I have two gay friends voting no

Celly Smunt

As the title says i suppose is the crux of it.

We were out having a few drinks on friday, and as always the referendum came up in topic. Months ago i was a little taken aback that a few of my gay friends were undecided as i thought it would have been a dead set yes from them. Anyway as the topic drew on i was down right puzzled at the start as to why they would vote no and from what i can gather the following reasons were put forward.

The first was the gay community identity. He argued that freedom within the community of being forever single though free to love whoever he wanted was what he felt gay marraige threatened. He didnt like the idea of two gay people tying themselves down. I looked at this from a straight perspective and thought of all the men and women who were in the same boat with careers or general promiscuity, whatever floats your boat type of thing.

The next reason was that he didnt need a wedding ring and a certificate from the state to express his love for another person. Again i suppose this is understanable, but again from a straight perspective that mindset exists also.

He argued that if the marraige referendum was to fail and that as a reaction the civil partnership bill should enstate more beneficial entitlements in terms of tax cuts and next of kin etc.

I have probably forgotten other reasons he gave though it just leave me a little bit deflated i suppose that i'm going out there to vote for rights that they both are voting against. As a person who has a lot of gay friends though is a bit community shy im just wondering whether anybody here has come accross this sort of leaning among the gay community?

My intentions are to still vote yes obviously, and allow them to have the choice if they want it or not, though I dont know how to feel about this attitude from a person the bill will directly affect.

Aard

It would be fairly uncommon for gay people to oppose the referendum proposal. Also your pal's arguments are pretty weak.

ixoy

I haven't experienced this and all of my gay friends are very strongly in the Yes camp. If your friend doesn't want a marriage he doesn't need to get one. Not sure why he wants to make it impossible for others. Sounds like he should abstain.

retro:electro

Sounds like he's just not bothered about marriage, but that's no reason to deny others of the privilege.

mapaca

It sounds like your friend is simply against the idea of marriage itself, which is fair enough. But did you point out that the referendum is to make same sex marriage legal - it won't make it compulsory! :-)

Geniass

The rebellious scallywags. It was ever thus.

whupdedo

So he's against it because he doesn't want to get married , great , let's bring back the law that makes homosexuality illegal, because I'm straight and I really don't want to be gay , a yes vote won't make him get married , I hope that he is aware of this

Annasopra

I have lots of lgbt friends against the idea of marriage but in favour of voting so that they or their friends have a choice. I understand and hslf agree with some of the arguments put forward from a queer and feminist perspective.

Fleawuss

If this amendment is lost then the assault on what has been won will begin in earnest.

somejoke

I'm an oap now and got Civil partner-shipped last year. At first when I heard the word 'marriage' I thought, oh I don't want that, that's for 'those' hetrosexuals.

I soon changed my mind when I realised we were talking about 'civil' marriage and not religious marriage.

While all this, if passed is well too late for me and my partner, I'm voting for the younger generation coming up as they should have the same rights as everyone else in this state, no more or no less.

J_E

Celly Smunt wrote: »

The first was the gay community identity. He argued that freedom within the community of being forever single though free to love whoever he wanted was what he felt gay marraige threatened. He didnt like the idea of two gay people tying themselves down. I looked at this from a straight perspective and thought of all the men and women who were in the same boat with careers or general promiscuity, whatever floats your boat type of thing.

The next reason was that he didnt need a wedding ring and a certificate from the state to express his love for another person. Again i suppose this is understanable, but again from a straight perspective that mindset exists also.

He argued that if the marraige referendum was to fail and that as a reaction the civil partnership bill should enstate more beneficial entitlements in terms of tax cuts and next of kin etc.

This is all well except your friends need to know that just because they don't necessarily want marriage, means it's fair to deny it to those who do. Can't believe they don't see that. That's really messed up that a few petty 'I don't like it' gay opinions could influence a No vote like that.

Geniass

somejoke wrote: »

I'm an oap now and got Civil partner-shipped last year. At first when I heard the word 'marriage' I thought, oh I don't want that, that's for 'those' hetrosexuals.

I soon changed my mind when I realised we were talking about 'civil' marriage and not religious marriage.

While all this, if passed is well too late for me and my partner, I'm voting for the younger generation coming up as they should have the same rights as everyone else in this state, no more or no less.

Hey, never too late to make an honest man/woman out of them. Plan it for a year ahead and make an occassion out of it.

gravehold

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

and feminist perspective.

Why is a feminist perspective more valid compared to anyone else?

eviltwin

I know a gay man voting no. He's against marriage in general which is fine but it's incredibly selfish to deny something to the general population just because he doesn't fancy it for himself. He's also of the opinion it's the role of gay people to be unconventional and non conformist so marriage doesn't suit that. I find his attitude quite depressing.

katydid

Aard wrote: »

It would be fairly uncommon for gay people to oppose the referendum proposal. Also your pal's arguments are pretty weak.

And fairly selfish.

DivingDuck

Your friend sounds like a selfish prat. He wants nobody to have the right to be married to ensure that if he gets together with someone, they can't put pressure on him to head down the aisle, perhaps?

It's an astonishing and horrible perspective. If you don't want to get married, don't. Plenty in the gay community would like this option open to them, so obviously they define their identity very differently to him, and should be able to follow that identity to the altar if they so choose.

That someone wants to prevent others from doing something because he chooses not to beggars belief.

gravehold

DivingDuck wrote: »

Your friend sounds like a selfish prat. He wants nobody to have the right to be married to ensure that if he gets together with someone, they can't put pressure on him to head down the aisle, perhaps?

It's an astonishing and horrible perspective. If you don't want to get married, don't. Plenty in the gay community would like this option open to them, so obviously they define their identity very differently to him, and should be able to follow that identity to the altar if they so choose.

That someone wants to prevent others from doing something because he chooses not to beggars belief.

He is using is democratic voice to vote on how the country should be ran. If anything your being selfish expecting him to vote the way you want just cause of his sexuality

katydid

gravehold wrote: »

He is using is democratic voice to vote on how the country should be ran. If anything your being selfish expecting him to vote the way you want just cause of his sexuality

One would expect him to vote to allow other people to access an equal right. Just because he's not interested in accessing it doesn't mean he has a moral right to deny others.

Exercising one's democratic right to vote is one thing; exercising it for the wrong reason is another.

gravehold

katydid wrote: »

One would expect him to vote to allow other people to access an equal right. Just because he's not interested in accessing it doesn't mean he has a moral right to deny others.

Exercising one's democratic right to vote is one thing; exercising it for the wrong reason is another.

Why is his reasoning wrong? Just cuase you don't agree with it?

Lingua Franca

Celly Smunt wrote: »

The first was the gay community identity. He argued that freedom within the community of being forever single though free to love whoever he wanted was what he felt gay marraige threatened. He didnt like the idea of two gay people tying themselves down.

I know quite a few gay couples in very long term monogamous relationships. I even know one couple that have only ever been with each other and they're together 21 years. Gay people tie themselves down of their own volition and a no vote won't provide more free and single men and women on the scene. Gay marriage doesn't threaten anything, it's simply a matter of extending rights to those who chose to take them up.

The next reason was that he didnt need a wedding ring and a certificate from the state to express his love for another person. Again i suppose this is understanable, but again from a straight perspective that mindset exists also.

I agree with him, but I'm not prepared to deny people rights just because I don't care for them.

Would you vote to deny certain people freedom of travel just because you yourself were content never to leave the country, for example?

Your friend's reasons are mostly very selfish.

bjork

katydid wrote: »

One would expect him to vote to allow other people to access an equal right. ...........

Every one has equal rights to marry a person of the opposite sex.
If you don't wish to access that right, that is your option.
I'm not sure that it's unequal

Puibo

Sounds like your buddy is of the impression that it is "fashionable" to be gay. Kind of likes the uniqueness of it all. He/she may not want a ring and a piece of paper but who is to say that other gay men and women dont. I think voting no for a selfish reason like this is almost a waste of a vote.

Grab All Association

This is coming from a straight guy who supports a yes vote (and will be voting yes). Having a feminist extremist like Una Mullally on side, political stunts involving Gardai and Rté to push their agenda and the destruction/vandalism/abuse/violence targeted at the No side is pushing a lot of people to vote No or abstain.

Those who think they are helping by going after the No side are actually turning off a lot of people off voting at all.

The No side would have came out of this as losers anyway.

L1011

Chris___ wrote: »

and the destruction/vandalism/abuse/violence targeted at the No side

There's no targeted anything in this case - isolated incidents and nothing else. Targetted suggests there's someone planning it when that simply isn't the case.

Its not like its one-side either, there is just as much if not more against the Yes side - see the Tipperary shopkeeper getting threatened with vandalism over a Yes poster, the Abbey Theatre vandalism, the abuse directed at canvassers all over, the particularly delightful emails Panti has published, etc.

frankythefish

each to their own. i have four gay mates all in the yes camp. very much in the yes camp. so much so that they go out every night and tear down no posters and light a bonfire. quite a lot of people are torn on what way to go in this referendum

Jjiipp79

Well if the gays themselves are not voting YES then nor should I....

I was a yes till I read this thread just now.

Just read the post below mine....

I'm back to a yes vote 100%...

The no side is such a weak argument...
For the kids...... Just repeating what the very first person who gave a reason for voting no

Sheep Lover

I'm voting no as I want to protect children's rights to a loving mother and father. Your friend is dead right to voice his opinion on this and vote accordingly.

ixoy

Jjiipp79 wrote: »

Well if the gays themselves are not voting YES then nor should I....

I was a yes till I read this thread just now.

Joking? Given the thread is about how the vast majority of gay people are voting yes with only a tiny minority voting against, then "the gays" still clearly want a yes. Like "the straights" do.

Jjiipp79

Ixoy... Very much joking tbh..

I am a yes and always will be a yes!

gravehold

frankythefish wrote: »

each to their own. i have four gay mates all in the yes camp. very much in the yes camp. so much so that they go out every night and tear down no posters and light a bonfire. quite a lot of people are torn on what way to go in this referendum

Please thank your friends to me, they got so many people to vote no with their tantrum of remove posters showing the yes side don't care about the democratic process

L1011

Sheep Lover wrote: »

I'm voting no as I want to protect children's rights to a loving mother and father. Your friend is dead right to voice his opinion on this and vote accordingly.

You are aware the referendum has absolutely nothing to do with parenting or children, right?

Optimalprimerib

eviltwin wrote: »

I know a gay man voting no. He's against marriage in general which is fine but it's incredibly selfish to deny something to the general population just because he doesn't fancy it for himself. He's also of the opinion it's the role of gay people to be unconventional and non conformist so marriage doesn't suit that. I find his attitude quite depressing.

With this referendum is there a vibe of alot of straight people jumping on the yes band wagon just so they can be seen as liberal and modern when really they don't give a ****?

eviltwin

Optimalprimerib wrote: »

With this referendum is there a vibe of alot of straight people jumping on the yes band wagon just so they can be seen as liberal and modern when really they don't give a ****?

Or maybe we just believe in equality ?

Guy:Incognito

Sheep Lover wrote: »

I'm voting no as I want to protect children's rights to a loving mother and father. Your friend is dead right to voice his opinion on this and vote accordingly.

What kids will be denied rights to a loving mother and father specifically because 2 men or 2 women have a marriage licence?

NJto.IE

That's odd. There's no reason to vote to harm other gay people's ability to be married if he isn't interested in it.

Guy:Incognito

Optimalprimerib wrote: »

With this referendum is there a vibe of alot of straight people jumping on the yes band wagon just so they can be seen as liberal and modern when really they don't give a ****?

Ill readily admit to not really giving a **** about marriage (in general) . I'm with my girlfriend about 15 years now and we have 2 kids. Getting married is down the list of priorities for us for many reasons.

I'm fully prepared to spend 10 minutes of my time to let other people make the same choice for themselves though.

Outside of boards I've spoken very little to people about the referendum or my voting intentions. So my being seen as liberal and modern is a bit pointless as its anonymous.

catbear

I knew paddy manning long before this issue and in nearly all matters he was always a ham fisted contrayian git!

J_E

catbear wrote: »

I knew paddy manning long before this issue and in nearly all matters he was always a ham fisted contrayian git!

He lives off attention and the back patting of people who sneer behind his back.

Bob24

Optimalprimerib wrote: »

With this referendum is there a vibe of alot of straight people jumping on the yes band wagon just so they can be seen as liberal and modern when really they don't give a ****?

Not true for everyone, but for quite many people I think it is the case. They love themselves fighting for what they are told is a good cause. Doesn't matter what the cause is really, as long as it is trendy, makes them feel like a good person and is widely recognised within their social circle.

Think ice bucket challenge: everybody took part so that they could share a video on their Facebook wall and get comments from their friends, but a few months down the line who cares or even remembers about ALS?
To me in many cases the "yes equality" buttons people are wearing are the offline equivalent of the ice bucket videos on Facebook.

Of course I am not talking about the large number of people who are voting yes and are not making a big deal about it, or people who have long been gay rights activists and are obviously very involved in this. The group I am on about are the ones who have never been involved in gay rights campaigns until recently and are now very vocal about their yes vote and like to display it publicly.

Jjiipp79

This might help a little..

http://www.downsyndrome.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/RefCom_Indepedent-Guide_DSI_FINAL.pdf

J_E

Bob24 wrote: »

Not true for everyone, but for quite many people I think it is the case. They love themselves fighting for what they are told is a good cause. Doesn't matter what the cause is really, as long as it is trendy, makes them feel like a good person and is widely recognised within their social circle.

Think ice bucket challenge: everybody took part so that they could share a video on their Facebook wall and get comments from their friends, but a few months down the line who cares or even remembers about ALS?
To me in many cases the "yes equality" buttons people are wearing are the offline equivalent of the ice bucket videos on Facebook.

Of course I am not talking about the large number of people who are voting yes and are not making a big deal about it, or people who have long been gay rights activists and are obviously very involved in this. The group I am on about are the ones who have never been involved in gay rights campaigns until recently and are now very vocal about their yes vote and like to display it publicly.

Think that discredits them - it takes a bit more bravery to wear a Yes badge out.

Bob24

J_E wrote: »

Think that discredits them - it takes a bit more bravery to wear a Yes badge out.

I would definitely agree it is more of a commitment than a Facebook post as it is done in real life and displayed publicly.

But I am not sure about the bravery aspect of it, as in my opinion it is actually something a number of people are wearing to get social recognition.

I know saying this is not popular and will sound cynical - but I really think a large number of these people will have completely forgotten about same sex marriage a month for now, and will be waiting for the next fashionable cause to fight for (preferably after their summer holiday).

No saying it means these causes are worthless, more than people should reflect on their own motives.

eviltwin

Bob24 wrote: »

I would definitely agree it is more of a commitment than a Facebook post as it is done in real life and displayed publicly.

But I am not sure about the bravery aspect of it, as in my opinion it is actually something a number of people are wearing to get social recognition.

I know saying this is not popular and will sound cynical - but I really think a large number of these people will have completely forgotten about same sex marriage a month for now, and will be waiting for the next for the next fashionable cause to fight for (preferably after their summer holiday).

No saying it means these causes are worthless, more than people should reflect on their own motives.

I would like to give people the benefit of the doubt and hope they are doing it because they believe its important. Its an easy cause to get behind because most people know a gay person so it has that personal resonance that may not be the case with other issues. Its much harder to be against it when its something that directly affects your family member or friend.

Annasopra

gravehold wrote: »

Please thank your friends to me, they got so many people to vote no with their tantrum of remove posters showing the yes side don't care about the democratic process

Thats very odd. A few weeks ago you claimed you supported a yes that you were flying off to Amsterdam.

Grab All Association

Optimalprimerib wrote: »

With this referendum is there a vibe of alot of straight people jumping on the yes band wagon just so they can be seen as liberal and modern when really they don't give a ****?

In 2011 a former best friend of mine was dumped by her boyfriend for being a bitch (and I was too much in love with her to notice).

He was bisexual and started seeing a guy a couple of months later.

Bitter and jealous she sent them a lot of homophobic abuse over Facebook and through text messages.

Last week I seen her Facebook profile pic has Yes to equality written in the bottom left corner

gk5000

L1011 wrote: »

You are aware the referendum has absolutely nothing to do with parenting or children, right?

Yep, married people never have children. How can we all be so stupid to think that constitution protection of the family includes children, and that changing the family section of the constitution shall also affect children?

gk5000

Fleawuss wrote: »

If this amendment is lost then the assault on what has been won will begin in earnest.

So win at any costs - right?

Do any of the LGBT community realise the damage you are doing with the nature of this campaign, tactics etc. and the potential backlash later.

Have you ever heard of a pyrrhic victory?

Annasopra

bjork wrote: »

Every one has equal rights to marry a person of the opposite sex.
If you don't wish to access that right, that is your option.
I'm not sure that it's unequal

lol just lol

L1011

gk5000 wrote: »

Yep, married people never have children. How can we all be so stupid to think that constitution protection of the family includes children, and that changing the family section of the constitution shall also affect children?

There is no requirement, assumption or "right" to children for a married couple in the constitution. Throwing it in as a whataboutery argument shows a level of deviousness that really shouldn't be in play here.

The referendum has nothing to do with children and you've done nothing to even try refute that there.

Mickeroo

gk5000 wrote: »

Yep, married people never have children. How can we all be so stupid to think that constitution protection of the family includes children, and that changing the family section of the constitution shall also affect children?

All the people who can have children before the referendum will still be able to have them afterwards regardless of the outcome. It's really that simple.

gk5000

L1011 wrote: »

There is no requirement, assumption or "right" to children for a married couple in the constitution. Throwing it in as a whataboutery argument shows a level of deviousness that really shouldn't be in play here.

The referendum has nothing to do with children and you've done nothing to even try refute that there.

Its not about the right to have children.
Is about that many or most married people have children so to ignore them is ridiculous and is doing your cause no favours.