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

spikeS

conorh91 wrote: »

I hope that's a joke. Otherwise, turn in your spurs and trot in another direction.

The whole screeching nancy stereotype is one that needs to be done away with

Annasopra

spikeS wrote: »

The whole screeching nancy stereotype is one that needs to be done away with

Ah here. Seriously. Take offence at something offensive and cop on calling something like that bigotry.

conorh91

spikeS wrote: »

The whole screeching nancy stereotype is one that needs to be done away with

'Nancy' is an offensive word, and I didn't say it, nor would I ever use that language.

Shrieking is a term that refers to an angry noise which emits more volume than sense. I've previously used it elsewhere here (according to search) in relation to the Israel debate, anti-Garda rants, and anti-politician rants. It was not a homophobic remark.

One eyed Jack

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ah here. Seriously. Take offence at something offensive and cop on calling something like that bigotry.

I think Spike has drawn a rather unfortunate misinterpretation of conor's paraphrasing, particularly the use of the phrase "shrieking nancy", more commonly used to denigrate a stereotypical perception of gay men.

jobbridge4life

Flem31 wrote: »

If someone described you as a base cretin would you still be inclined to vote in a way that favoured that person.
Some of phrases used by both sides goes beyond mere annoyance.

Yes because I wouldn't be voting on the basis of who whispered the most soothing sweet nothings in my ear. I'd like to hope I have the integrity and moral fiber to vote the way I felt was right regardless of whether a few morons had the same opinion as me.

I'd like to ask you if the future of your family was on the line, if your worth and dignity as an equal citizen of this republic was up for a vote, if everyday you had to listen to people on the radio who don't know you from Adam tell you and the world that you and your kind aren't fit parents, that your children really would be better off if they had different parents, if the legal protection for your children was to be decided, do you think you'd be perfectly calm and civil all of the time? Even if you could guarantee that could you promise that no one else in your shoes would lash out?

Flem31

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Yes because I wouldn't be voting on the basis of who whispered the most soothing sweet nothings in my ear. I'd like to hope I have the integrity and moral fiber to vote the way I felt was right regardless of whether a few morons had the same opinion as me.

I'd like to ask you if the future of your family was on the line, if your worth and dignity as an equal citizen of this republic was up for a vote, if everyday you had to listen to people on the radio who don't know you from Adam tell you and the world that you and your kind aren't fit parents, that your children really would be better off if they had different parents, if the legal protection for your children was to be decided, do you think you'd be perfectly calm and civil all of the time? Even if you could guarantee that could you promise that no one else in your shoes would lash out?

It took you long enough to come up with a reason for using the phrase in the first place.
Maybe in future you should aim it at the people who caused you the hurt in the first place rather than making sweeping statements aimed at everyone
outside the yes campaign.

In answer to your question, No, I wouldn't use that language, as I have a basic principle that I wouldn't write anything online that I wouldn't be prepared to say to someone's face in the workplace or on the street.
I would lash out yes, but I would avoid phrases like the one above and others like stupid, moron, unintelligent, as use of these automatically drop the level of debate considerably, and now its just trench warfare between the yes and no side with anyone else walking away.

You have the moral argument, you have the opinion polls in your favour, why damage the message with cheap shots aimed at one and all.

I wish you and the rest on the yes side the best of luck in the referendum. I don't expect us to agree on this, but just think, in four months you could have the equality you desire, why risk that with careless language ?

reprise

floggg wrote: »

..............................
And the brother reference still makes zero sense, particularly when you suggested it was similar to a sexual and romantic union, much less the freudian slip comment. It is absurd and doesnt really add anything to a mature debate

Hi floggg, I am dropping the rest of your post as it has become a bit circular. I just want to address the freudian slip element as I think you have read something there that was not my intent. when referring to the freudian slip - I was referring to your statement in this message:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94001432&postcount=359

specifically:

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

I've highlighted the part I was referring to.

I was suggesting, as I have all along, that marriage by design was conceived for the individuals who would typically and naturally give rise to biological family as opposed to a policy of exclusion for those who would not. It was my contention that you had inadvertently made my point in that regard. Apols for any misunderstanding.

floggg

reprise wrote: »

Hi floggg, I am dropping the rest of your post as it has become a bit circular. I just want to address the freudian slip element as I think you have read something there that was not my intent. when referring to the freudian slip - I was referring to your statement in this message:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94001432&postcount=359

specifically:



I've highlighted the part I was referring to.

I was suggesting, as I have all along, that marriage by design was conceived for the individuals who would typically and naturally give rise to biological family as opposed to a policy of exclusion for those who would not. It was my contention that you had inadvertently made my point in that regard. Apols for any misunderstanding.

I can't see anything circular in what I said, nor can I still understand what you suggested I said in previous posts.

It should have been fairly clear I was stating brothers shouldn't be in a sexual union. How you read anything else into it is beyond me.

reprise

floggg wrote: »

I can't see anything circular in what I said, nor can I still understand what you suggested I said in previous posts.

It should have been fairly clear I was stating brothers shouldn't be in a sexual union. How you read anything else into it is beyond me.

I had a feeling I was wasting my time. Apology withdrawn. Think what you want.

Pwindedd

I'm gonna boil my own situation down a bit. I split from my daughters parent when she was only a baby. They weren't able to fulfil the role, in fact they were harmful to the whole family unit. I subsequently found a replacement person who could fulfil the role.

The point I'm trying to make is that either of these people could've been either sex. My sexuality has nothing to do with the family unit. The personality traits and sense of duty etc were not particular to their sex but to the love and commitment they felt to the family.

If any one feels that family is the defining factor in this referendum, please remember that family is not defined by the traditional male female roles we were once tied to, I might even go further and add that same sex couples who decide to raise a family have to go that extra mile to make their dream a reality. Adoption, fostering, surrogacy, donor sperm etc. they want children, desire them, long for them. A child that is wanted and longed for, and cherished will most likely be a happy child.

I understand wholly the reasons for putting a child up for adoption - it must be a heart wrenching decision to make. I would be interested to see how many of these children are the result of same sex relationships - I imagine it's practically unheard of. And that assumption isn't meant to demean the hetero parents of these children. Merely an observation.

As it stands - being gay is perfectly legal. Why should law abiding citizens be restricted in their life choices.

floggg

reprise wrote: »

I had a feeling I was wasting my time. Apology withdrawn. Think what you want.

Given you have seriously mischaracterised a number of statements I made and then ignored any requests to clarify, ignored lengthy and reasoned posts I made addressing your ignored and then accused me of some Freudian also in relation to incestuous relationships which took you a number of days to clarify, excuse me if I had a hard time being convinced of your genuineness.

Frigga_92

I will be voting yes. My husband and I are married a year and 5 months and it has been great and I believe that anyone who wants to get married, should be able to get married and enjoy all of the things that come with getting married and being married.

I don't get all the references to the "family unit". Gay people, bisexual people and straight people can all have children, it is not a legal issue whether they have children, there is no upcoming referendum about someone's ability to have children based on their sexual orientation.

Also, if someone is bisexual, they don't stop being bisexual when they get into a long-term relationship or marry someone.

reprise

floggg wrote: »

Given you have seriously mischaracterised a number of statements I made and then ignored any requests to clarify, ignored lengthy and reasoned posts I made addressing your ignored and then accused me of some Freudian also in relation to incestuous relationships which took you a number of days to clarify, excuse me if I had a hard time being convinced of your genuineness.

Believe me, there's more to the referendum than me. Big breath. Let it go.

lazybones32

Pwindedd wrote: »

The point I'm trying to make is that either of these people could've been either sex. My sexuality has nothing to do with the family unit. The personality traits and sense of duty etc were not particular to their sex but to the love and commitment they felt to the family.

So men and women are the same? There is no psychological differences between them and masculine and feminine are the same thing...no difference at all.

Pwindedd wrote: »

As it stands - being gay is perfectly legal. Why should law abiding citizens be restricted in their life choices.

Being gay was never illegal but the practices weren't. There doesn't appear to have ever been a Civil clampdown on removing homosexuality from Society either, so Society wasn't as harsh as certain people portray.
There is some sort of Civil recognition already available to same-sex partners who opt for legal recognition but the upcoming Referendum will be whether same-sex unions should be treated the same as Marriage. It's not a case of denying someone a Right (to do something) but whether one is the equivalent of the other.

lazybones32

lazybones32 wrote: »

So men and women are the same? There is no psychological differences between them

The user did not say that they are the same. They said in the context of the family they are the same.

If I want to cut bread - a saw and a knife will in this context achieve the same result. That is not me saying that a saw and a knife are the same. There are clear differences. But in the context of achieving my goal - they are equivalent.

Similarly there are of course differences between men and women. No one is denying that. However there are no differences there relevant to the successful and healthy upbringing of children.

That is what the user is saying. One parent was not a good fit to raise the daugther. Another parent was. And the sex of either parent - the failed one or the successful one - was simply irrelevant.

Or put short: People fit the parenting role - regardless of their sex.

K4t

lazybones32 wrote: »

It's not a case of denying someone a Right (to do something) but whether one is the equivalent of the other.

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Daith

lazybones32 wrote: »

So men and women are the same? There is no psychological differences between them and masculine and feminine are the same thing...no difference at all.

Is there no difference between any two men? Or two women?

jobbridge4life

Daith wrote: »

Is there no difference between any two men? Or two women?

Some men like football others like rugby. Some women are happy loving wives and mothers (in a traditional family unit!) others are unfulfilled feminazi men haters.

MrPudding

lazybones32 wrote: »

So men and women are the same? There is no psychological differences between them and masculine and feminine are the same thing...no difference at all.

This is not what is being said at all... What is being said is that the difference between males and females, in the context of raising children, is less important than the environment that the child is raised in is loving and supportive.

There is an enormous amount of literature on this subject. And we are talking well respected, peer reviewed journals, books by experts in their fields and governing bodies of professionals that work in child development, psychology and related fields.


Happy to point you in the direction of some related reading if you are interested...

lazybones32 wrote: »

There is some sort of Civil recognition already available to same-sex partners who opt for legal recognition but the upcoming Referendum will be whether same-sex unions should be treated the same as Marriage. It's not a case of denying someone a Right (to do something) but whether one is the equivalent of the other.

Well, it really is about denying someone a right. By telling a section of the population that they are not entitled to access to a particular institution, and the access is denied on the basis of their sexuality is discrimination. The sole purpose of this referendum is to remove that discrimination, because there is no good reason for it to be in place.

MrP

Flem31

When the SSM Referendum is passed in a few months, does anyone know what happens to Civil Partnership ?

aloyisious

lazybones32 wrote: »

So men and women are the same? There is no psychological differences between them and masculine and feminine are the same thing...no difference at all.



Being gay was never illegal but the practices weren't (legal).

Aloyisious replied: I've taken the liberty of adding (legal) to your post, assuming that was what you meant.

There doesn't appear to have ever been a Civil clampdown on removing homosexuality from Society either, so Society wasn't as harsh as certain people portray.

Aloyisious replied: Eh yeah, tell that to the other certain people/gays!


There is some sort of Civil recognition already available to same-sex partners who opt for legal recognition but the upcoming Referendum will be whether same-sex unions should be treated the same as Marriage. It's not a case of denying someone a Right (to do something) but whether one is the equivalent of the other.

Aloyisious replied: Those last two sentences above are so factually wrong they seem like something from a committed traditional-marriage/family isolationist. The referendum will be to allow same-sex people access to Civil Marriage from which they are currently barred, and which opposite-sex couples have access to. The referendum is a proposed change of Constitutional law which has to be approved by Citizens vote, while the Civil partnership is a Houses of the Oireachtas-voted piece of law.

I honestly don't know why I didn't delete my response as the posts sound so much like something like Iona would put up as bait.

edit: I don't know these sentences are outside the box surrounding my first two replies, don't know where the box-thing came from either.

floggg

MrPudding wrote: »

This is not what is being said at all... What is being said is that the difference between males and females, in the context of raising children, is less important than the environment that the child is raised in is loving and supportive.

There is an enormous amount of literature on this subject. And we are talking well respected, peer reviewed journals, books by experts in their fields and governing bodies of professionals that work in child development, psychology and related fields.


Happy to point you in the direction of some related reading if you are interested...


Well, it really is about denying someone a right. By telling a section of the population that they are not entitled to access to a particular institution, and the access is denied on the basis of their sexuality is discrimination. The sole purpose of this referendum is to remove that discrimination, because there is no good reason for it to be in place.

MrP

Completely off topic, but why do you always "sign" your posts with MrP?

Is it to let us know which posts yoo authors yourself and which you delegate to your staff?

Or should we regard all unsigned posts as a forgery?

floggg

Flem31 wrote: »

When the SSM Referendum is passed in a few months, does anyone know what happens to Civil Partnership ?

From what I know, there will be no automatic conversion of existing civil partnerships, though anybody who is in a civil partnership can have it converted to a wedding by the registrar on payment of a fee.

I don't know whether the ability to enter into CPs will be retained, but I really can't see why it would be.

spikeS

floggg wrote: »

From what I know, there will be no automatic conversion of existing civil partnerships, though anybody who is in a civil partnership can have it converted to a wedding by the registrar on payment of a fee.

I don't know whether the ability to enter into CPs will be retained, but I really can't see why it would be.

Is it easier to break a CP ie divorce wise? Some people might find it the better option for them if it was easier then the system in place for marriages

MrPudding

floggg wrote: »

Completely off topic, but why do you always "sign" your posts with MrP?

Is it to let us know which posts yoo authors yourself and which you delegate to your staff?

Or should we regard all unsigned posts as a forgery?

It is either no particular reason, just a habit I got into for some reason, or, it is a kind of 'I am MrPudding and I approve of this message' mark so my staff know it is ok to post it. One or the other, you pick.

MrP

spikeS

MrPudding wrote: »

It is either no particular reason, just a habit I got into for some reason, or, it is a kind of 'I am MrPudding and I approve of this message' mark so my staff know it is ok to post it. One or the other, you pick.

MrP

Staff? Do others use your account?

floggg

spikeS wrote: »

Is it easier to break a CP ie divorce wise? Some people might find it the better option for them if it was easier then the system in place for marriages

They might - but if they are going in thinking about what's best for divorce Purposes, they have no business (IMO) getting married or CP'd.

Anyway, I meant more from the states perspective. Why maintain two separate types of legally recognised union, particularly if for only one minority, and deal with the resulting administrative burden.

There may also be constitutional reasons to do away with CPs. Arguably allowing same sex couples to enter into any form of "marriage light" arrangement would be incompatible with the States obligation to protect and vindicate the institution of marriage (which would then include marriage between same sex couples).

They would likely have to open it up to heterosexual couples on equal terms in order to comply with the equality provisions of the constitution.

lazybones32

K4t wrote: »

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

Oink!

Flem31

floggg wrote: »

From what I know, there will be no automatic conversion of existing civil partnerships, though anybody who is in a civil partnership can have it converted to a wedding by the registrar on payment of a fee.

I don't know whether the ability to enter into CPs will be retained, but I really can't see why it would be.

Ty, just asked the question as was wondering if the rights etc voted on in the referendum would be applied retrospectively back to Civil Partnerships rather than forcing SSC to get them via marriage. Unlikely to be that proactive in this weird little nation of ours.

spikeS

Flem31 wrote: »

Ty, just asked the question as was wondering if the rights etc voted on in the referendum would be applied retrospectively back to Civil Partnerships rather than forcing SSC to get them via marriage. Unlikely to be that proactive in this weird little nation of ours.

I don't think it would be right to retroactively put something on people they did not agree to when they entered CP, an easy update from CP to Marriage would be best incase some want to stay in a CP not a Marriage

upinthesky

I will be voting No, only because i know it will not stop here, i already see they are bringing in a referendum to lower the age of voting to 16, then what? try and lower the age of sex to 16.

Also then there is the adopting children debate, i have 3 children and i personally would not want my children adopted by gay parents, i'm not saying they wouldn't love the child, but it's just how i feel and i can't change that, if gay marriage is brought in there will be a lot more couples living together, the thoughts of hearing two gay men having sex in the house next door makes me cringe, sorry NO.

spikeS

lisar816 wrote: »

I will be voting No, only because i know it will not stop here, i already see they are bringing in a referendum to lower the age of voting to 16, then what? try and lower the age of sex to 16.

Also then there is the adopting children debate, i have 3 children and i personally would not want my children adopted by gay parents, i'm not saying they wouldn't love the child, but it's just how i feel and i can't change that, if gay marriage is brought in there will be a lot more couples living together, the thoughts of hearing two gay men having sex in the house next door makes me cringe, sorry NO.

I am guessing this sarcasm but anyway we raised the age of consent recently it was 16 when I was a teen

upinthesky

spikeS wrote: »

I am guessing this sarcasm but anyway we raised the age of consent recently it was 16 when I was a teen

omg your right, i don't know why i was thinking it was 18, :eek:

Doctor Jimbob

lisar816 wrote: »

I will be voting No, only because i know it will not stop here, i already see they are bringing in a referendum to lower the age of voting to 16, then what? try and lower the age of sex to 16.

Also then there is the adopting children debate, i have 3 children and i personally would not want my children adopted by gay parents, i'm not saying they wouldn't love the child, but it's just how i feel and i can't change that, if gay marriage is brought in there will be a lot more couples living together, the thoughts of hearing two gay men having sex in the house next door makes me cringe, sorry NO.

I actually can't tell if this is a serious post or not.

upinthesky

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I actually can't tell if this is a serious post or not.

100% serious, what makes you think it's not?

eviltwin

lisar816 wrote: »

100% serious, what makes you think it's not?

The walls in your house must be well thin

TheBeardedLady

lisar816 wrote: »

100% serious, what makes you think it's not?

Do you know what you're voting on in May? You're not voting on whether gay couples can have loud sex or whether they can adopt.



Ye know what? People who haven't a fecking clue what they're actually voting on shouldn't be allowed to vote. A quick few question as they enter the polling station:

1) Are you voting on the rights of gay couples to adopt?
2) Are you voting against the existence of gay couples?
3) Can you tell me, in your own words, what you're actually voting for today?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

lisar816 wrote: »

I will be voting No, only because i know it will not stop here, i already see they are bringing in a referendum to lower the age of voting to 16, then what? try and lower the age of sex to 16.

Also then there is the adopting children debate, i have 3 children and i personally would not want my children adopted by gay parents, i'm not saying they wouldn't love the child, but it's just how i feel and i can't change that, if gay marriage is brought in there will be a lot more couples living together, the thoughts of hearing two gay men having sex in the house next door makes me cringe, sorry NO.

lisar816 wrote: »

100% serious, what makes you think it's not?

Firstly, as far as I know, you can have a say who adopts your child. Objecting to other people raising your child is fine - your chice - why what makes you think you shoud have the right to object to other people raising other people's children?

Secondly... how exactly does gay marriage stop gay men having sex...? You must know that people - straight and gay - have sex without getting married all the time.

spikeS

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Do you know what you're voting on in May? You're not voting on whether gay couples can have loud sex or whether they can adopt.



Ye know what? People who haven't a fecking clue what they're actually voting on shouldn't be allowed to vote. A quick few question as they enter the polling station:

1) Are you voting on the rights of gay couples to adopt?
2) Are you voting against the existence of gay couples?
3) Can you tell me, in your own words, what you're actually voting for today?

No one would have got to vote on the last few eu referendums if we did that, we should remove referendums so informed leaders could just pass what is right, there is no need to vote for marriage equality the government should just pass it.

floggg

Flem31 wrote: »

Ty, just asked the question as was wondering if the rights etc voted on in the referendum would be applied retrospectively back to Civil Partnerships rather than forcing SSC to get them via marriage. Unlikely to be that proactive in this weird little nation of ours.

While I wondered whether they would just upgrade the relationship automatically myself at first, that approach does make a lot of sense when you stop and think about it.

Given the significant differences between marriage and CP, including longer separation period required for divorce, it would seem unconscionable that couples who agreed to enter CPs were made subject to more onerous obligations overnight.

While most couples will likely upgrade, their will some who would be prejudiced by the change.

upinthesky

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

Do you know what you're voting on in May? You're not voting on whether gay couples can have loud sex or whether they can adopt.



Ye know what? People who haven't a fecking clue what they're actually voting on shouldn't be allowed to vote. A quick few question as they enter the polling station:

1) Are you voting on the rights of gay couples to adopt?
2) Are you voting against the existence of gay couples?
3) Can you tell me, in your own words, what you're actually voting for today?

That gave me a bit of a laugh, i can guarantee this first question will be voted on eventually if gay marriage is passed, so yes, these questions should be answered firstly, and if you don't agree with 1 of them you should be voting no.

floggg

lisar816 wrote: »

I will be voting No, only because i know it will not stop here, i already see they are bringing in a referendum to lower the age of voting to 16, then what? try and lower the age of sex to 16.

Also then there is the adopting children debate, i have 3 children and i personally would not want my children adopted by gay parents, i'm not saying they wouldn't love the child, but it's just how i feel and i can't change that, if gay marriage is brought in there will be a lot more couples living together, the thoughts of hearing two gay men having sex in the house next door makes me cringe, sorry NO.

So now we know how made the flyer.

Though personally of yiu don't like hearing them have sex, then you should probably stop eves dropping.

eviltwin

lisar816 wrote: »

That gave me a bit of a laugh, i can guarantee these other questions will be voted on eventually if gay marriage is passed, so yes, these questions should be answered firstly, and if you don't agree with 1 of them you should be voting no.

Please go educate yourself before May. Gay people can already adopt. The legal issues regarding joint adoptions will be sorted out in a separate bill.

TheBeardedLady

spikeS wrote: »

No one would have got to vote on the last few eu referendums if we did that, we should remove referendums so informed leaders could just pass what is right, there is no need to vote for marriage equality the government should just pass it.

I'm being facetious.




"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two person without distinction as to their sex".


So insanely unambiguous for the first time ever yet people seem more confused than they ever were.

PopePalpatine

Oh look, another Iona donor.

TheBeardedLady

lisar816 wrote: »

That gave me a bit of a laugh, i can guarantee this first question will be voted on eventually if gay marriage is passed, so yes, these questions should be answered firstly, and if you don't agree with 1 of them you should be voting no.

Sorry to break it to you but it'll be legal by May and you won't have any say in it. Now can we get back to the matter at hand?

Edit: Posted before I read the above.

spikeS

TheBeardedLady wrote: »

I'm being facetious.




"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two person without distinction as to their sex".


So insanely unambiguous for the first time ever yet people seem more confused than they ever were.

Yes I know but it's not something we should need to vote on government should just pass it, there is no need for our referendum system where uninformed people get to vote, removing it and letting the government decide from now on would best and would have done without the hassle we had with the last few referendums

floggg

lisar816 wrote: »

100% serious, what makes you think it's not?

I imagine it was more a case of hope than anything else. He likes to think the best of people.

TheBeardedLady

eviltwin wrote: »

Please go educate yourself before May. Gay people can already adopt. The legal issues regarding joint adoptions will be sorted out in a separate bill.

Mind-boggling how those who feign the most concern seem to know the least.

Tigger

spikeS wrote: »

I am guessing this sarcasm but anyway we raised the age of consent recently it was 16 when I was a teen

are you 99 years old?

In Ireland, the age of consent has been 17 years of age since the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1935. Last year, ministers discussed plans to lower the age of consent from 17 to 16, but came to no decision.