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

Lau2976

I don't think it's fair to suggest that all those voting no are homophobic. I've had this conversation with my own mother (who is passionately for the yes vote) about my own reservations to voting yes. I don't believe that makes me homophobic.

Are certain people who are voting no homophobic? Yes

Are all? No.

Unless you have interviewed every single person in the country voting no and found it to be for homophobic reasons then keep your generalizations to yourself please.

osarusan

If God had meant people of the same sex to marry each other, he wouldn't have made me bigoted.

Think about that.

pablomakaveli

reprise wrote: »

You've lost me, what's the secret reason?

As far as i know labelling people homophobic on here is a bannable offence or has that changed?

Ave Sodalis

Lau2976 wrote: »

I don't think it's fair to suggest that all those voting no are homophobic. I've had this conversation with my own mother (who is passionately for the yes vote) about my own reservations to voting yes. I don't believe that makes me homophobic.

Are certain people who are voting no homophobic? Yes

Are all? No.

Unless you have interviewed every single person in the country voting no and found it to be for homophobic reasons then keep your generalizations to yourself please.

Homophobic or not, I've yet to find a well reasoned, justified argument for the no side.

emersyn

Lau2976 wrote: »

I don't think it's fair to suggest that all those voting no are homophobic. I've had this conversation with my own mother (who is passionately for the yes vote) about my own reservations to voting yes. I don't believe that makes me homophobic.

Are certain people who are voting no homophobic? Yes

Are all? No.

Unless you have interviewed every single person in the country voting no and found it to be for homophobic reasons then keep your generalizations to yourself please.

Actually I've heard the opinions of quite a few people planning to vote no and all of them have thus far indeed been homophobic. Are you going to back up your complaint with a non-homophobic reason for voting no or are you just going to throw it out there?

Holsten

I'll be voting YES.

emersyn

pablomakaveli wrote: »

As far as i know labelling people homophobic on here is a bannable offence or has that changed?

Wait, so openly homophobic people don't get banned but people complaining about homophobic people do? Progressive.

reprise

pablomakaveli wrote: »

As far as i know labelling people homophobic on here is a bannable offence or has that changed?

I think it's as ever - if you make ad hominem statements, you are sanctioned. Rants are tolerated to a point.

K4t

reprise wrote: »

I think it's as ever - if you make ad hominem statements, you are sanctioned. Rants are tolerated to a point.

Or you could just, you know, refute the statements or even ignore them. And we all live happily ever after.

reprise

K4t wrote: »

Or you could just, you know, refute the statements or even ignore them. And we all live happily ever after.

I was trying to flesh out what the statement was.

Lau2976

emersyn wrote: »

Actually I've heard the opinions of quite a few people planning to vote no and all of them have thus far indeed been homophobic. Are you going to back up your complaint with a non-homophobic reason for voting no or are you just going to throw it out there?

All I'm pointing out is there may be some people who have a reason that doesn't warrant them being homophobic.

I'm sorry but you talking to "quite a few people" still doesn't warrant a generalization IMO.

As I said previously in this thread my only reason for reservations on the yes vote was because I believe that there are more deserving rights that need to be addressed.

lukesmom

Yes

K4t

reprise wrote: »

I was trying to flesh out what the statement was.

Apologies. I was referring to boards' policy.

Holsten

I've had numerous heated debates with people who I'm 100% sure will vote no and make a point to do it as well.

They are 100% homophobic people, messed up views and actually HATE homosexuals. 2015 people like that still exist and it is insane.

eviltwin

Lau2976 wrote: »

All I'm pointing out is there may be some people who have a reason that doesn't warrant them being homophobic.

I'm sorry but you talking to "quite a few people" still doesn't warrant a generalization IMO.

As I said previously in this thread my only reason for reservations on the yes vote was because I believe that there are more deserving rights that need to be addressed.

There are always going to be more important issues we can vote on but we're being asked to vote on this. Its worth remembering that this is extremely important to gay people and their families. You'll always be asked to vote on issues that don't directly have any impact on your life but if you could go out and make a positive difference to the lives of others why wouldn't you?

emersyn

Lau2976 wrote: »

All I'm pointing out is there may be some people who have a reason that doesn't warrant them being homophobic.

I'm sorry but you talking to "quite a few people" still doesn't warrant a generalization IMO.

As I said previously in this thread my only reason for reservations on the yes vote was because I believe that there are more deserving rights that need to be addressed.

I agree that there's many more pressing issues that ideally should have been addressed before this, but I don't understand how that would be connected to deciding to vote no for this referendum? By voting no all you're doing is denying people rights. It's not going to speed up the addressing of other issues. The two aren't connected.

reprise

eviltwin wrote: »

There are always going to be more important issues we can vote on but we're being asked to vote on this. Its worth remembering that this is extremely important to gay people and their families. You'll always be asked to vote on issues that don't directly have any impact on your life but if you could go out and make a positive difference to the lives of others why wouldn't you?

This is exactly the type of argument that wins hearts and minds.

thomur

Have a lot of gay friends but still not to sure how I will vote

forgodssake

I will vote yes .
because I couldn't give less of a fcuk if i tried what anyone else does with their lives as long as they are happy.

Mr.Prodston

If 2 people love each other and want to confirm their relationship in a way that they see fit then who on earth am I or anyone else to stop them?! A wholehearted yes from me.

This referendum is about one thing and one thing only. Other aspects of marriage can be debated and teased out in other debates but this is not that debate. It's such a straightforward thing to me and I can't get my head around the thoughts or reasoning of voting no.

Lau2976

I never said I was voting no. I said I had reservations. And personally I think it's a massive issue that we pass by rights that are life and death and go to one about marriage. Marriage rights are very important and I do think it needs to be changed but some issues take priority to others and yet we skim over these?

I never meant my thinking was right or that I still felt this way all I meant was that I didn't believe it was homophobic, which supported my argument that not all those voting no are homophobic (whether it's right or wrong)

Sheldons Brain

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Yes of course accidents happen but if marriage exists as a foundation for the family unit surely those who do not wish or are not able to have Children should also be denied permission to marry.

*I don't actually think this of course, but it seems like the logical path to take from your argument.

It is perfectly possible to argue that men and women coming together in marriage can support those men and women who have families, even if the individuals choose not to do so. It may be appropriate for the government not to investigate the situation of individuals. A same sex marriage does not meet this requirement regardless of individual status.

That nobody seems to reflect on these matters is an indication of the trivialisation of this debate.

Venus In Furs

Lau2976 wrote: »

I never said I was voting no. I said I had reservations. And personally I think it's a massive issue that we pass by rights that are life and death and go to one about marriage. Marriage rights are very important and I do think it needs to be changed but some issues take priority to others and yet we skim over these?

Which issues? "We" certainly don't skim over abortion for instance.
I don't understand still how this would cause reservations with regard to voting yes on this particular issue.

The One Doctor

RobertKK wrote: »

Voting no, it is not about equality, it doesn't allow polygamy or bigamy. It doesn't cater for bisexuals who may want to marry a person from both sexes.
If people want marriage redefined, why not allow multiple husbands or wives?
We are told it is about love and equality, but then prevents a woman from having both a husband and wife, or more, or a man having both a husband and wife or more if he wanted.
Does this referendum want bisexuals to have people whom they are married to and a mistress or another man involved in the marriage whom they are not married to?

Surely the current wording doesn't go far enough for the LGBT lobby groups? It doesn't cater for bisexuals.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one or the few.

rolliepoley

The One Doctor wrote: »

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one or the few.

Its not about needs, its a marriage referendum you dont need to get married. its about having a choice to be able to marrie.

Gbear

Considering how daft the family-unit based arguments are and how easily they can be dismissed with these general arguments:

- procreation is not a condition of allowing marriage.

- there is no evidence that homosexual parents in any way harm their children.

-homosexual people can already adopt as single parents so preventing their marriage would offer no additional protection anyway.

...and so on, it seems pretty blatant that the bulk of No voters do so out of a primal negative reaction towards homosexuality and grasp at any straw that validates that feeling.

Homophobia is normal. People will always have the tendency to recoil from things they find weird and nobody can claim to be so worldly wise that they don't have some sort of prejudices.

The cohort of people who want to live in a theocracy is pretty tiny. The majority of those opposing things like this aren't so entrenched and, if they really had a dog in this fight - a gay friend or family member who could suffer because of this, I think they'd be more willing to act against their instincts.

I think most people want to live in the sort of free society where things like gay marriage can happen. Sometimes its just hard to get away from the prejudices that conflict with that ideal.

cometogether

I'm voting yes because I'm not homophobic and would like to see homophobia lessened. Gay marriage means normalisation, the only way forward.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

RobertKK wrote: »

Why should married couples get special taxation policies over single people?
Couldn't one just put it on their tax returns how many dependents they are supporting and take it from there?
Inheritance rights - have a solicitor involved.

The theory is to protect one partner who may not be working and earning should the earning partner pass away suddenly.

Beyond that - I see your argument - at least it's not relgiously motivated. Back on topic...?

Sheldons Brain

Gbear wrote: »

Considering how daft the family-unit based arguments are and how easily they can be dismissed with these general arguments:

- procreation is not a condition of allowing marriage.

No, but it is the reason society has made marriage an elevated institution.

- there is no evidence that homosexual parents in any way harm their children.

Not a very positive reason.

-homosexual people can already adopt as single parents so preventing their marriage would offer no additional protection anyway.

once again, hardly a ringing endorsement.
Why are we overthrowing millennia of marriage structures for something that doesn't do much?

Ozymandius2011

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

No, but it is the reason society has made marriage an elevated institution.



Not a very positive reason.



once again, hardly a ringing endorsement.
Why are we overthrowing millennia of marriage structures for something that doesn't do much?

Well marriage carries with it inheritance rights that do not apply to civil partnership.

big.bird84

Yes because love is love and the sex of the people has very little to do with it. Please let Ireland drag itself into the modern world with this vote!

Sheldons Brain

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Well marriage carries with it inheritance rights that do not apply to civil partnership.

Inheritance is regulated as a means of providing for offspring, there is no reason to give enhanced inheritance rights to same sex couples (increasing the tax bill for the rest of us).

StewartGriffin

Marraige...????


LOL!

smokingman

There is another reason people will come on here and say they're voting no.
Because they're paid to.

Anyone in social media or publicity knows that there are companies you can hire (here in Ireland and abroad) that will have people sit there all day and push an agenda online all day.

Every time there is a big issue here, they are used to "point" debate in one way and usually run from a series of scripts. Sometimes, if not enough money is spent, you'll have the same script started by two different newly created accounts, something that has been pretty obvious round here lately.

wendell borton

Was Breda O'Brien watching family guy and mistook it for reality?

180Bhoy

I think I'm homophobic. I mean the thoughts of two men kissing ect absolutely sickens me. Yock! But Il still vote yes as it's not my business what other people do. They should have the choice to marry if it will make them happy. Equality for all.

Shrap

180Bhoy wrote: »

I think I'm homophobic. I mean the thoughts of two men kissing ect absolutely sickens me. Yock! But Il still vote yes as it's not my business what other people do. They should have the choice to marry if it will make them happy. Equality for all.

I'm liking you :cool:

reprise

smokingman wrote: »

There is another reason people will come on here and say they're voting no.
Because they're paid to.

Anyone in social media or publicity knows that there are companies you can hire (here in Ireland and abroad) that will have people sit there all day and push an agenda online all day.

Every time there is a big issue here, they are used to "point" debate in one way and usually run from a series of scripts. Sometimes, if not enough money is spent, you'll have the same script started by two different newly created accounts, something that has been pretty obvious round here lately.

That's me outed. Please note, I am also available for weddings and bar mitzvahs and accept all major currencies in non sequential notes.

RobertKK

smokingman wrote: »

There is another reason people will come on here and say they're voting no.
Because they're paid to.

Anyone in social media or publicity knows that there are companies you can hire (here in Ireland and abroad) that will have people sit there all day and push an agenda online all day.

Every time there is a big issue here, they are used to "point" debate in one way and usually run from a series of scripts. Sometimes, if not enough money is spent, you'll have the same script started by two different newly created accounts, something that has been pretty obvious round here lately.

People on the Yes side and people on the No side are getting paid here.

It is a decent earner. I get paid directly to my bank account.

tigger123

I'll be voting yes.

My biggest fear is that the No side will be more mobilised on the day of the referendum. If it's your intention to vote Yes , please don't be complacent. Ignore any opinion polls in the run up to the referendum and make sure you vote!

DeJa VooDoo

RobertKK wrote: »

People on the Yes side and people on the No side are getting paid here.

It is a decent earner. I get paid directly to my bank account.

€200 for 4 posts.
Handy money!

Davei141

Yeah i would like to think if the people voting No were being paid the company paying them would at least come up with something semi-coherent as a reason. I don't know which reason was dumber, the polygamy argument or the person saying "I believe other bigger issues should be fixed first"...Vote No to marriage equality! Fix poverty first!

Sheldons Brain

180Bhoy wrote: »

I think I'm homophobic. I mean the thoughts of two men kissing ect absolutely sickens me. Yock! But Il still vote yes as it's not my business what other people do. They should have the choice to marry if it will make them happy. Equality for all.

But two such people already can do what makes them happy, which is as it should be. This referendum is about the rest of us giving them legal and fiscal advantages and changing a fundamental unit of society to do so.

As to the polygamy argument, if three people love each other why should they not be allowed be happy also? The bigger issues is a cop out, but the cost of this referendum would be better spent on A&E.

TheBeardedLady

iusedtoknow wrote: »

I've lived a country where it is allowed, and now a state where it is allowed. My own marriage hasn't suffered as a result of gay marriage being enacted in those places.

Why would it?

I live in a country where it's been legal since 2005 and it has had absolutely zero effect on the traditional family unit and hasn't lead to the downfall of society or mass rioting or straight people being forced to marry someone from their own gender or anything else. The only repercussions of this change in law was giving the right to get married to people of the same gender and nothing else. I walk down the street and see gay and straight couples and I have no clue who's married or not - and I don't give a flying fook; whether they're married or not does not effect me in anyway, shape or form but it directly effects the lives of my friends and family who are gay. Voting yes is simply the right and just thing to do.

Gbear

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

No, but it is the reason society has made marriage an elevated institution.



Not a very positive reason.



once again, hardly a ringing endorsement.
Why are we overthrowing millennia of marriage structures for something that doesn't do much?

Those are the common reasons given as to why it shouldn't be legalised.

As to why it should be, that people want it is sufficient.

If there's no reason not to (other than some nebulous "tradition" waffle) then why would you vote No?

Sheldons Brain

Gbear wrote: »

Those are the common reasons given as to why it shouldn't be legalised.

As to why it should be, that people want it is sufficient.

If there's no reason not to (other than some nebulous "tradition" waffle) then why would you vote No?

If you are going to change the Constitution and affect hundreds of pieces of legislation then a stronger justification than "we might as well" is needed.A more mature debate is needed, but doesn't seem likely, especially in After Hours.

Annasopra

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

If you are going to change the Constitution and affect hundreds of pieces of legislation then a stronger justification than "we might as well" is needed.A more mature debate is needed, but doesn't seem likely, especially in After Hours.

Nothing stopping a mature debate.

Ave Sodalis

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

If you are going to change the Constitution and affect hundreds of pieces of legislation then a stronger justification than "we might as well" is needed.A more mature debate is needed, but doesn't seem likely, especially in After Hours.

Except, gbear didn't say "we might as well". A large proportion of the population want this to go through, the majority of the population (according the various polls) agree with it. That's how a democracy works. There is a strong call for a change, nothing to do with "ah sure, we have a few minutes free that day, we may as well just throw in a wee vote sure".

Sheldons Brain

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Nothing stopping a mature debate.

The yes campaign characterise any attempt to look at the broader picture as "confusing the issue" in a clear attempt to confine discussion to sound bites.

Shrap

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

But two such people already can do what makes them happy, which is as it should be. This referendum is about the rest of us giving them legal and fiscal advantages and changing a fundamental unit of society to do so.

Except get married and except there be a legal way that a couple's children can be given guardianship by a step-parent in the event of the legal parent's death. A step mother or a father who may have brought those children up their entire lives.

This is a real life injustice for the children of gay parents and is a legal insecurity for many children that would be solved if only we changed the human construct of our marriage laws (as we have done many times in the past). It's an incredibly important issue for gay parents as well as all gay people who need equality in all the legal and fiscal advantages of marriage as a civil institution.

As to the polygamy argument, if three people love each other why should they not be allowed be happy also? The bigger issues is a cop out, but the cost of this referendum would be better spent on A&E.

Why's that now? Are we not allowed to change the constitution because everything else needs fixing as well? If you have a problem with the fact that the government doesn't manage money well, take it to your local politician. Tell them your vote is contingent on how they spend our money, like I'm doing at the moment with Clare Co.Co. over sending 6 councillors to China "because they came over with 30+ delegates and we'd be mortified if we didn't show due respect in return"

Don't confuse the issues here. You're objecting to a vote for equality because the govt can't manage money. If people would ever stop protesting govt expenditure and mismanagement by objecting to a perfectly valid referendum being held at all, we might progress a bit in this country.