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

jobbridge4life

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

On the right to marriage equality yes.

But on other equality issues I have already stated my support for equal rights for gays.

You don't support equality for gay people. You don't support equality for your friends who happen to be gay. You don't support equality for your employees who happen to be gay. You can lie to yourself as much as you like. Everyone with eyes to see and a mind to reason can only conclude that you do not support equality under the law for gay people.

Daith

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

And yet in actuality we are cherry picking equality with case in point being this very referendum , we are voting to see if the State will recognise homosexuals as equal.

You don't support equality for gay people. Sorry.

aloyisious

@Ctrl Alt Delete: in the light of the fact that there are existing same-sex families here, complete with children, on the same lines of straight families here, except for the difference that the state has a constitutional bar on allowing the same-sex access to civil marriage, can you tell me why you oppose the extension of that right to same-sex couples?

Same-sex family units are not something theoretical, not something that will come-to-be the future if a change was made to our constitutional version of marriage. They exist now. In the light of that fact, do you think that continuing the access-to-civil-marriage-ban on same-sex parented families is legitimate? What dangers do you envisage for the nation's child-population by equalizing access to civil marriage to same-sex couples on a par with straight couples?

Ctrl Alt Delete

Daith wrote: »

Separate but equal is not equal.

So you are given every legal standing as a heterosexual couple but just not legally allowed become man & man or wife & wife.

You wouldnt be happy then as it would address 100% of all concerns you would have no ?

eviltwin

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I believe in equality, but marriage is between a man and woman thats my belief.

Question for you which is hypotetical obviously and not trying to be smart.

A magic wand is waved tomorrow and gays are granted every single equal legal standing as a married heterosexual couple except marriage would you be happy?

If you don't support equality across the board then you don't support equality.

Daith

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

So you are given every legal standing as a heterosexual couple but just not legally allowed become man & man or wife & wife.

Separate but equal is not equal.

As a married straight guy, some of the reasons that people are giving here to vote "No" disgust me.

Just admit it is because you are voting no on religious grounds or are homophobic. Stop hiding behind the "points" that Iona give.

Be honest with yourself

MrPudding

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

So you are given every legal standing as a heterosexual couple but just not legally allowed become man & man or wife & wife.

You wouldnt be happy then as it would address 100% of all concerns you would have no ?

But it doesn't.

MrP

Ave Sodalis

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

So you are given every legal standing as a heterosexual couple but just not legally allowed become man & man or wife & wife.

You wouldnt be happy then as it would address 100% of all concerns you would have no ?

That would be like telling a woman years ago that she can go out to work and earn a wage when she marries but that wage would still belong to her husband. Or telling a prisoner that they can have a bed, food, water and all whenever they wanted but they aren't allowed to leave.
You're just giving the illusion of marriage equality.

Philo Beddoe

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

That is my democratic right to do so regardless of how flawed you find my reason for doing so.

Just as it is your moral right for marriage equality it is my legal right to vote on the referendum whatever way I see fit whether thats yes, no or abstain.

I don't think anybody has questioned your right to vote in a referendum. However, you don't get to claim that it is the state denying gay peoples' right to marry, not you, if you are an equal voice in the decision to continue denying those rights.

Ctrl Alt Delete

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

So you are given every legal standing as a heterosexual couple but just not legally allowed become man & man or wife & wife.

You wouldnt be happy then as it would address 100% of all concerns you would have no ?

That's not equal

floggg

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Because I believe a child should be raised by a mother and father and I believe a marriage should be husband and wife.

Yes, but there has to be a why of this is to taken as a serious reason to vote no.

You aren't arguing that there would be any detriment to anybody if children were raised by same sex parents, nor if marriage was between two people of either sex.

If you can't point to any harm in the proposed change, or any benefit to retaining the current system other than simply being the way you prefer things, it's not a reasoned or fair position.

"Because it's the way I think it should be" isn't a good enough reason (morally) to vote against extending rights to lgbt people like myself.

I realise that you can do so, but that doesn't mean you should.

Ctrl Alt Delete

jobbridge4life wrote: »

You don't support equality for gay people. You don't support equality for your friends who happen to be gay. You don't support equality for your employees who happen to be gay. You can lie to yourself as much as you like. Everyone with eyes to see and a mind to reason can only conclude that you do not support equality under the law for gay people.

You fail to see the road to equality is a gradual thing and ideas / opinions change over time

Perhaps my views for supporting all other issues about gay rights was wrong after all and I'll just revert to the complete non supportive of homosexuals and start a campaign to criminalize it again.

Lest we all forget thats were tis country was just prior to 1993

Zubeneschamali

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

A magic wand is waved tomorrow and gays are granted every single equal legal standing as a married heterosexual couple except marriage would you be happy?

I know what I'd tell you to do with your magic wand.

MrPudding

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

You fail to see the road to equality is a gradual thing and ideas / opinions change over time

Perhaps my views for supporting all other issues about gay rights was wrong after all and I'll just revert to the complete non supportive of homosexuals and start a campaign to criminalize it again.

Lest we all forget thats were tis country was just prior to 1993

Good idea. That'll really show'em how committed to equality you are.

MrP

Ave Sodalis

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

You fail to see the road to equality is a gradual thing and ideas / opinions change over time

Perhaps my views for supporting all other issues about gay rights was wrong after all and I'll just revert to the complete non supportive of homosexuals and start a campaign to criminalize it again.

Lest we all forget thats were tis country was just prior to 1993

I think homosexuals, of all people, know how long and gradual their road to equality is.

We know, and the country has moved on and yet some people insist on keeping it in the past.

floggg

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Example of my point that the topic is so emotive that people wont move from yes or no camp.

If you teach your child that her relationship is "second rate" then that is your concern not mine. Personally I would never teach a child that regardless of their sexual orientation and would teach them to be proud of who and what they are despite others opinions.

I would be interested to see how it will do huge damage to the community as a whole?

She wouldn't. E teaching her that her relationship is second rate.

People who vote to ensure her relationship remained second rate as a matter of law will be telling her very loudly it is second rate if the referendum passes by enshrining it as such in law.

Zubeneschamali

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Perhaps my views for supporting all other issues about gay rights was wrong after all and I'll just revert to the complete non supportive of homosexuals and start a campaign to criminalize it again.

Not so hot on those gay friends of yours, after all?

Ctrl Alt Delete

floggg wrote: »

"Because it's the way I think it should be" isn't a good enough reason (morally) to vote against extending rights to lgbt people like myself.

I realise that you can do so, but that doesn't mean you should.

The reason I started posting in this thread was to simply point out that should you wish to win this referendum then my mentality (like it, lump it, confused by it whatever) is what you are going to be dealing with and having to over come and it is more widespread mentality than you would think.

In otherwords I'm all for gays but for me personally marriage is a step to far at this time.

Daith

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

In otherwords I'm all for gays but for me personally marriage is a step to far at this time.

Except you're not all for gays.

Again, can you not just be honest here?

Ctrl Alt Delete

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

The reason I started posting in this thread was to simply point out that should you wish to win this referendum then my mentality (like it, lump it, confused by it whatever) is what you are going to be dealing with and having to over come and it is more widespread mentality than you would think.

In otherwords I'm all for gays but for me personally marriage is a step to far at this time.

Why this time? What's wrong with now?

bodice ripper

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

You fail to see the road to equality is a gradual thing and ideas / opinions change over time

Perhaps my views for supporting all other issues about gay rights was wrong after all and I'll just revert to the complete non supportive of homosexuals and start a campaign to criminalize it again.

Lest we all forget thats were tis country was just prior to 1993

that reads like an impotent, petulant threat.

Ave Sodalis

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

The reason I started posting in this thread was to simply point out that should you wish to win this referendum then my mentality (like it, lump it, confused by it whatever) is what you are going to be dealing with and having to over come and it is more widespread mentality than you would think.

In otherwords I'm all for gays but for me personally marriage is a step to far at this time.

I may be wrong but this just sounds to me like you're insisting on having your mentality in order to prove a point, as opposed to really believing it. Would you really vote no just because you wanted to show people that others think like this and nobody managed to convince you otherwise? I'm really hoping I'm wrong here...

Bannasidhe

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I might be a rare example I dont know LOL. But in my eyes I see gay people as no different (I dont even see the need of pride per se). Volunteered couple of times actually for Pride (last one I volunteered at was when some numptys cuffed themselves to a bus or two).

But it still doesn't change my personally ingrained opinion about my thoughts / beliefs on the institutes of marriage and children.

But just like I respect gays , you have to show equal respect to my opinion (regardless of whether you think its right or wrong).

I'm honestly not feeling the 'respect'.

Possibly because what I am reading says 'I thinks gays are equal but...'

I don't care if you personally funded every single Pride march and lead the charge at Stonewall, that fact is you do not see my family as equal to my sister's family because the non-biological parent of her son happens to be a man - a man she was 'allowed' to marry and a man who was allowed to adopt her son.

yes - you do see gay people as different, no matter how you try and spin it.

aloyisious

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

So you are given every legal standing as a heterosexual couple but just not legally allowed become man & man or wife & wife.

You wouldnt be happy then as it would address 100% of all concerns you would have no ?

@Ctrl Alt Delete: in the light of the fact that there are existing same-sex families here, complete with children, on the same lines of straight families here, except for the difference that the state has a constitutional bar on allowing the same-sex access to civil marriage, can you tell me why you oppose the extension of that right to same-sex couples?

Same-sex family units are not something theoretical, not something that will come-to-be the future if a change was made to our constitutional version of marriage. They exist now. In the light of that fact, do you think that continuing the access-to-civil-marriage-ban on same-sex parented families is legitimate? What dangers do you envisage for the nation's child-population by equalizing access to civil marriage to same-sex couples on a par with straight couples?

eviltwin

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

You fail to see the road to equality is a gradual thing and ideas / opinions change over time

Perhaps my views for supporting all other issues about gay rights was wrong after all and I'll just revert to the complete non supportive of homosexuals and start a campaign to criminalize it again.

Lest we all forget thats were tis country was just prior to 1993

Yes things have moved forward a huge amount but why should gay people settle for that? We live in a country that claims to value each of its citizens equally except if your gay and want to marry. You would think we were voting to bring back the death penalty or something. It's just going to let people marry, it's not taking anything away from those who don't agree with it. There are no losers here just a lot of people you could make really happy.

floggg

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

And I have the right to vote no just as you have the right to vote yes and grant it to yourselfs.



Oh we've had plenty of discussions sometimes heated , sometimes not, they respect my opinion despite not agreeing with it although one actually agrees with me (one of the married ones up North funnily enough).

You use phrases like I am denying your right and so on, but I am denying you nothing and there is not point in personalising it that way, I am but one person within this country.

Collectively you are being denied your moral (not currently legal) right to marriage by the State not by me.

Sorry, but is such a cop out. You are exercising your vote to ensure an equal right to marry is not extended to me.

It's personal for me, because my rights are the ones you will be voting. That's extremely personal.

And if you vote no, then you, along with every other no voter is taking active steps to deny me that right.

The idea that is not personal is just so far beyond stupid it's ridiculous. You have the opportunity to vote on people's lives. If you vote no, it effects each of us personally.

You are right that you can vote whatever way you want, but at least take responsibility for what it is you are doing.

Ctrl Alt Delete

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Not so hot on those gay friends of yours, after all?

I think point may have been missed it isn't an actual thing I'm going to do :rolleyes:

sup_dude wrote: »

I think homosexuals, of all people, know how long and gradual their road to equality is.

We know, and the country has moved on and yet some people insist on keeping it in the past.

Well in a nutshell your exactly right the world turns at different speeds for different people and just as your moral right for marriage has to be respected , you have to respect people who are a bit slower than the modern world.

Im one of those people thats personal limit is in the sanctity of marriage between man and wife and I've no problems standing here and engaging with everyone of you in a respectful a manner as possible (which I have been trying to do).

I'm under no illusions that marriage equality wont come to Ireland either but it does not mean I have to support it.

jobbridge4life

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

You fail to see the road to equality is a gradual thing and ideas / opinions change over time

Perhaps my views for supporting all other issues about gay rights was wrong after all and I'll just revert to the complete non supportive of homosexuals and start a campaign to criminalize it again.

Lest we all forget thats were tis country was just prior to 1993

I was five when society decided I shouldn't be in effect a criminal. I was fifteen when in response to my coming out my Mother told me 'people like you will never get elected'. I was 19 when my best friend and I fell in love. I am 26 years of age now and still very much in love but I am here trying my best to convince a man who doesn't know me, who shouldn't have a say in anything to do with my life to please use his vote to let me be an equal citizen in my own country. So don't tell me I don't understand the gradual nature of progress.

floggg

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I think I have shown plenty of empathy and understanding and been as respectful as possible (while at same time trying to get my points across) at all times.

You really haven't done either.

Your position is I don't have a reason but I'm voting no anyway, I don't care if affects you, and you shouldn't take it personally even though we both know its going to directly affect you in a negative manner.

Daith

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Im one of those people thats personal limit is in the sanctity of marriage between man and wife and I've no problems standing here and engaging with everyone of you in a respectful a manner as possible (which I have been trying to do).

No, you've been saying you support equality for gay people. You don't.

Then something about how we should be lucky it' not pre 1993 anymore.

Ctrl Alt Delete

bodice ripper wrote: »

that reads like an impotent, petulant threat.

Well it was meant to exemplify both progress and the reasons for lack of progress in the one post, wasnt meant as a threat

floggg

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I believe in equality, but marriage is between a man and woman thats my belief.

Question for you which is hypotetical obviously and not trying to be smart.

A magic wand is waved tomorrow and gays are granted every single equal legal standing as a married heterosexual couple except marriage would you be happy?

Would you be? And why?

Zubeneschamali

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

The reason I started posting in this thread was to simply point out that should you wish to win this referendum then my mentality (like it, lump it, confused by it whatever) is what you are going to be dealing with

Everyone always knew that people who are sufficiently prejudiced against homosexuals would vote no. The only way to deal with that is to defeat them at the polls.

Which will happen very soon.

cruais

I saw a fitting picture collage today. The first picture was of Britney Spears and a guy she married for a total of 52 hours. Second picture was of another ''celeb'' who was married for 72 hours and the last picture was of the guy from how I met your mother, who is married and together with his part for 9 years, except the caption states ''marriage not valid''.

Talk about double standards.

What harm will it do anyone if gay people want to get married?

jobbridge4life

cruais wrote: »

I saw a fitting picture collage today. The first picture was of Britney Spears and a guy she married for a total of 52 hours. Second picture was of another ''celeb'' who was married for 72 hours and the last picture was of the guy from how I met your mother, who is married and together with his part for 9 years, except the caption states ''marriage not valid''.

Talk about double standards.

What harm will it do anyone if gay people want to get married?

Britney's next marriage might only last however long it takes to get through the drive-thru at McDonalds?

Ave Sodalis

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I think point may have been missed it isn't an actual thing I'm going to do :rolleyes:



Well in a nutshell your exactly right the world turns at different speeds for different people and just as your moral right for marriage has to be respected , you have to respect people who are a bit slower than the modern world.

Im one of those people thats personal limit is in the sanctity of marriage between man and wife and I've no problems standing here and engaging with everyone of you in a respectful a manner as possible (which I have been trying to do).

I'm under no illusions that marriage equality wont come to Ireland either but it does not mean I have to support it.

I don't think I can come to terms with someone who acknowledges his backwards thinking in respect to a certain aspect, yet not only refuses to do anything to change it, actively persues the backwards thinking.
It's like saying you're going to hit a puppy. You know it's wrong and that you're going to cause hurt and pain but you're going to do it anyway because you use your way of thinking as an excuse.

You'll have to excuse me if I cannot respect that. I don't respect people who purposely refuse to do right and hide behind some nonsense reason in order to justify it.

Ctrl Alt Delete

sup_dude wrote: »

I may be wrong but this just sounds to me like you're insisting on having your mentality in order to prove a point, as opposed to really believing it. .

I don't vote like sheeple

sup_dude wrote: »

Would you really vote no just because you wanted to show people that others think like this and nobody managed to convince you otherwise? I'm really hoping I'm wrong here..

No I vote no because its something I believe in

eviltwin wrote: »

Yes things have moved forward a huge amount but why should gay people settle for that? We live in a country that claims to value each of its citizens equally except if your gay and want to marry. You would think we were voting to bring back the death penalty or something. It's just going to let people marry, it's not taking anything away from those who don't agree with it. There are no losers here just a lot of people you could make really happy.

Gay people shouldn't settle for it (and nor will you either ) which is why I said I'm of belief its a matter of when not if it comes to Ireland.

I get your last point and im really not trying to be offensive here but can you not see that for people who believe in the sanctity of marriage then having gay people being allowed marry does take away from them and their beliefs and is grossly offensive to them?

Just as much as it is grossly offensive to you that I am voting No on this.

Ctrl Alt Delete

sup_dude wrote: »

You'll have to excuse me if I cannot respect that. I don't respect people who purposely refuse to do right and hide behind some nonsense reason in order to justify it.

That's absolutely fine you do not respect that but I still respect your opinions

Daith

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Just as much as it is grossly offensive to you that I am voting No on this.

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

That's absolutely fine you do not respect that but I still respect your opinions

As long as you stop pretending you support equal rights for gay people.

Ctrl Alt Delete

cruais wrote: »

I saw a fitting picture collage today. The first picture was of Britney Spears and a guy she married for a total of 52 hours. Second picture was of another ''celeb'' who was married for 72 hours and the last picture was of the guy from how I met your mother, who is married and together with his part for 9 years, except the caption states ''marriage not valid''.

Talk about double standards.

I cant think of a non offensive way to say what I want to so I will simply say that I hold this type of stuff in contempt as well.

Daith wrote: »

As long as you stop pretending you support equal rights for gay people.

If I was to use a race analogy again (purely hypotethical but just to try and show my point of view a bit better), how would you define a person like this:

Seat segregation on buses: 100% disagree
Integration in School: 100% agree
Right to Vote: 100% agree
Black President: Can't stretch that far just yet

Is the above person a racist or are they someone like out of American History X going through an "attitude adjustment"

floggg

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

The reason I started posting in this thread was to simply point out that should you wish to win this referendum then my mentality (like it, lump it, confused by it whatever) is what you are going to be dealing with and having to over come and it is more widespread mentality than you would think.

In otherwords I'm all for gays but for me personally marriage is a step to far at this time.

So your point is that we need to overcome unsubstantiated and baseless prejudicial attitudes held by people who recognise that their opinion is unsubstantiated and baseless, but will nevertheless try to enforce that opinion on the ballot box, but who definitely aren't prejudiced because they know some gay people who they think don't deserve to be treated as full equals, and who should be thankful we decriminalisation homosexual acts and who better shut up about their rights and stop taking it all so personally in case we decide to recriminalise homosexual acts out of spite?

bodice ripper

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Well it was meant to exemplify both progress and the reasons for lack of progress in the one post, wasnt meant as a threat

perhaps a ghostwriter is in order.

Bannasidhe

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I don't vote like sheeple



No I vote no because its something I believe in



Gay people shouldn't settle for it (and nor will you either ) which is why I said I'm of belief its a matter of when not if it comes to Ireland.

I get your last point and im really not trying to be offensive here but can you not see that for people who believe in the sanctity of marriage then having gay people being allowed marry does take away from them and their beliefs and is grossly offensive to them?

Just as much as it is grossly offensive to you that I am voting No on this.

That's fine.

Be grossly offended at the thought that lesbians and gay men might be equally allowed to get married just like a straight couple, that is your prerogative. But do us all a favour and drop the BS about believing in equality for gay people because you don't. You really don't and claiming you do is grossly offensive to people who you will vote to keep as second class citizens.

Daith

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

If I was to use a race analogy again (purely hypotethical but just to try and show my point of view a bit better), how would you define a person like this:

Seat segregation on buses: 100% disagree
Integration in School: 100% agree
Right to Vote: 100% agree
Black President: Can't stretch that far just yet

Oh, I won't define it. I'll let someone else. As I said, I don't support separate but equal.

“ Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group...Any language in contrary to this finding is rejected. We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. ”
—Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

jaja321

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I cant think of a non offensive way to say what I want to so I will simply say that I hold this type of stuff in contempt as well.



If I was to use a race analogy again (purely hypotethical but just to try and show my point of view a bit better), how would you define a person like this:

Seat segregation on buses: 100% disagree
Integration in School: 100% agree
Right to Vote: 100% agree
Black President: Can't stretch that far just yet

Someone who inherently sees black people as different to white people - otherwise why would they care if there was a black president or not? As long as they were suited for the job.

Daith

If you don't support equal marriage for gay people, you don't support equality for gay people.

That's fine but at least be honest with your opinion and not shield it with children or separate but equal arguments.

Ctrl Alt Delete

jaja321 wrote: »

Someone who inherently sees black people as different to white people - otherwise why would they care if there was a black president or not? As long as they were suited for the job.

OK guys I give up , in trying to discuss

Best of luck in the referendum, try not to round on everyone who disagrees with your point of view.

Unfollowing thread now

Tasden

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

If I was to use a race analogy again (purely hypotethical but just to try and show my point of view a bit better), how would you define a person like this:

Seat segregation on buses: 100% disagree
Integration in School: 100% agree
Right to Vote: 100% agree
Black President: Can't stretch that far just yet

Is the above person a racist or are they someone like out of American History X going through an "attitude adjustment"

Racist tbh

Zubeneschamali

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

can you not see that for people who believe in the sanctity of marriage then having gay people being allowed marry does take away from them and their beliefs and is grossly offensive to them?

Hey, I've got a perfect solution for those people: mind your own business.