Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Same Sex Marriage (Poll on The Journal)

12467…43

Comments

  • #92
    pharmaton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,192 ✭✭✭pharmaton


    The thing about polls here is that they don't really provide a realistic reflection of Irish society. The last census of boards users gives a much clearer indication of the representation here and with an 80/20 male to female population it's possible that the journal has a different ratio with slightly more women in its user base.
    not really sure what that says about boardsies but the results of polls here a few years ago were probably more inline with what the journal is showing today.


  • #93
    pharmaton
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,192 ✭✭✭pharmaton


    sorry I appear to have killed the thread, next time I'll say something more controversial.


  • #94
    Sunglasses Ron
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭Sunglasses Ron


    Drakares wrote: »
    Wow.. Almost 10% against. I didn't think 1 out of 10 people on this forum are still in the 18th century. How sad.

    And as late as the 1970's in this country one could find yourself being a social outcast in rural areas if you dared to air the opinion that Catholicism was bollocks.

    Can't people just have a differing opinion without being railroaded into the "correct" one? Barring adoption rights I have no issue with gay marriage at all, but by god there are some Nazis on the pro side. People have differing opinions. As long as it doesn't involve them burning down their gay neighbours homes does it really make a difference to anyone else? What ever happened to the right to have an opinion that differs? What ever happened to democratic process? There is a disturbing trend these days of some sort of thought police mentality where you are wrong, damn damn wrong, if you oppose x y and z. The Nazis did it, the Catholic church did it, fundamentalist Islam did it, the Soviets did it, well connected BBC and general celebrity nonces did it throughout the 70's, and now people who would like nothing less than to be associated with the above groups are doing it.


  • #95
    Canard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,572 ✭✭✭Canard


    The nazis also discriminated against gay people for no good reason, but that association doesn't stop the bigots, does it?

    The anti-side might not be burning down houses, so what, should we thank them for their kindness? They're opposing human rights for absolutely no reason. There really is no way to justify it because any reason given ever (even adoption, but that's a whole other thread) has been completely torn down in previous threads.

    Would you still ask about democratic process if we were voting on black people's right to marry?


  • #96
    Friend Computer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 369 ✭✭Friend Computer


    Sunglasses Ron wrote: »
    What ever happened to the right to have an opinion that differs?

    Don't you mean "the right not to have your opinion questioned, challenged or criticised"? Because that seems to be what you're getting at.

    People are free to hold what opinions they want and others are just as free to exercise their right to free speech in criticising them. It's not authoritarian, it's not wrong, stop being so melodramatic. If you can't hack being criticised then tough ****, frankly.

    No one ever bats an eyelid when the social policies of other nations are called into question, this is nothing different.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    FouxDaFaFa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,850 ✭✭✭FouxDaFaFa


    Sunglasses Ron wrote: »
    As long as it doesn't involve them burning down their gay neighbours homes does it really make a difference to anyone else?
    Well, yes. To gay people.

    This mentality "sure my opinion isn't hurting anybody" is fundamentally untrue.
    It's hurting gay people who are denied a right straight people possess for no reason but their sexual orientation.

    And it sends a message that gay people are somehow "other" or less equal.

    Imagine being a young teenager starting to realise that you are gay in a society where you will not be allowed to get married because there's something less convincing about the love that you experience as opposed to the love that straight people experience.

    As for "I'm only opposed to the adoption bit", why exactly? I'm a woman. I could be a drug addict who hates kids and would make their lives hell but I would still be free to have children.

    Why deny children and babies a loving home?

    If your argument hinges on "I believe a family is a mother, father and children" then you should be lobbying to remove children from single-parent families and widows/widowers.


  • #98
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Friend Computer wrote: »
    Don't you mean "the right not to have your opinion questioned, challenged or criticised"? Because that seems to be what you're getting at.


    I don't think that's what Ron was getting at at all tbh, I think it's the WAY in which you question, challenge and criticise a person's opinion, that can make all the difference between helping them understand your point of view, or quite simply telling you go fcuk yourself and they'll vote against marriage equality now simply because they don't like you as a person nor the way you've talked to them. They've now identified you as a person as the benchmark by which to judge their thoughts on the issue.

    People are free to hold what opinions they want and others are just as free to exercise their right to free speech in criticising them. It's not authoritarian, it's not wrong, stop being so melodramatic.


    Dose of your own medicine there FC.

    If you can't hack being criticised then tough ****, frankly.


    See above, because if the majority were to adopt your attitude, we would have a situation where you'd quickly be told marriage equality doesn't exist in Ireland, and if you don't like it, then tough shìt, frankly. End of discussion.

    No one ever bats an eyelid when the social policies of other nations are called into question, this is nothing different.


    The people who are adversely affected by the possible changing of those social policies bat plenty of eyelids and even nowadays still many refuse to accept them. Can you honestly see much of a change in attitude towards the LGBT community just because they'll be able to get married?

    I can't. In fact it won't make any difference whatsoever IMO, because you can't force social change, it has to evolve naturally.


  • #99
    Sunglasses Ron
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭Sunglasses Ron


    FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

    As for "I'm only opposed to the adoption bit", why exactly? I'm a woman. I could be a drug addict who hates kids and would make their lives hell but I would still be free to have children.

    Why deny children and babies a loving home?

    If your argument hinges on "I believe a family is a mother, father and children" then you should be lobbying to remove children from single-parent families and widows/widowers.

    My opinion does not hinge on that at all. I wouldn't bother posting my reasons as it is utterly pointless to attempt to even rationally debate such an issue.

    But that is all besides the point. My point (and I generally do have a live and let live attitude to the marriage issue) is that if I came on here and said in regards to the support for it "I can't believe how much society has declined and is composed of lemmings" I would likely be banned. Yet one can come on and call all those of an opposing viewpoint retards living in the 18th century and get away with it. It is scarily undemocratic and fascist to label all with a personal, differing opinion to somehow be morally inferior to those who share your own opinion. It is bigoted, thought police Talibanistic crap. "I'm right, if you don't agree with me you ****ing suck!"


  • #100
    FouxDaFaFa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,850 ✭✭✭FouxDaFaFa


    Sunglasses Ron wrote: »
    My opinion does not hinge on that at all. I wouldn't bother posting my reasons as it is utterly pointless to attempt to even rationally debate such an issue.
    I am interested in your reasons, genuinely, and I wouldn't claim that I am morally superior. Would you mind sharing them? There are a lot of people who are opposed but it's not often you hear their argument.

    People can think whatever they like, obviously. But they should recognise that actively lobbying or voting against gay marriage does harm gay people, even just in propagating a society that does not treat gay people equally.


  • #101
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    Friend Computer wrote: »
    Don't you mean "the right not to have your opinion questioned, challenged or criticised"? Because that seems to be what you're getting at.

    People are free to hold what opinions they want and others are just as free to exercise their right to free speech in criticising them. It's not authoritarian, it's not wrong, stop being so melodramatic. If you can't hack being criticised then tough ****, frankly.

    No one ever bats an eyelid when the social policies of other nations are called into question, this is nothing different.
    Amen. The "Boohoo, people are being mean to me because they're challenging my unsubstantiated views" stuff is hilarious. And likening it to the nazis and Taliban is just comedy gold! :pac:
    Nobody's stopping people like David Quinn from airing his hate-filled, poorly supported views on a regular basis; where are the censors clamping down on him? But people can contest those views, which is also simply them doing the same thing as he's doing - airing an opinion.

    It's actually pretty extreme conservatism that's becoming fashionable now, despite the claims that the "lefties" are trying to be "trendy".


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    Sunglasses Ron
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭Sunglasses Ron


    FouxDaFaFa wrote: »
    I am interested in your reasons, genuinely, and I wouldn't claim that I am morally superior. Would you mind sharing them? There are a lot of people who are opposed but it's not often you hear their argument.

    Nah. Waste of typing time. Would be shouted down with completely irrational retorts. So I shan't bother.


  • #103
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    Sunglasses Ron wrote: »
    Nah. Waste of typing time. Would be shouted down with completely irrational retorts. So I shan't bother.
    You mean you can't really substantiate it? What would be irrational? People seeing the holes in it?


  • #104
    FouxDaFaFa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,850 ✭✭✭FouxDaFaFa


    Sunglasses Ron wrote: »
    Nah. Waste of typing time. Would be shouted down with completely irrational retorts. So I shan't bother.
    I've been treating you with nothing but respect. But if you won't elaborate on your views you shouldn't expect your opinion to be given equal weight as others.


  • #105
    Sunglasses Ron
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭Sunglasses Ron


    Femme_Fatale wrote: »
    You mean you can't really substantiate it? What would be irrational? People seeing the holes in it?

    People denying basic fact and reality.

    Again, I refuse to waste my time on something that is unsuited to being debated rationally, respectfully and evenly balanced without shrill roaring, fingers in ears, "no no no!" and complete ignorance. I wouldn't waste my time debating the merits of female pre marital sex on an Islamist forum, and nor shall I on this.


  • #106
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    Sunglasses Ron wrote: »
    People denying basic fact and reality.
    Such as?
    Again, I refuse to waste my time on something that is unsuited to being debated rationally, respectfully and evenly balanced without shrill roaring, fingers in ears, "no no no!" and complete ignorance.
    You mean you can't substantiate it. Fair enough. Maybe it's not the detractors being ignorant (usually they're anything but) it's just that they think you're wrong?

    All the reasons for opposing same-sex marriage have been covered - none of them are solid. Gay adoption, ok maybe people might have more of a substantial reasoning for opposing it, but same-sex marriage - there is nothing. People can have whatever opinions they want for opposing gay marriage, but they're always gonna have flaws.


  • #107
    FouxDaFaFa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,850 ✭✭✭FouxDaFaFa


    Sunglasses Ron wrote: »
    People denying basic fact and reality.

    Again, I refuse to waste my time on something that is unsuited to being debated rationally, respectfully and evenly balanced without shrill roaring, fingers in ears, "no no no!" and complete ignorance. I wouldn't waste my time debating the merits of female pre marital sex on an Islamist forum, and nor shall I on this.
    But this is what you are doing right now. Refusing to engage, shoving your fingers in your ears and yelling "can't hear you!".


  • #108
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis




    I'll just leave this here...


  • #109
    Sunglasses Ron
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,180 ✭✭✭Sunglasses Ron


    Femme_Fatale wrote: »
    S

    All the reasons for opposing same-sex marriage have been covered - none of them are solid.

    Apart from the adoption angle I don't oppose it. How many times! However, you must remember, we are in a new world these days. Ten years ago gay marriage was something that existed only in Holland, Denmark and a few liberal states of the US. Maybe Canada? All places that have been known as being liberal since the 70's (soft drugs, porn, prostitution). The concept of it coming to Ireland never seemed realistic back then, and I think older folks a bit confused and flustered by the whole thing deserve a bit of respect, even if you don't agree with them, rather than being called bigoted dinosaurs.

    Anyway, that i my last word on this cluster**** of a topic that just brings out some bizarre type of liberal right wing spiel.


  • #110
    FouxDaFaFa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,850 ✭✭✭FouxDaFaFa


    Sunglasses Ron wrote: »
    Anyway, that i my last word on this cluster**** of a topic that just brings out some bizarre type of liberal right wing spiel.
    Oh no, the "L" word. You've got me now!

    What's more bizarre is that "liberal" has been appropriated as an insult now.

    (I'm assuming you mean "left wing").


  • #111
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,239 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Sunglasses Ron wrote: »
    All places that have been known as being liberal since the 70's (soft drugs, porn, prostitution).

    Is that how you define 'liberal'? :confused:
    ...liberal right wing spiel.

    Is that how you define 'liberal'? :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Me?
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 269 ✭✭Me?


    I am against marriage in all forms.


  • #113
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Sunglasses Ron wrote: »
    My opinion does not hinge on that at all. I wouldn't bother posting my reasons as it is utterly pointless to attempt to even rationally debate such an issue.

    But that is all besides the point. My point (and I generally do have a live and let live attitude to the marriage issue) is that if I came on here and said in regards to the support for it "I can't believe how much society has declined and is composed of lemmings" I would likely be banned. Yet one can come on and call all those of an opposing viewpoint retards living in the 18th century and get away with it. It is scarily undemocratic and fascist to label all with a personal, differing opinion to somehow be morally inferior to those who share your own opinion. It is bigoted, thought police Talibanistic crap. "I'm right, if you don't agree with me you ****ing suck!"
    Sunglasses Ron wrote: »
    Nah. Waste of typing time. Would be shouted down with completely irrational retorts. So I shan't bother.
    Sunglasses Ron wrote: »
    Apart from the adoption angle I don't oppose it. How many times! However, you must remember, we are in a new world these days. Ten years ago gay marriage was something that existed only in Holland, Denmark and a few liberal states of the US. Maybe Canada? All places that have been known as being liberal since the 70's (soft drugs, porn, prostitution). The concept of it coming to Ireland never seemed realistic back then, and I think older folks a bit confused and flustered by the whole thing deserve a bit of respect, even if you don't agree with them, rather than being called bigoted dinosaurs.

    All of which is fair enough, but when someone makes the effort to enter into debate, it's only natural to assume that they wish to debate.

    To say "I don't have to explain my reasons" in ANY topic makes you look arrogant and, quiet frankly, like you have no idea what you're talking about. It's the only natural assumption to make. It could even suggest low-level trolling if you're expressing a unpopular opinion.

    The problem with this debate is that, after several threads, there has been no logical reason put forward to oppose it. I'm still waiting for one. I treat anyone who at least tries to put forward one respectfully, provided they don't get up on a soapbox and aren't engaging in bible-bashing, liberalism-bashing or homophobia. Debate the issue and YOUR feelings towards it and don't go ad homeinum.
    Anyway, that i my last word on this cluster**** of a topic that just brings out some bizarre type of liberal right wing spiel.

    Agreed, but hoping you're not tarring all with the same brush...?

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #114
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    All of which is fair enough, but when someone makes the effort to enter into debate, it's only natural to assume that they wish to debate.


    When someone makes an effort to enter into discussion, on a discussion forum, it's only natural to assume that they wish to discuss an issue. Debating is another process entirely with set protocol and adjudicators and equal time given to both sides of an argument. Then a conclusion is drawn and an outcome of the winner of the debate is announced.

    A discussion allows for so much more than just right and wrong, yes or no. A discussion means all opinions are entertained, and the more people are encouraged to be open about their opinions, the more we can learn from each other and devise a best practice strategy going forward that is built on mutual respect and cooperation, not just "You don't agree with me? You ignorant fcuk!".

    To say "I don't have to explain my reasons" in ANY topic makes you look arrogant and, quiet frankly, like you have no idea what you're talking about. It's the only natural assumption to make. It could even suggest low-level trolling if you're expressing a unpopular opinion.


    I'd be more worried about those who have no interest at ALL in entering the discussion tbh, those who just take it all in, let the madness wash over them, and then go into the booth and tick "NO", because "I've had my fun, and that's all that matters".

    The problem with this debate is that, after several threads, there has been no logical reason put forward to oppose it. I'm still waiting for one. I treat anyone who at least tries to put forward one respectfully, provided they don't get up on a soapbox and aren't engaging in bible-bashing, liberalism-bashing or homophobia. Debate the issue and YOUR feelings towards it and don't go ad homeinum.


    The problem with trying to have a debate on a discussion site is that it just doesn't work. The only logical conclusion you can draw from any of the threads there have been on this issue is that you're engaging with the wrong fcuking audience in the wrong fcuking arena. Go out and talk to people who oppose it on the street, engage with them, find a way to talk to them without using lofty logic and linguistic lampooning, because they don't understand your logic either in the same way as you don't understand theirs, but only by talking TO them, as opposed to AT them, will you ever understand that.


    TL;DR: You want to make progress? Get off the fcuking Internet and talk to people offline about these issues.


  • #115
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    When someone makes an effort to enter into discussion, on a discussion forum, it's only natural to assume that they wish to discuss an issue. Debating is another process entirely with set protocol and adjudicators and equal time given to both sides of an argument. Then a conclusion is drawn and an outcome of the winner of the debate is announced.

    A discussion allows for so much more than just right and wrong, yes or no. A discussion means all opinions are entertained, and the more people are encouraged to be open about their opinions, the more we can learn from each other and devise a best practice strategy going forward that is built on mutual respect and cooperation, not just "You don't agree with me? You ignorant fcuk!".





    I'd be more worried about those who have no interest at ALL in entering the discussion tbh, those who just take it all in, let the madness wash over them, and then go into the booth and tick "NO", because "I've had my fun, and that's all that matters".





    The problem with trying to have a debate on a discussion site is that it just doesn't work. The only logical conclusion you can draw from any of the threads there have been on this issue is that you're engaging with the wrong fcuking audience in the wrong fcuking arena. Go out and talk to people who oppose it on the street, engage with them, find a way to talk to them without using lofty logic and linguistic lampooning, because they don't understand your logic either in the same way as you don't understand theirs, but only by talking TO them, as opposed to AT them, will you ever understand that.


    TL;DR: You want to make progress? Get off the fcuking Internet and talk to people offline about these issues.

    I do. I only know two people in real life who are against gay marraige. One is a self-confessed homophobe and proud of it, but still can't gvie me a valid reason.

    The second is a priest who's uncomfortbale with the idea of marriage because it clashes with his faith. He's not against civil unions though.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #116
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    I do. I only know two people in real life who are against gay marraige. One is a self-confessed homophobe and proud of it, but still can't gvie me a valid reason.

    The second is a priest who's uncomfortbale with the idea of marriage because it clashes with his faith. He's not against civil unions though.

    Could you explain quite what the difference is between a marriage and a civil union?

    Are there tax or legal etc. implications between the 2 or is it just that that one's been performed by a priest and one by a civil servant?


  • #117
    pl4ichjgy17zwd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,053 ✭✭✭pl4ichjgy17zwd


    wexie wrote: »
    Could you explain quite what the difference is between a marriage and a civil union?

    Are there tax or legal etc. implications between the 2 or is it just that that one's been performed by a priest and one by a civil servant?

    Some good info here: http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/marriage/faqs.html


  • #118
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    A discussion means all opinions are entertained, and the more people are encouraged to be open about their opinions, the more we can learn from each other and devise a best practice strategy going forward that is built on mutual respect and cooperation, not just "You don't agree with me? You ignorant fcuk!"
    The thing is though, people who claim they're being shouted down and unfairly received are often simply referring to their views, which they can't back up and which they often present in an aggressive hostile fashion, being contested.
    They cling on to the auld "free speech" nugget then (becoming increasingly fashionable - and there are some very naive attitudes towards free speech, sometimes from people who really should know better; it's kinda a reverse political correctness) whereas the problem isn't with them airing their view, it's the view itself and the way in which they have aired it.

    If someone posted "I am opposed to gay marriage and here's why" and put forth their view in a thoughtful, restrained manner, I wouldn't like to see them being cluster****ed, but that rarely happens.


  • #119
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    wexie wrote: »
    Could you explain quite what the difference is between a marriage and a civil union?

    Are there tax or legal etc. implications between the 2 or is it just that that one's been performed by a priest and one by a civil servant?

    You'd have to ask him, that's what he told me. Possibly he may have meant the religious ceremony?

    In the eyes of the preist, I believe so.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #120
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    You'd have to ask him, that's what he told me. Possibly he may have meant the religious ceremony?

    In the eyes of the preist, I believe so.

    I don't think it's overly unreasonable for a priest to be uncomfortable with the idea of having to perform a religious ceremony to marry 2 same sex people?
    To be honest I think forcing a priest to do so would be as much an infringement of his rights as it for gay people not to be allowed to marry. (well....maybe not quite as much).

    From the link posted earlier (thanks) there are clearly some significant differences in the legal protections afforded etc. between civil unions and marriage.

    Could we not just change those differences so that civil unions and marriage are the same in all but name? ie. gave all the same rights, protections etc.

    Or would that require changing the constitution?

    The reason I ask is that it appears to me that a lot of people have more of an issue with the term 'marriage' traditionally being used in a religious man / woman context so I'm wondering would this lower some of the resistance?


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    pl4ichjgy17zwd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,053 ✭✭✭pl4ichjgy17zwd


    wexie wrote: »
    Could we not just change those differences so that civil unions and marriage are the same in all but name? ie. gave all the same rights, protections etc.

    Or would that require changing the constitution?

    The reason I ask is that it appears to me that a lot of people have more of an issue with the term 'marriage' traditionally being used in a religious man / woman context so I'm wondering would this lower some of the resistance?

    The problem with that is it still breeds a 'separate but equal' mentality, and civil marriage was around long before religion stuck their oar in. It's segregation and shouldn't be legally enshrined (as it already is IMO) Also what about straight couples that choose to not have a religious ceremony? Do they still get the option of civil marriage or are they relegated to civil partnership too? Would 'husband' and 'wife' still be legal terms only associated with religious marriage?

    No legislation would force religious institutions to preform same-sex marriages, just like the divorce legislation didn't mandate they preform re-marriages.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement