The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[Rossfan]

I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.

[foxcommander]

This issue causes a national referendum?? WTF. Wasting cash again.
If we concentrated on fixing the actual problems in the country rather than this smokescreen we'd be better off.
No chance of adding a few items up for debate and to the voting ticket. Water charges anyone?

Still, takes the heat off the government. That'll do nicely.

[foxcommander]

I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.

There's words for people like you.

[Maguire01]

This issue causes a national referendum?? WTF. Wasting cash again.
If we concentrated on fixing the actual problems in the country rather than this smokescreen we'd be better off.
No chance of adding a few items up for debate and to the voting ticket. Water charges anyone?

Still, takes the heat off the government. That'll do nicely.

You still just don't get it. One of these things requires a change to the constitution, the other doesn't.

[J70]

Iceman, I don't know what you mean by "gave up the right to."  Are you suggesting that at one time Christians, in some way, owned marriage?  Then what about married Jews, Muslims or atheists?  We're they not married?  Of course the church has every right to say who it will or will not marry, but marriage isn't simply a religious union, it's a civil one too, so shouldn't two people in love be allowed to marry and to enjoy the legal protections of the marriage contract?

I think it's funny how you start off with I don't know what you mean and then continue to argue with yourself over what you think I mean

Most of the Christian debate on Gay Marriage is centered around a re-defining of marriage. My response is that we gave up any rights we had to the term Marriage a long time ago within the confines of the Church. Marriage within the Church isn't really anything exclusively sacred anymore. For a nice envelope any man or woman can be married. So I have no problem with people getting "married".

Does the Church though have the right to say who it will or will not marry? Do you think that right will remain safe over the coming years? I personally don't.

The Nolan debate was enjoyable as always to watch. He invites people on for a reason.

On what grounds can a church be made to marry someone it does not want to?

If the only marriages that were recognized by a state were religious ones, you might have a point.

[Oraisteach]

Iceman, you say that you have no problem with "people getting married."  Same-sex couples are people, so you'd have no problem with them getting "married," albeit outside the church?

[Rossfan]

I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.

There's words for people like you.

Correction -
There ARE words.
I presume the words are
Voter
Adult
Opinion

[The Iceman]

Iceman, you say that you have no problem with "people getting married."  Same-sex couples are people, so you'd have no problem with them getting "married," albeit outside the church?

thats what I said.

[The Iceman]

Iceman, I don't know what you mean by "gave up the right to."  Are you suggesting that at one time Christians, in some way, owned marriage?  Then what about married Jews, Muslims or atheists?  We're they not married?  Of course the church has every right to say who it will or will not marry, but marriage isn't simply a religious union, it's a civil one too, so shouldn't two people in love be allowed to marry and to enjoy the legal protections of the marriage contract?

I think it's funny how you start off with I don't know what you mean and then continue to argue with yourself over what you think I mean

Most of the Christian debate on Gay Marriage is centered around a re-defining of marriage. My response is that we gave up any rights we had to the term Marriage a long time ago within the confines of the Church. Marriage within the Church isn't really anything exclusively sacred anymore. For a nice envelope any man or woman can be married. So I have no problem with people getting "married".

Does the Church though have the right to say who it will or will not marry? Do you think that right will remain safe over the coming years? I personally don't.

The Nolan debate was enjoyable as always to watch. He invites people on for a reason.

On what grounds can a church be made to marry someone it does not want to?

If the only marriages that were recognized by a state were religious ones, you might have a point.

It may not happen in Ireland but in some states in America I'd say fairly soon Churches (on the grounds of equal rights) will be forced to conduct same sex ceremonies or face the consequences.
Many of the Protestant Churches are already breaking off into yet more ones that support Gay Marriage. The church of england already support it so look for the Church of Ireland to jump on that wagon too. I'd say it won't be long before it is being forced.

[charlieTully]

I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.

You will be voting no because you are a homophobe. you are the ultimate hypocrite. A self righteous twat.

[ONeill]

My goodness. Who would oppose this?

[Oraisteach]

Iceman, you're confusing me.  On the one hand, you say you don't agree with a 'Yes' vote, but now you say you'd have no problem with same-sex couples marrying outside the church.  Why oppose a 'Yes' vote then?

Also, I don't see how the Catholic Church can be forced to conduct a service contrary to its principles. 

[Esmarelda]

I always assumed I'd vote yes before I heard any debate. What's putting me off is the obnoxiousness of the yes side, and by that I mean the general public in social media.
If anyone with any doubts brings up, for example, that by allowing gay marriage it's the first step to allowing polygamy, they are scoffed at.

I'll still probably vote yes but maybe I need to listen to different debates.

Whining about obnoxiousness is just looking for an excuse or an out.

Vote based on logic and the merits of the issue, not because someone else's overzealousness or rudeness.

You are factually incorrect if you're referring to my particular whining.

I agree with your second point and will do so. I just pointed out how I find some of the Yes side.

[Rossfan]

I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.

You will be voting no because you are a homophobe. you are the ultimate hypocrite. A self righteous twat.

You know nothing about me and your silly clichéd comments prove that.

[seafoid]

I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.

Does civil partnership allow the surviving partner to get a spouse's pension ?