The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[deiseach]

While conditioned by the circumstances of the time, I suspect the bunch of slave-owning white men from the late 18th century took their duties seriously. The same cannot be said of the "leaders", the Kennys, Gilmores and the like, of today.

Conditioned as they were by the circumstances of the times, they had no opinion one way or another on gay marriage, or at least they didn't leave anything behind in the Constitution about it. I think it is misconceived to ask for their opinion through the medium of that text rather than canvassing the electorate of today, whatever the outcome might be.

[deiseach]

One of the upsides of this referendum is the amount of thought we've all had to do about what constitutes family and the ties that bind us. Win or lose, I think it has been healthy for the nation's pysche.

I thought of what you say here yesterday after reading an article from the Washington Post about the case before the US Supreme Court regarding gay marriage. What struck me was the absurdity of having the validity of laws determined by nine people parsing a text written by a bunch of slave-owning white men from the late 18th century. As you say, whatever the result there is virtue in having a public airing of opinions on the matter.

The irony of these posts are unreal, you can air your opinion as long as you are on the YES side, on the NO side you are homophobic, Jesus wept!

I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I do not think advocating a No vote makes you a homophobe. I think it takes a particularly twisted mindset to read the contrary into what I posted.

Not on this board - time and time again it has been stated here that the only reason one can vote NO is because they are homophobic, appreciate you are not one of the protagonists but you can appreciate the the irony in the above posts in the context of the mass hysteria from the YES campaign on this board.

[Franko]

Can someone in the yes camp clarify if they believe that there are any reasons for voting no other than being a rampant homophobe?

I dont have a vote but would in all likelihood be a yes voter.

[topcuppla]

Can someone in the yes camp clarify if they believe that there are any reasons for voting no other than being a rampant homophobe?

I dont have a vote but would in all likelihood be a yes voter.

On this board everyone is entitled to an opinion unless that opinion is different to the herd and then you are homophobic.

[screenexile]

Can someone in the yes camp clarify if they believe that there are any reasons for voting no other than being a rampant homophobe?

I dont have a vote but would in all likelihood be a yes voter.

On this board everyone is entitled to an opinion unless that opinion is different to the herd and then you are homophobic.

Well . . . Yes!

You are voting to deny homosexuals equal rights to everyone else/

Definition of homophobia

homo|pho¦bia
Pronunciation: /ˌhɒməˈfəʊbɪə/  /ˌhəʊmə-/
Definition of homophobia in English:
noun
Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.

I think that a lot of people are getting overly pushed on the definition of homophobia and think it means you abuse or hate homosexuals or its something akin to racism when I don't think it is and has more layers than that. A dislike of homosexuals is the dictionary definition and I think that generally those voting no have that.

[armaghniac]

I think that a lot of people are getting overly pushed on the definition of homophobia and think it means you abuse or hate homosexuals or its something akin to racism when I don't think it is and has more layers than that. A dislike of homosexuals is the dictionary definition and I think that generally those voting no have that.

By the same token the yes side are heterophobic as they wish to devalue the heterosexual instution of marriage.

[topcuppla]

Can someone in the yes camp clarify if they believe that there are any reasons for voting no other than being a rampant homophobe?

I dont have a vote but would in all likelihood be a yes voter.

On this board everyone is entitled to an opinion unless that opinion is different to the herd and then you are homophobic.

Well . . . Yes!

You are voting to deny homosexuals equal rights to everyone else/

Definition of homophobia

homo|pho¦bia
Pronunciation: /ˌhɒməˈfəʊbɪə/  /ˌhəʊmə-/
Definition of homophobia in English:
noun
Dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.

I think that a lot of people are getting overly pushed on the definition of homophobia and think it means you abuse or hate homosexuals or its something akin to racism when I don't think it is and has more layers than that. A dislike of homosexuals is the dictionary definition and I think that generally those voting no have that.

Just to be clear once again, I would vote yes, but if people want to vote no for whatever reason that is their democratic right and they should not be branded homophobic by the gay right activists on this board.

[screenexile]

I think that a lot of people are getting overly pushed on the definition of homophobia and think it means you abuse or hate homosexuals or its something akin to racism when I don't think it is and has more layers than that. A dislike of homosexuals is the dictionary definition and I think that generally those voting no have that.

By the same token the yes side are heterophobic as they wish to devalue the heterosexual instution of marriage.

Aye but there's no definition of that!!

Also as has been asked on numerous occasions on this board by a number of posters to anybody advocating the No vote can you please tell me how allowing Gay people to marry impacts on my marriage in the slightest??!!??!!

If you can find a way that my marriage is devalued by this I will certainly change my opinion to the No campaign as I would hate for my marriage to be devalued in any way!!!!

[screenexile]

Whatever about the actual referendum this is very funny!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jp1g2UIm4s

[deiseach]

I think if the institution that is marriage could survive the mockery of it that was Elton John marrying a woman, it'll cope with him marrying a man.

[deiseach]

Whatever about the actual referendum this is very funny!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jp1g2UIm4s

I'd sooner marry Donal Óg than talk to him about hurling.

Me, bitter? You'd better believe it!

[topcuppla]

I think if the institution that is marriage could survive the mockery of it that was Elton John marrying a woman, it'll cope with him marrying a man.

And buying a couple of kids!

[screenexile]

I think that a lot of people are getting overly pushed on the definition of homophobia and think it means you abuse or hate homosexuals or its something akin to racism when I don't think it is and has more layers than that. A dislike of homosexuals is the dictionary definition and I think that generally those voting no have that.

By the same token the yes side are heterophobic as they wish to devalue the heterosexual instution of marriage.

Aye but there's no definition of that!!

Also as has been asked on numerous occasions on this board by a number of posters to anybody advocating the No vote can you please tell me how allowing Gay people to marry impacts on my marriage in the slightest??!!??!!

If you can find a way that my marriage is devalued by this I will certainly change my opinion to the No campaign as I would hate for my marriage to be devalued in any way!!!!

[armaghniac]

If you can find a way that my marriage is devalued by this I will certainly change my opinion to the No campaign as I would hate for my marriage to be devalued in any way!!!!

I suspect you live in the North, so have the DUP defending your marriage.
Marriage has been understood as having a strong association with children, this will now be removed if there is a yes on the basis that this association does not exist.

But there is a general point here. You have the Gilmore defence, that his marriage will be as strong the day after the referendum as before and this is true as a limited point. Marriages conducted in the understanding of the time will not be quickly affected and many marriages will not be affected at all. In a similar way, someone might come on here and say that the welfare system is a disincentive to work, and I might post that the my incentive to work is unaffected by the welfare system. But I have an interesting well paid job, other people in the workforce are influenced in their willingness to work by the welfare system and a badly designed welfare system may well do damage to society as a whole, damage that becomes apparent over time. A badly designed intervention in the meaning of marriage will do damage that is even more difficult to repair.

[screenexile]

If you can find a way that my marriage is devalued by this I will certainly change my opinion to the No campaign as I would hate for my marriage to be devalued in any way!!!!

I suspect you live in the North, so have the DUP defending your marriage.
Marriage has been understood as having a strong association with children, this will now be removed if there is a yes on the basis that this association does not exist.

But there is a general point here. You have the Gilmore defence, that his marriage will be as strong the day after the referendum as before and this is true as a limited point. Marriages conducted in the understanding of the time will not be quickly affected and many marriages will not be affected at all. In a similar way, someone might come on here and say that the welfare system is a disincentive to work, and I might post that the my incentive to work is unaffected by the welfare system. But I have an interesting well paid job, other people in the workforce are influenced in their willingness to work by the welfare system and a badly designed welfare system may well do damage to society as a whole, damage that becomes apparent over time. A badly designed intervention in the meaning of marriage will do damage that is even more difficult to repair.

Fair play armaghniac for at least trying to come back with an answer. It's very wishy washy though and I'm not buying it I'm afraid!

1. Marriage "is understood as having a strong association with children". Of course that is true for heterosexual couples who wish to conceive children but already there are couples who get married with no intention of having children and those that are unable to conceive for whatever reason so what separates them from a Gay couple in terms of the children point (which is moot in the first place as although marriage is understood to be associated with children, legally there is no such association).

2. You have identified that while some marriages won't be affected some will and then went on to explain something about the welfare system which I'm not really ... HOW will these marriages be affected is more the question I was looking the answer for!! Will there be less marriages/More marriages/more divorce? What is the symptom for Marriage as a whole should Gay people be allowed to wed?