this thread, so it's possibly been covered, and i haven't read up on the bill, so it could be a stupid question.

I'm not in the stightest bit religous and have no beef with gay marriage.

Would this include church weddings? If so, can lay people change the rules of a religous organisation?
I know a referendum can change the laws within our country, but if we're talking about church weddings, do churches here have any say on the matter if the bill was passed, as it affects their own laws?

As i said, i've no objections to this either way. Morally, people should be able to make their own choices, but i'd be curious as to how it works legally as it affects both state and religous bodies.
(obviously i know civil ceremonies are not religous, and am just curious about the religous thing).

No, it wouldn't affect church weddings at all.
Legalising civil marriage would not compel any religion to do anything any differently.

All it would do is to allow same-sex couples to officially register their relationship with the state to give them the same tax situation and child-rearing situation that opposite-sex spouses have. And the other legal rights that spouses get.

Thundercats Ho

Daith wrote: »

When you get married in a church you basically have two wedding ceremonies. The religious one then the civil one.

Looking at the UK same sex marriage act it would protects religious orders who don't wish to perform a same sex marriage. The same would most likely happen here. So no church would have to marry same sex couples and they won't be sued if that don't.

Thanks

Absoluvely wrote: »

Legalising civil marriage would not compel any religion to do anything any differently.

All it would do is to allow same-sex couples to officially register their relationship with the state to give them the same tax situation and child-rearing situation that opposite-sex spouses have. And the other legal rights that spouses get.

Thanks. What's the big whoop so?

cletus van damme

Grayson wrote: »

Technically it's x instead of y it's XX & XY Vs XX & XX or XY & XY

where does my lovely horse fit in there?
cos you know that's next

dr.bollocko

theblaqueguy banned for some of the dumbest trolling I've seen all day.

FouxDaFaFa

Absoluvely wrote: »

No, it wouldn't affect church weddings at all.
Legalising civil marriage would not compel any religion to do anything any differently.

All it would do is to allow same-sex couples to officially register their relationship with the state to give them the same tax situation and child-rearing situation that opposite-sex spouses have. And the other legal rights that spouses get.

Exactly.

I think there's a misunderstanding by some about what exactly "legal marriage" is. If I went to a church and said my vows and got the priest to pronounce us "man and wife" we would be married in the eyes of the church but not in the eyes of the State. That's what the awkward paper-signing portion of the ceremony is. That's what makes it legal.

If this passed, churches would be free to refuse gay couples the right to get married in their church. I think that would be cruel and go against their "welcome to all" mantra but they could not be compelled.

Grayson

Czarcasm wrote: »

Here's a novel idea hippy -


Instead of berating and mocking him for his admittedly assinine views, how about you give him reason to SUPPORT marriage equality instead of asking him why he's against it? You've established that he's against it- now you need to ask yourself, which matters more to you - showing off your perceived intellectual superiority, or trying to foster understanding and support for marriage equality?

I know which one matters more to me, and it's not whether or not I'm more intellectual or can argue more eloquently than the guy whose views I wish to change.

Being full of one's own self-importance is never very smart.

Because he's denying someone their human rights. If you want to deny someone a right you'd better have a good reason for it. Like we're locking this man up because he murdered 4 people. In that case we're removing freedom because the man committed a crime.

It should not be necessary to argue why someone should have a right. It's their right.
His argument should support why he's in favour of continuing to deny someone a right, rather than us trying to say why we should let them have it. Here's my argument as to why gay people should marry: it's their fecking right.

Czarcasm

Thundercats Ho wrote: »

What's the big whoop so?

The big whoop unfortunately is that there are still many people who are uncomfortable with the concept of marriage equality, and there are still advocates of marriage equality who think those opposed to or uncomfortable with the concept of marriage equality are somehow lesser human beings for thinking the way they do.


There's an irony in there somewhere, can't quite put my finger on it.

Daith

Thundercats Ho wrote: »

Thanks. What's the big whoop so?

As far as religions go? Nothing other than their belief that marriages belong to them and they don't approve of same sex couples or "non-traditional" families.

Grayson

Thundercats Ho wrote: »

I'm new to this thread, so it's possibly been covered, and i haven't read up on the bill, so it could be a stupid question.

I'm not in the stightest bit religous and have no beef with gay marriage.

Would this include church weddings? If so, can lay people change the rules of a religous organisation?
I know a referendum can change the laws within our country, but if we're talking about church weddings, do churches here have any say on the matter if the bill was passed, as it affects their own laws?

As i said, i've no objections to this either way. Morally, people should be able to make their own choices, but i'd be curious as to how it works legally as it affects both state and religous bodies.
(obviously i know civil ceremonies are not religous, and am just curious about the religous thing).

Technically churches can't do anything. I mean just because someone says its religious doesn't mean it's exempt from the law. After all human sacrafice is illegal.

But in this case i believe it'll affect civil ceremonies. Church weddings will only be as affected as the church wants to it be. If they decide to marry gay people they'll be legally allowed to, but no-one's going to make them.

And as silly as I think the church is, I'm in favor of it being that way. Don't force the church into marrying people but at the same time we shouldn't let the church stop people from getting a civil ceremony in the registry office.

Absoluvely

Grayson wrote: »

Don't force the church into marrying people but at the same time we shouldn't let the church stop people from getting a civil ceremony in the registry office.

I agree.

The more sexist, corrupt and unethical it is, the lower its membership and power will become, surely.

EDIT: I mean, if religions were forced to stop marrital gender-discrimination, there would be one less reason for people to disapprove of them. And I want people to have as many reasons as possible to disapprove of them.

Czarcasm

Grayson wrote: »

Because he's denying someone their human rights. If you want to deny someone a right you'd better have a good reason for it. Like we're locking this man up because he murdered 4 people. In that case we're removing freedom because the man committed a crime.

Grayson he's not denying anyone their rights, it's the Irish Government is doing that (and making a damn good job of using every delay tactic in the book to prevent changing it too!). It's the Irish Government have no good reason to continue to deny marriage equality to LGBT people. It is the Irish Government who continue to defy their own anti-discrimination legislation.

It should not be necessary to argue why someone should have a right. It's their right.

It absolutely should be necessary to argue why someone should have a right, it should be necessary for them to explain why they should have that right. If you want to gain support for the reason why you feel you are entitled to that right, then you need to come up with reasons why you feel you are entitled to that right.

His argument should support why he's in favour of continuing to deny someone a right, rather than us trying to say why we should let them have it. Here's my argument as to why gay people should marry: it's their fecking right.

But here's the mistake you and many others are making - he doesn't have to argue anything! He's perfectly happy with the way things are as they are now. You want to change the way things are now, so the onus is actually upon YOU, to change HIS mind, not the other way around.

In order to do that, you need to find a way to talk to him on his level in a way that he understands, he doesn't have to do anything. He can just go to the booth and vote no, and ridiculing him isn't going to do you any favors. If you want to change people's minds, you need to start taking THEIR point of view seriously. That way at least you'll have some chance that they'll take you seriously instead of just having learned nothing and continuing to vote no!

Absoluvely

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's the Irish Government have no good reason to continue to deny marriage equality to LGBT people. It is the Irish Government who continue to defy their own anti-discrimination legislation.

To be pedantic, while it's LGBT people that the issue affects in practice, it's men and women that are being discriminated against [i.e. everyone] rather than specifically LGBT people.

All men are discriminated against as they are excluded from marrying someone born with a penis - and all women discriminated against as they are excluded from marrying someone born without a penis.

The law doesn't care what a person's orientation is, it just cares what their sex is.

The list of people you are legally eligible to marry is not affected by who you happen to be attracted to.

OldNotWIse

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

Exactly.

I think there's a misunderstanding by some about what exactly "legal marriage" is. If I went to a church and said my vows and got the priest to pronounce us "man and wife" we would be married in the eyes of the church but not in the eyes of the State. That's what the awkward paper-signing portion of the ceremony is. That's what makes it legal.

If this passed, churches would be free to refuse gay couples the right to get married in their church. I think that would be cruel and go against their "welcome to all" mantra but they could not be compelled.

I'm not sure they could. Hospitals are not allowed to refuse to abide by the new abortion legislation, even if they have a catholic ethos. Does the church constistute a legal entity that can be sued for discrimination I wonder...

golfball37

Why can't Gay and Lesbian couples be happy with Civil partnerships?

I realise its unfortunate to born gay in the sense that you are discriminated against in many facets of society but marriage is strictly for people of the opposite sex in my book.

I will certainly be voting no in this referrendum and i'm not the slightest bit homophobic. Marriage between same sex couples is just unnatural in my book and has nothing to do with religion. Do you want your children growing up beside the gay couple next door who are married and how long then before your children and future children think this set up is normal?

Annasopra

Absoluvely wrote: »

To be pedantic, while it's LGBT people that the issue affects in practice, it's men and women that are being discriminated against [i.e. everyone] rather than specifically LGBT people.

All men are discriminated against as they are excluded from marrying someone born with a penis - and all women discriminated against as they are excluded from marrying someone born without a penis.

The law doesn't care what a person's orientation is, it just cares what their sex is.

The list of people you are legally eligible to marry is not affected by who you happen to be attracted to.

I don't really agree with that

If you have a right to marry (which there is)

And heterosexual and women are allowed under law to marry

Then I don't see how you can claim that all men and women are being discriminated against. In fact they are not in this particular case.

Heterosexual men and women are not because the law allows them to uphold their right.

So no - the ones being discriminated against are not all men and all women but gay men, lesbian women, bisexual men in same sex relationships, bisexual women in same sex relationships and trans people.

Delirium

golfball37 wrote: »

Why can't Gay and Lesbian couples be happy with Civil partnerships?

Because there are a lot of legal protections/entitlements that are not afforded to same-sex couples in a civil partnership.

I realise its unfortunate to born gay in the sense that you are discriminated against in many facets of society but marriage is strictly for people of the opposite sex in my book.

I will certainly be voting no in this referrendum and i'm not the slightest bit homophobic. Marriage between same sex couples is just unnatural in my book and has nothing to do with religion. Do you want your children growing up beside the gay couple next door who are married and how long then before your children and future children think this set up is normal?

You say you're not homophobic yet you attempt to use "but the kids will think it's normal" as a defense? Some mixed messages going on there.

ferretone

I wholeheartedly support the introduction of marriage equality for all sexes and orientations, but I'm not sure I'm eager for the government to move forward with a referendum in the near future.

That's simply from the perspective of where we now stand with our anti-abortion legislation. That was voted in years before I was old enough to vote, and in fact I'd doubt there's a woman in the country still capable of becoming pregnant who was given the opportunity to vote on that occasion. Yet it's now permanently set in stone, and we're never going to be given an opportunity to revisit it, as "the people have spoken." Quite a different story compared to when we "speak" on European treaty matters!

And frankly, I'd fear the status of marriage equality would run a grave risk of suffering the same fate, were we to vote on it anytime this decade. We still have far too many narrow-minded, blindly religious people from a generation who are overwhelmingly reluctant to accept these sorts of changes, and as has been pointed out before, they vote in their droves.

I'd love to see this introduced tomorrow, but fear it may be the death-knell for any enlightened legislation, to have it actually voted on during this term of office.

NTMK

golfball37 wrote: »

Why can't Gay and Lesbian couples be happy with Civil partnerships?

I realise its unfortunate to born gay in the sense that you are discriminated against in many facets of society but marriage is strictly for people of the opposite sex in my book.

I will certainly be voting no in this referrendum and i'm not the slightest bit homophobic. Marriage between same sex couples is just unnatural in my book and has nothing to do with religion. Do you want your children growing up beside the gay couple next door who are married and how long then before your children and future children think this set up is normal?

Hmm....

Most of us dont give a **** what our neighbours do and tbh i'd be far more dissapointed if any future kids of mine grew up homophobic

Annasopra

golfball37 wrote: »

Do you want your children growing up beside the gay couple next door who are married and how long then before your children and future children think this set up is normal?

Yes

AnonoBoy

golfball37 wrote: »

I will certainly be voting no in this referrendum and i'm not the slightest bit homophobic. Marriage between same sex couples is just unnatural in my book and has nothing to do with religion. Do you want your children growing up beside the gay couple next door who are married and how long then before your children and future children think this set up is normal?

You do realise that gay people live together in relationships now and them being married or being in a civil partnership won't change that?

So kids are going to be growing up seeing the gay couple next door regardless of whether gay marriage comes in or not.

So is it really just a question of voting no because you don't want gay people having the same rights as straight people?

efb

Catholic churches don't marry divorcees and are not compelled to. So that is out the window

Annasopra

ferretone wrote: »

I wholeheartedly support the introduction of marriage equality for all sexes and orientations, but I'm not sure I'm eager for the government to move forward with a referendum in the near future.

That's simply from the perspective of where we now stand with our anti-abortion legislation. That was voted in years before I was old enough to vote, and in fact I'd doubt there's a woman in the country still capable of becoming pregnant who was given the opportunity to vote on that occasion. Yet it's now permanently set in stone, and we're never going to be given an opportunity to revisit it, as "the people have spoken." Quite a different story compared to when we "speak" on European treaty matters!

And frankly, I'd fear the status of marriage equality would run a grave risk of suffering the same fate, were we to vote on it anytime this decade. We still have far too many narrow-minded, blindly religious people from a generation who are overwhelmingly reluctant to accept these sorts of changes, and as has been pointed out before, they vote in their droves.

I'd love to see this introduced tomorrow, but fear it may be the death-knell for any enlightened legislation, to have it actually voted on during this term of office.

We also need to realise that older generations also have wonderfully progressive people who are pro marraige equality and pro lgbt rights and very supportive of their lgbt sons and daughters and the lgbt friends of their sons and daughters. Indeed that older generation also challenged the laws from the 70s to the 90s between Norris and Robinson and McAleese and Robson - we shouldn't in my view be afraid of older people and write them all off as conservative bigots but we should actively engage in discussions with them and bring a lot of them along as supporters.

Social change on any issue simply won't happen if we keep saying - "no theres too many old conservative voters in the country" - If we kept doing that we'd have no divorce, no condoms, illegal gay male sex etc etc.

TheIrishGrover

I posted in a similar thread here before about the whole church thing. My point at the time was that I didn't think that churches should be forced to perform gay marriages. As much as it would be distasteful for many if churches decided against performing gay marriages (As, no doubt, the would). It is still part of their belief system and the state should not be able to impose changes in religious beliefs.

As regards the legal civil marriages? Yes, I believe they should be allowed and I would make sure I made the effort to vote on it because the "No" campaign in situations like these ALWAYS make sure they vote. That is the problem: While (according to the poll at 15:20) over 80% of people support idea of gay marriage, it is, for many, a bit wishy-washy: "Ah yeah, I've no problem with that. Why not.". But there is a serious apathy problem when it comes to actually getting off our ar*es and actually voting on referendum changes. However, the "No" people are motivated, driven. This is a personal thing to them so they would make damn sure to vote.

I don't mean to paint the "No" camp in a negative light. I'm just saying they do make the effort to vote and let their voices be heard but, in situations like these (Abortion, Divorce), the "Yes" camp doesn't come out in the same proportions.

Delirium

efb wrote: »

Catholic churches don't marry divorcees and are not compelled to. So that is out the window

Who's talking about compelling the churches to do anything?

TheIrishGrover

golfball37 wrote: »

Do you want your children growing up beside the gay couple next door who are married

I would have no problem with this

golfball37 wrote: »

and how long then before your children and future children think this set up is normal?

The sooner the better.

Annasopra

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

I posted in a similar thread here before about the whole church thing. My point at the time was that I didn't think that churches should be forced to perform gay marriages.

I haven't heard anyone suggest they should.

loveisdivine

golfball37 wrote: »

Why can't Gay and Lesbian couples be happy with Civil partnerships?

I realise its unfortunate to born gay in the sense that you are discriminated against in many facets of society but marriage is strictly for people of the opposite sex in my book.

I will certainly be voting no in this referrendum and i'm not the slightest bit homophobic. Marriage between same sex couples is just unnatural in my book and has nothing to do with religion. Do you want your children growing up beside the gay couple next door who are married and how long then before your children and future children think this set up is normal?

Sorry but you are incredibly homophobic. If you are concerned about children thinking homosexuals are "normal" then yes, you are most certainly homophobic.

realgolfgeek

loveisdivine wrote: »

Sorry but you are incredibly homophobic. If you are concerned about children thinking homosexuals are "normal" then yes, you are most certainly homophobic.

I guess I'm a homophobic then.

OldNotWIse

Absoluvely wrote: »

To be pedantic, while it's LGBT people that the issue affects in practice, it's men and women that are being discriminated against [i.e. everyone] rather than specifically LGBT people.

All men are discriminated against as they are excluded from marrying someone born with a penis - and all women discriminated against as they are excluded from marrying someone born without a penis.

The law doesn't care what a person's orientation is, it just cares what their sex is.

The list of people you are legally eligible to marry is not affected by who you happen to be attracted to.

Well at least some of your post makes sense...

Absoluvely

mango salsa wrote: »

I don't really agree with that

If you have a right to marry (which there is)

And heterosexual and women are allowed under law to marry

Then I don't see how you can claim that all men and women are being discriminated against. In fact they are not in this particular case.

Heterosexual men and women are not because the law allows them to uphold their right.

So no - the ones being discriminated against are not all men and all women but gay men, lesbian women, bisexual men in same sex relationships, bisexual women in same sex
relationships and trans people.

I'm glad you're engaging with my view, but I disagree.

Heterosexual men and homosexual men have exactly the same legal rights regarding marriage.
They're both legally eligible to marry only women.

The fact that only the law only caters for heterosexuals is incidental.
The disparity in rights is between sexes - not between orientations.

In my ideal world, rather than just adding legislation for same-sex marriage, you would legislate for gender-indifferent marriage. All laws would be gender-indifferent. The government wouldn't even need to keep a record of individuals' sexes. This would also incidentally accommodate trans people.

brokenarms

What difference does it make to anyone's life if gay people get married.

NONE.

So why upset them by not letting them marry.

Who cares..

Let them at it FFS.

golfball37

AnonoBoy wrote: »

You do realise that gay people live together in relationships now and them being married or being in a civil partnership won't change that?

So kids are going to be growing up seeing the gay couple next door regardless of whether gay marriage comes in or not.

So is it really just a question of voting no because you don't want gay people having the same rights as straight people?

But by definition they can't have the same status as they cannot procreate. In my opinion if you cannot do this you don't deserve an equal footing legally. Of course in the few cases of infertility or menopause an exception should be made but not in a Gay/Lesbian arrangement.

Your last point is nonsense btw. You can't for a second know my motivations for thinking anything. Proponents of this would do well not to label opponents as it makes them look like the narrow minded ones.

I agree, ban old people marrying

ps gay doesn't mean infertile

NTMK

golfball37 wrote: »

But by definition they can't have the same status as they cannot procreate. In my opinion if you cannot do this you don't deserve an equal footing legally. Of course in the few cases of infertility or menopause an exception should be made but not in a Gay/Lesbian arrangement.

Your last point is nonsense btw. You can't for a second know my motivations for thinking anything. Proponents of this would do well not to label opponents as it makes them look like the narrow minded ones.

why

golfball37

loveisdivine wrote: »

Sorry but you are incredibly homophobic. If you are concerned about children thinking homosexuals are "normal" then yes, you are most certainly homophobic.

If thats the definition of homophobic then guilty as charged. It must be great to see things in such a black and white fashion.

FouxDaFaFa

golfball37 wrote: »

But by definition they can't have the same status as they cannot procreate. In my opinion if you cannot do this you don't deserve an equal footing legally. Of course in the few cases of infertility or menopause an exception should be made but not in a Gay/Lesbian arrangement.

What about a straight couple that could have children but chooses not to? Goes into the marriage knowing this? Should they be afforded the same rights?

Annasopra

Absoluvely wrote: »

Heterosexual men and homosexual men have exactly the same legal rights regarding marriage.
They're both legally eligible to marry only women.

They don't.

Gay men are not legally eligible to marry other men.

OldNotWIse

golfball37 wrote: »

But by definition they can't have the same status as they cannot procreate. In my opinion if you cannot do this you don't deserve an equal footing legally. Of course in the few cases of infertility or menopause an exception should be made but not in a Gay/Lesbian arrangement.

Your last point is nonsense btw. You can't for a second know my motivations for thinking anything. Proponents of this would do well not to label opponents as it makes them look like the narrow minded ones.

That's weird, cause I'm crippled with period pain at the moment.

Must be gas...

OldNotWIse

NTMK wrote: »

why

Because they are not gay. The procreation argument needs a clause that covers infertile straight people you see, otherwise it crumbles :rolleyes: