Marriage Equality Referendum - how will you vote?

[Spudulika]

Is it? I would've thought that's the very definition of a homophobe!


If people can't come up with logical, and relevant, arguments they are the ones failing the debate. Not the people pointing it out.

No, it is not the very definition.

I agree, but how logical or relevant is any debate when it is largely based on emotions. And very often the attacks on the No campaign are simply - You're sick, you're backward. Not logical. When No campaigners try to argue about the legal, factual based points, the response is "You're lying, you're muddying, you're creepy." Again, not logical, but again this debate is a nonsense. The sooner it's over the sooner the government and their meeja lackeys can come up with the next distraction. Maybe they can get another married murderer, sex kill.

[Spudulika]

What's the difference?



Same-sex marital recognition is already outlawed; they're demanding the maintenance of a status quo that denies others legal rights and recognition based upon those others' sexual orientation. They might as well be demanding laws to outlaw or illegalise something. What's the difference in effect ultimately?

It is a rational human right to have convictions, but isn't it unreasonable when such convictions trespass into the private and harmless business of others? If you're going to acknowledge a legal familial relationship between an opposite-sex couple, there's no good reason to deny a same-sex couple that exact same recognition.

I think this George Bernard Shaw line is worth repeating:

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

Sorry, the joke went over my head; you were joking that marriage itself is a misery rather than seriously suggesting same-sex marriage specifically would be a source of misery for those who commit to it. I see that now and have since better informed myself.

Disapproving of something does not mean you have a phobia of it.

Why are you lecturing me on same-sex marriage? I couldn't give a flying fig about what 2 adults choose to do, whether it's an expression of love or a convenient way around taxes or to avoid deportation etc. It's nothing to do with me. I dislike the hypocrisy of many of the Yes campaigners, especially the lack of tolerance of other points of view. And the supposed Civil Rights defenders like Mark Kelly are only interested in defending the rights of those they agree with, and bandwaggon and sneer about those they don't. It is sad.

[dahamsta]

http://www.thejournal.ie/navan-girl-...01821-May2015/

Shameful lack of tolerance..

To be fair, it is very hard to tolerate people that read and believe the journal.

[GypsyBlackCat]

I'd say that at least 90% of what I've heard from the No side is either religious based or plain homophobic.

I'm not sure if this image will work properly on here or will take up too much space, but I'll leave it here anyway: (Maybe some mods might be able to fix, otherwise here's a link: http://queerty-prodweb.s3.amazonaws....u0crkEahcg.png)

Nice chart but some Christian will claim that they aren't under the law hence the New Testament.

I agree though. I'm a practicing Christian who has study the Bible, we all sin some how. I always get the feeling that the gay thing is the only one in which most of us don't do so it's easier to 'hate' that one and judge people on that one. If a gay person was to write down all my sins it would feel a rather large A4 refill pad.

[osarusan]

When No campaigners try to argue about the legal, factual based points, the response is "You're lying, you're muddying, you're creepy." Again, not logical, but again this debate is a nonsense.

Can you give some examples of the legal factual based points that No campaigners have tried to argue?

I haven't seen even one.

[DannyInvincible]

Disapproving of something does not mean you have a phobia of it.

What's the difference in effect of disapproving of something and having a phobia of it? I would have thought homophobia encompassed being disapproving of homosexuality.

Why are you lecturing me on same-sex marriage? I couldn't give a flying fig about what 2 adults choose to do, whether it's an expression of love or a convenient way around taxes or to avoid deportation etc. It's nothing to do with me. I dislike the hypocrisy of many of the Yes campaigners, especially the lack of tolerance of other points of view. And the supposed Civil Rights defenders like Mark Kelly are only interested in defending the rights of those they agree with, and bandwaggon and sneer about those they don't. It is sad.

Sorry, Spud. Didn't mean to seem like I was lecturing you. You're a thoughtful, interesting and, most importantly, honest poster; just asking some questions and making some points of my own to add to the discussion. I wasn't directing the points I was making at you as if to suggest you were hoping for the maintenance of the status quo or as if you were getting into other people's business. No, not at all. I was talking about those who will be voting 'no'.

[DannyInvincible]

Can you give some examples of the legal factual based points that No campaigners have tried to argue?

I haven't seen even one.

Answer this, 'yes' side!

[osarusan]

Ok, I'm convinced.

[Real ale Madrid]

I can't find the "M" he is talking about - in my hand.

[Charlie Darwin]

Charlie, if you take such a stance then it's nothing wrong with No voters calling names back.

Of course, they're entitled to hold opinions too. I'm a fully-grown adult and can handle people expressing negative opinions of me.

If we are unable to respect the rights of those who don't hold the same views as us, then we do not deserve the right to discuss such matters or be allowed to take part in a democratic society.

What democratic rights are being violated by me calling somebody a backward homophobe? This is the thing that wrecks my head. If you're going to go out in public and express opinions on other people's lives, pass judgement and support legislation that restricts their lives, then you damn well better grow up and accept that people are going to express opinions right back at you.

I can't find the "M" he is talking about - in my hand.

That's because you forgot to draw it on with a biro first.

[GypsyBlackCat]

As I said the whole thing is getting childish. Most of us hoped it would be a fair and honest campaign but it's just turned into a slagging match.

My mother and my in-laws are in their mid-60s and are voting No. I find it offensive to call them homophobic, they come from a different generation and back ground. A lot of people have their reasons to vote No but to label them all backward and homophobic is wrong. Some people just hold conservative views an/or their faith is important to them. It's like labeling everyone who votes Sinn Finn a terrorist sympathizer!!!!

Likewise, there is many on the Yes side that hold those views I said above. A lot of them don't want to offend anyone's religious beliefs or moral values and they do respect them. They just want to be treated the same as a hetrosexual couples. It's just a handful of goons who latch themselves on the next 'right on' cause that are making all the noise not the true Yes campaigners.

[Dodge]

My mother and my in-laws are in their mid-60s and are voting No. I find it offensive to call them homophobic, they come from a different generation and back ground. A lot of people have their reasons to vote No but to label them all backward and homophobic is wrong

I don't want to make it personal about your folks but if the only reason someone is voting no is because they somehow fear/distrust/don't want to see gay weddings, then they pretty much are homophobes. You can't say "I've no problem with gay people but I don't think they should be married" and not give a reason.

What other word can you use?

[Charlie Darwin]

Why is it offensive to call them homophobic? I don't understand why people will proudly express homophobic views and then bristle when they're described as such. It might be difficult for them to reconcile their homophobic views with their self-image as fair-minded liberal people, but that's hardly everybody else's problem.

[osarusan]

A lot of people have their reasons to vote No but to label them all backward and homophobic is wrong.

It's only wrong to label them backward or homophobic if their reasons for voting no aren't backward or homophobic.

What are their reasons for voting no?

If they 'come from a different generation and background',and still hold opinions from then, wouldn't 'backward' be an accurate way to describe their thinking?

It might be difficult for them to reconcile their homophobic views with their self-image as fair-minded liberal people, but that's hardly everybody else's problem.

Again, this is exactly what I think. There seems to be an idea that homophobia means spitting at homosexuals or beating them up on the street, but...voting against giving them equality...sure that's nothing.

[GypsyBlackCat]

I don't want to make it personal about your folks but if the only reason someone is voting no is because they somehow fear/distrust/don't want to see gay weddings, then they pretty much are homophobes. You can't say "I've no problem with gay people but I don't think they should be married" and not give a reason.

What other word can you use?

They come from a different generation, a generation that homosexuality wasn't the norm. Most of them don't hate gay people, they don't think that's it's natural. I'm not a Muslim, I don't like the Qu'ran and I don't care to much for it's teachings. I don't hate Muslims or fear them, I just don't accept their religion. Am I an Islamicphobe? A phobia is a hatred or fear of something. The last I checked they weren't going around in gangs and beating up gay people. And why do we need to put words and labels on people?

My point is that people are to busy shouting at the other side rather than engaging with them in civilized debate on the matter.

[GypsyBlackCat]

It's only wrong to label them backward or homophobic if their reasons for voting no aren't backward or homophobic.

What are their reasons for voting no?

If they 'come from a different generation and background',and still hold opinions from then, wouldn't 'backward' be an accurate way to describe their thinking?



Again, this is exactly what I think. There seems to be an idea that homophobia means spitting at homosexuals or beating them up on the street, but...voting against giving them equality...sure that's nothing.

They have nothing against gay people, they don't thinks it's natural. Either way they aren't to pushed if the Yes vote wins. Like most people they don't see the difference between civil partnerships and marriage. They don't fear or dislike gay people, don't agree with same sex marriage but they'll accept it and respect it if the Yes vote wins.

[nigel-harps1954]

Jesus didn't need a father...

Some would say he was the first artificially inseminated baby?

[dahamsta]

I can't find the "M" he is talking about - in my hand.

Check your hairline for three 6's, just to be sure.

Of course, they're entitled to hold opinions too. I'm a fully-grown adult and can handle people expressing negative opinions of me.

Football management or refereeing are not for you then, going out of your way to be offended is a requirement in these industries. You must also threaten football site administrators with unspecified "legal action" on a regular basis. Both are very time-consuming but important parts of the job, particularly for junior league managers, who spend more time at this side of the trade than actual management.

[GypsyBlackCat]

Jesus didn't need a father...

Some would say he was the first artificially inseminated baby?

Ishmael was Abraham's first son born to his handmaiden Hagar with the consent of his wife Sarah. Customs of that time dictated that, although Hagar was the birth mother, any child conceived would belong to Sarah and Abraham.

The first surrogate?

[Dodge]

They come from a different generation, a generation that homosexuality wasn't the norm.

It's still a small percentage of the population (and I would guess it hasn't changed at all).

I'm not a Muslim, I don't like the Qu'ran and I don't care to much for it's teachings. I don't hate Muslims or fear them, I just don't accept their religion. Am I an Islamicphobe?

If you don't allow Muslims to marry, then yes you would be. Sounds like you're sectarian too.