The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[J70]

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.

[J70]

A civil rights issue like this should not be subject to majority rule anyway.

Unless there is some legitimate argument AGAINST allowing gays to marry? Or the constitution explicitly prohibits it...

[Maguire01]

A civil rights issue like this should not be subject to majority rule anyway.

Unless there is some legitimate argument AGAINST allowing gays to marry? Or the constitution explicitly prohibits it...

The courts have ruled it as unconstitutional, hence the referendum.

[seafoid]

A civil rights issue like this should not be subject to majority rule anyway.

Unless there is some legitimate argument AGAINST allowing gays to marry? Or the constitution explicitly prohibits it...

the constitution was written in the 1930s when ireland was run by a catholic junta.
It a pretty shit constitution. A brain dead woman was kept alive artificially recently because doctors were worried switching the machine off would be illegal.

[armaghniac]

A civil rights issue like this should not be subject to majority rule anyway.

There is no question of civil rights here and to describe as such is typical of the abuse of the English language accompanying this issue.
There are people in the world whose civil rights have been denied, those who are free to have a relationship but one classed civil partnership instead of marriage are not repressed.

[bennydorano]

Slightly surprised the opinion here is that Yes will piss it, the silent majority are as conservative as fook imo.

[Maguire01]

Slightly surprised the opinion here is that Yes will piss it, the silent majority are as conservative as fook imo.

Opinion polls have been suggesting a strong Yes vote.

[J70]

A civil rights issue like this should not be subject to majority rule anyway.

Unless there is some legitimate argument AGAINST allowing gays to marry? Or the constitution explicitly prohibits it...

The courts have ruled it as unconstitutional, hence the referendum.

On what grounds?

[J70]

A civil rights issue like this should not be subject to majority rule anyway.

There is no question of civil rights here and to describe as such is typical of the abuse of the English language accompanying this issue.
There are people in the world whose civil rights have been denied, those who are free to have a relationship but one classed civil partnership instead of marriage are not repressed.

I am heterosexual. I've got the right to marry the partner of my choice. If I was homosexual and still living in Ireland,  I would not have that right.

Seems like a clearcut denial of civil rights to me.

But, in case i am out of touch, in Ireland, what is the difference between a civil partnership and marriage?

[Oraisteach]

armaghniac, I have to disagree with you, as much as it pains me to be on an opposite side to a fellow apple-eater, but I think it's absolutely about civil rights.  Same-sex couples marry for the same reasons that straight couples do, and it isn't just for love.  At least here in the US a marriage license safeguards families and provides protections including hospital visitations, adoption. medical decision-making, automatic inheritance, access to family insurance policies, exemption from property tax upon the death of a spouse, domestic violence protections, to name but a very few.  All of these are civil rights issues.  I don't know what civil rights are denied in Ireland, bt I imagine it's quite a few. 

[Maguire01]

A civil rights issue like this should not be subject to majority rule anyway.

Unless there is some legitimate argument AGAINST allowing gays to marry? Or the constitution explicitly prohibits it...

The courts have ruled it as unconstitutional, hence the referendum.

On what grounds?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

[The Iceman]

there will be a yes vote. I don't agree with it but at the same time Christians gave up the right to the term "marriage" a long time ago....

[Oraisteach]

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?

[J70]

there will be a yes vote. I don't agree with it but at the same time Christians gave up the right to the term "marriage" a long time ago....

You think allowing non-Christians to marry is a bad thing?

[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.