I am voting Yes next week for a few reasons but mainly because it is not for me to decide who can and who cant marry who they wish to marry
Actually if I am honest I am gobsmackec that anyone would vote No . Why should I say No you cant to a man or woman who wants to marry who they love ?
Indeed!
I think some people like the kick they get out of feeling superior.
Of course anyone is entitled to the option you hold but I do not see (as a straight man) why a man and a woman loving each other is different to a gay couple .. Why should I stop them being married in the eyes of the law?? .. they are no better or worse then me.[/QUO
The reason why a man and a woman loving each other is different to people of the same sex loving each other is a matter of biology .Marriage is between a man and a woman always has been and always will be, no matter what tin pot law is brought in.
If gays want something legal to cement a relationship then call it something else, as it cannot be a marriage, as they do not have the biological complementary parts.
It is not a matter of being better or worse just different.
The definition of marriage has changed plenty over the years, but tell people that it's now a union between 2 people rather than a man and a woman and some people complain about the change. It makes no sense to me.
What exactly does biology have to do with marriage? If people only married to procreate, you would have a point.
As for the posters complaining about "pushing opinions" on people against gay marriage, why is it ok for those people to not only push their opinion, but to stop people from marrying? Yet another complaint I don't understand. If you don't want people calling you a bigot, don't act like one.
I can't wait for the day we look back on laws against gay marriage and laugh at the ridiculousness.
The definition of marriage has changed plenty over the years, but tell people that it's now a union between 2 people rather than a man and a woman and some people complain about the change. It makes no sense to me.
What exactly does biology have to do with marriage? If people only married to procreate, you would have a point.
As for the posters complaining about "pushing opinions" on people against gay marriage, why is it ok for those people to not only push their opinion, but to stop people from marrying? Yet another complaint I don't understand. If you don't want people calling you a bigot, don't act like one.
I can't wait for the day we look back on laws against gay marriage and laugh at the ridiculousness.
the reason why a man and a woman loving each other is different to people of the same sex loving each other is a matter of biology .Marriage is between a man and a woman always has been and always will be, no matter what tin pot law is brought in.
If gays want something legal to cement a relationship then call it something else, as it cannot be a marriage, as they do not have the biological complementary parts.
The "marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman" and the "you can't change the definition of marriage" argument is getting tiresome. It's an irrelevant one which has never stood up to scrutiny, and it's the only argument I've ever seen against same-sex marriage.
No-one makes the argument that "marriage was originally defined as being between one man and one woman of the same race so allowing mixed-race marriages is changing the definition of marriage" or "marriage was originally defined as being between a man and an affordable woman with a father willing to sell her to the man with the purpose of becoming his sexual and domestic slave so allowing marriages in which the woman is treated as a human being and not an object is changing the definition of marriage".
This is going to be a lot closer than the polls suggest, just like the British general election. It won't be close because of religious reasons though. I predict big yes votes in Dublin, Limerick, Cork and Galway, but significant no rural votes, but Dublin overall carrying a yes vote.
I would also remind people in Britain not only did you not have a referendum vote but a significant chunck of your ruling conservative vote was against it in Britain.
The "marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman" and the "you can't change the definition of marriage" argument is getting tiresome. It's an irrelevant one which has never stood up to scrutiny, and it's the only argument I've ever seen against same-sex marriage.
No-one makes the argument that "marriage was originally defined as being between one man and one woman of the same race so allowing mixed-race marriages is changing the definition of marriage" or "marriage was originally defined as being between a man and an affordable woman with a father willing to sell her to the man with the purpose of becoming his sexual and domestic slave so allowing marriages in which the woman is treated as a human being and not an object is changing the definition of marriage".
This is going to be a lot closer than the polls suggest, just like the British general election. It won't be close because of religious reasons though. I predict big yes votes in Dublin, Limerick, Cork and Galway, but significant no rural votes, but Dublin overall carrying a yes vote.
I would also remind people in Britain not only did you not have a referendum vote but a significant chunck of your ruling conservative vote was against it in Britain.
Just out of interest , how do think it would go if it was purely a Irish legislative vote ?
How are the various Irish parties aligned Left to Right ?
Just out of interest , how do think it would go if it was purely a Irish legislative vote ?
How are the various Irish parties aligned Left to Right ?
It would definitely be passed if it was a legislative vote - all the parties are in favour, from Fine Gael on the right through to Sinn Féin on the left.
I really don't understand why two same sex people kissing affects you negatively. Religion and homosexuality can't possibly be compared. One is chosen the other is most definitely not. Did you choose to be heterosexual? That isn't an opinion it's fact and not wanting equality for any person of any sexuality is prejudice, in this case homophobia. I have no idea why that puzzles you. Using Christianity as an excuse for homophobia is blatant cherry picking from the Jewish part of the Bible, from the OT Leviticus and it's decidedly nasty sanctimonious bigotry. Unless they all adhere to every crazy rule in Leviticus. I also apply that to homophobic Jews. Christ never condemned homosexuality.
Im not religious and i dont know why you assume im using religion with regards to my previously posted views.
You call any person who doesnt agree wholeheartedly with same sex marriage a homophobe? One view such as that one can not and would not make anyone a homophobe. Ridiculous to say otherwise.
Same sex kissing does not "affect me negatively". Youre using such emotive language! If i choose not to watch it avidly or dont view it in the same way as i do watching a man and woman kiss then again that is purely down to preference.
I dont like watching porn so does that make me a pornophobe?
The definition of marriage has changed plenty over the years, but tell people that it's now a union between 2 people rather than a man and a woman and some people complain about the change. It makes no sense to me.
What exactly does biology have to do with marriage? If people only married to procreate, you would have a point.
As for the posters complaining about "pushing opinions" on people against gay marriage, why is it ok for those people to not only push their opinion, but to stop people from marrying? Yet another complaint I don't understand. If you don't want people calling you a bigot, don't act like one.
I can't wait for the day we look back on laws against gay marriage and laugh at the ridiculousness.
I think the point im making is that Im not "pushing my opinions" on anyone, Im simply posting my view on here. Which in the real world would have no bearing on anything anyway!
And obviously people who disagree with me are going to say so. But the difference is that im not calling anyone names. They are. To me. By saying that anyone who doesnt suddenly want equal marriage for gays is a bigot is very short sighted.
Thus by calling posters bigots, that is another means of pushing their opinions on to others who may not share the same opinion.
Its like the tiresome way posters call each other islamophobes when they dare to contradict someone elses religion....
Of course anyone is entitled to the option you hold but I do not see (as a straight man) why a man and a woman loving each other is different to a gay couple .. Why should I stop them being married in the eyes of the law?? .. they are no better or worse then me.[/QUO
The reason why a man and a woman loving each other is different to people of the same sex loving each other is a matter of biology .Marriage is between a man and a woman always has been and always will be, no matter what tin pot law is brought in.
If gays want something legal to cement a relationship then call it something else, as it cannot be a marriage, as they do not have the biological complementary parts.
It is not a matter of being better or worse just different.
By complementary biological parts what do you mean? If you mean a penis and vagina, well a penis fits an anus just as well.
If you mean for child bearing purposes you then need to think about those that can't have children for whatever reason. Maybe we should stop 70 odd year old couples marrying when they find each other later in life? Or demand tests to make sure couples are fertile before allowing marriage? And of course gay couples can have children in several ways.
I think the point im making is that Im not "pushing my opinions" on anyone, Im simply posting my view on here. Which in the real world would have no bearing on anything anyway!
And obviously people who disagree with me are going to say so. But the difference is that im not calling anyone names. They are. To me. By saying that anyone who doesnt suddenly want equal marriage for gays is a bigot is very short sighted.
Thus by calling posters bigots, that is another means of pushing their opinions on to others who may not share the same opinion.
Its like the tiresome way posters call each other islamophobes when they dare to contradict someone elses religion....
Someone who wants to deny another equality in whatever way IS bigoted. Why would anyone want to stop equality otherwise?
I think it's ridiculous that the people of Ireland are deciding on this matter, why should the majority decide for a minority group? it should be a matter for government to pass this law. However, I am all too aware of the ''Irish Constitution'' and why things are done this way.
As someone originating from rural Ireland, although times have definitely moved on, I can't see many people being motivated enough to actually vote at all unless they feel really strongly on the matter, ie those who the vote directly affects (probably not many in rural Ireland) or the traditional, older Catholic voter who always votes no for progression (the type who also voted no for divorce).
Also, In the cities, the polling booths are within walking distance, in the country, people need to make the effort of driving, parking etc. I think those against the proposal are more likely to make the effort to vote. My parents are aged 77 and 80 and have always had very liberal views but, as far as I know, they're not going to vote at all, it's not an issue that directly affects them.
Let's hope the more densely populated city vote gives a decisive yes that carries the law forward.
By complementary biological parts what do you mean? If you mean a penis and vagina, well a penis fits an anus just as well.
If you mean for child bearing purposes you then need to think about those that can't have children for whatever reason. Maybe we should stop 70 odd year old couples marrying when they find each other later in life? Or demand tests to make sure couples are fertile before allowing marriage? And of course gay couples can have children in several ways.
Sadly, most women I've had relationships with, disagree
I think it's ridiculous that the people of Ireland are deciding on this matter, why should the majority decide for a minority group? it should be a matter for government to pass this law. However, I am all too aware of the ''Irish Constitution'' and why things are done this way.
As someone originating from rural Ireland, although times have definitely moved on, I can't see many people being motivated enough to actually vote at all unless they feel really strongly on the matter, ie those who the vote directly affects (probably not many in rural Ireland) or the traditional, older Catholic voter who always votes no for progression (the type who also voted no for divorce).
Also, In the cities, the polling booths are within walking distance, in the country, people need to make the effort of driving, parking etc. I think those against the proposal are more likely to make the effort to vote. My parents are aged 77 and 80 and have always had very liberal views but, as far as I know, they're not going to vote at all, it's not an issue that directly affects them.
Let's hope the more densely populated city vote gives a decisive yes that carries the law forward.
I agree with you, its wrong to be having a referendum about the constitutional rights of a minority. Its not an exercise in democracy, its more like tyranny of the majority. However, we have no choice, and nor does our government.
I'm afraid this is going to turn out like the first divorce referendum, where the polls showed yes, and the vote turned out to be no. It would stand a far better chance of being passed if it had been held on the same day as a general election, when people would be in the polling booth anyway. As it is, the yes voters are soft and apathetic, and the no voters are determined to stop the legalisation of same sex marriage.
I have a horrible feeling that alot of the yes voters won't turn up on the day, and the no voters will.
Im not religious and i dont know why you assume im using religion with regards to my previously posted views.
You call any person who doesnt agree wholeheartedly with same sex marriage a homophobe? One view such as that one can not and would not make anyone a homophobe. Ridiculous to say otherwise. Same sex kissing does not "affect me negatively". Youre using such emotive language! If i choose not to watch it avidly or dont view it in the same way as i do watching a man and woman kiss then again that is purely down to preference.
I dont like watching porn so does that make me a pornophobe?
Why even bring up the kissing thing then? Would you 'avidly' watch a man and a woman kiss? That sounds a wee bit creepy...
I think the point im making is that Im not "pushing my opinions" on anyone, Im simply posting my view on here. Which in the real world would have no bearing on anything anyway!
And obviously people who disagree with me are going to say so. But the difference is that im not calling anyone names. They are. To me. By saying that anyone who doesnt suddenly want equal marriage for gays is a bigot is very short sighted.
Thus by calling posters bigots, that is another means of pushing their opinions on to others who may not share the same opinion.
Its like the tiresome way posters call each other islamophobes when they dare to contradict someone elses religion....
May I ask how you would vote in the Irish referendum, if you could - given your stated views on here?
Im not religious and i dont know why you assume im using religion with regards to my previously posted views.
You call any person who doesnt agree wholeheartedly with same sex marriage a homophobe? One view such as that one can not and would not make anyone a homophobe. Ridiculous to say otherwise.
Same sex kissing does not "affect me negatively". Youre using such emotive language! If i choose not to watch it avidly or dont view it in the same way as i do watching a man and woman kiss then again that is purely down to preference.
I dont like watching porn so does that make me a pornophobe?
So basically you're saying I'm ridiculous and I'm to blame because you are unaware of the meaning of universally accepted and defined terminology?
Discrimination of any kind against homosexuals is homophobia. Discrimination is prejudice in action.
Where did I assume you were religious? I didn't and I don't. You are trying to pass the buck to me with your own emotive language and misinterpretation of my post. You said in another thread homosexuals kissing would make you feel less comfortable than straight people kissing. Is that emotive? You said it and it's certainly not positive. Your opinion about porn is the same non argument as your earlier reference and comparison of this subject to the ridiculing of religion. Both personal choices of activity, both completely irrelevant comparisons, both diminishing and ridiculing of the equal rights of homosexuals. .
This is going to be a lot closer than the polls suggest, just like the British general election. It won't be close because of religious reasons though. I predict big yes votes in Dublin, Limerick, Cork and Galway, but significant no rural votes, but Dublin overall carrying a yes vote. I would also remind people in Britain not only did you not have a referendum vote but a significant chunck of your ruling conservative vote was against it in Britain.
I for one, am grateful for that, as I am about any important subject. In Ireland's case the abhorrent, hypocritical and inhumane illegality of abortion is one such subject.
The majority should not be allowed to make decisions for any minority group who are mainly still oppressed and judged by the Catholic Church's questionable standards. I know Ireland well and I know the stranglehold and power has been removed to some extent, long may it continue..I'm also glad to say all of my Irish family are yes voters. As the voting's secret I hope that gives more people more courage to vote yes. A no vote would be a mockery of the democratically elected Government and political parties across the board.
I agree with you, its wrong to be having a referendum about the constitutional rights of a minority. Its not an exercise in democracy, its more like tyranny of the majority. However, we have no choice, and nor does our government.
I'm afraid this is going to turn out like the first divorce referendum, where the polls showed yes, and the vote turned out to be no. It would stand a far better chance of being passed if it had been held on the same day as a general election, when people would be in the polling booth anyway. As it is, the yes voters are soft and apathetic, and the no voters are determined to stop the legalisation of same sex marriage.
I have a horrible feeling that alot of the yes voters won't turn up on the day, and the no voters will.
Yes, I have a similar feeling, too.
I'd been feeling quite positive about the whole thing until fairly recently. I spoke to a friend who lives in Donegal and he tells me there are 'Yes' and 'No' posters up in fairly equal measure. And, like you say, the feeling is that 'No' voters will be more likely to get themselves to the polling stations, whereas a lot of 'Yes' voters won't bother.
I class apathetic people as 'Yes' voters, because I think there's a large amount of people who would say: "I'm straight and I'm not really bothered if gay people can get married or not, so I won't bother voting". If you pressed those people to give a yes or no answer (i.e. you wouldn't accept a "don't know" or "not bothered" response), they'd be more likely to say "well, I've got nothing against it, so if I was forced to choose I'd say yes".
The only positive thing is that the urban areas will be more likely to be liberal and more people are likely to turn out, as they won't have far to go. So Dublin, Galway, Cork, Limerick and Waterford could win it alone if the majority of those who turn up vote 'Yes'.
How some people will distort the truth to suit their opinions.Opinions which they are entitled to hold even if they defy logic.
What has biology got to do with marriage someone asks? Well pretty much everything is my answer to that.
Other irrelevant topics brought in such as arranged marriages and of course mixed race
couples ,whatever any of this has to do with same sex relationships beats me.
As for a penis fitting an anus just as well is scraping the bottom of the barrel and rather a distasteful comment but I suppose when all else fails. I would not know about that but suspect it is not true.
The trouble is you can't accept the truth and no Gays can't have children together without the help of a third opposite sex participant.I am not homophobic or a troll,and to accuse me of such for speaking the plain truth is sad. What is wrong with being satisfied with civil partnerships equal but different?
How some people will distort the truth to suit their opinions.Opinions which they are entitled to hold even if they defy logic.
What has biology got to do with marriage someone asks? Well pretty much everything is my answer to that.
Other irrelevant topics brought in such as arranged marriages and of course mixed race
couples ,whatever any of this has to do with same sex relationships beats me.
As for a penis fitting an anus just as well is scraping the bottom of the barrel and rather a distasteful comment but I suppose when all else fails. I would not know about that but suspect it is not true.
The trouble is you can't accept the truth and no Gays can't have children together without the help of a third opposite sex participant.I am not homophobic or a troll,and to accuse me of such for speaking the plain truth is sad. What is wrong with being satisfied with civil partnerships equal but different?
Having children is not a requirement of marriage, if it were then older or infertile couples would also be excluded and they aren't. Marriage is also not a requirement before having children either. You are simply doing what you are accusing others of doing, distorting the truth. There is nothing in civil marriage whatsoever that requires a biological difference between those entering into it.
And why should gay people be satisfied with civil partnerships? Why shouldn't we aspire to marriage just as straight people do? Equal but different is a total oxymoron by the way.
How some people will distort the truth to suit their opinions.Opinions which they are entitled to hold even if they defy logic.
What has biology got to do with marriage someone asks? Well pretty much everything is my answer to that.
Other irrelevant topics brought in such as arranged marriages and of course mixed race
couples ,whatever any of this has to do with same sex relationships beats me.
As for a penis fitting an anus just as well is scraping the bottom of the barrel and rather a distasteful comment but I suppose when all else fails. I would not know about that but suspect it is not true.
The trouble is you can't accept the truth and no Gays can't have children together without the help of a third opposite sex participant.I am not homophobic or a troll,and to accuse me of such for speaking the plain truth is sad. What is wrong with being satisfied with civil partnerships equal but different?
Biology hasn't got anything to do with marriage. Reproduction isn't a necessity when you get married, you know. If an elderly man and woman were to get married, I doubt you would be against it, even though it's obvious they won't be having any children. So why does biology only come into the equation if it's two men or two women getting married?
A lot of gay couples aren't satisfied with civil partnerships. Why shouldn't I be able to get married if I meet a man who I love? A civil partnership sounds so cold and clinical. By excluding same sex couples from marriage it's implying their relationships aren't as equal or valid as opposite sex couples.
I'm glad same sex marriage is legal where I live, but I will still argue on behalf of other countries who are yet to legalise it.
By saying that anyone who doesnt suddenly want equal marriage for gays is a bigot is very short sighted.
No, it's pretty much a dictionary definition of the word bigot to oppose giving one group of people a right which another group of people enjoy for no good reason.
Comments
Indeed!
I think some people like the kick they get out of feeling superior.
The definition of marriage has changed plenty over the years, but tell people that it's now a union between 2 people rather than a man and a woman and some people complain about the change. It makes no sense to me.
What exactly does biology have to do with marriage? If people only married to procreate, you would have a point.
As for the posters complaining about "pushing opinions" on people against gay marriage, why is it ok for those people to not only push their opinion, but to stop people from marrying? Yet another complaint I don't understand. If you don't want people calling you a bigot, don't act like one.
I can't wait for the day we look back on laws against gay marriage and laugh at the ridiculousness.
Very well said
The "marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman" and the "you can't change the definition of marriage" argument is getting tiresome. It's an irrelevant one which has never stood up to scrutiny, and it's the only argument I've ever seen against same-sex marriage.
No-one makes the argument that "marriage was originally defined as being between one man and one woman of the same race so allowing mixed-race marriages is changing the definition of marriage" or "marriage was originally defined as being between a man and an affordable woman with a father willing to sell her to the man with the purpose of becoming his sexual and domestic slave so allowing marriages in which the woman is treated as a human being and not an object is changing the definition of marriage".
I would also remind people in Britain not only did you not have a referendum vote but a significant chunck of your ruling conservative vote was against it in Britain.
Thank you
This is like my post x 10.
Just out of interest , how do think it would go if it was purely a Irish legislative vote ?
How are the various Irish parties aligned Left to Right ?
It would definitely be passed if it was a legislative vote - all the parties are in favour, from Fine Gael on the right through to Sinn Féin on the left.
You call any person who doesnt agree wholeheartedly with same sex marriage a homophobe? One view such as that one can not and would not make anyone a homophobe. Ridiculous to say otherwise.
Same sex kissing does not "affect me negatively". Youre using such emotive language! If i choose not to watch it avidly or dont view it in the same way as i do watching a man and woman kiss then again that is purely down to preference.
I dont like watching porn so does that make me a pornophobe?
I think the point im making is that Im not "pushing my opinions" on anyone, Im simply posting my view on here. Which in the real world would have no bearing on anything anyway!
And obviously people who disagree with me are going to say so. But the difference is that im not calling anyone names. They are. To me. By saying that anyone who doesnt suddenly want equal marriage for gays is a bigot is very short sighted.
Thus by calling posters bigots, that is another means of pushing their opinions on to others who may not share the same opinion.
Its like the tiresome way posters call each other islamophobes when they dare to contradict someone elses religion....
Someone who wants to deny another equality in whatever way IS bigoted. Why would anyone want to stop equality otherwise?
As someone originating from rural Ireland, although times have definitely moved on, I can't see many people being motivated enough to actually vote at all unless they feel really strongly on the matter, ie those who the vote directly affects (probably not many in rural Ireland) or the traditional, older Catholic voter who always votes no for progression (the type who also voted no for divorce).
Also, In the cities, the polling booths are within walking distance, in the country, people need to make the effort of driving, parking etc. I think those against the proposal are more likely to make the effort to vote. My parents are aged 77 and 80 and have always had very liberal views but, as far as I know, they're not going to vote at all, it's not an issue that directly affects them.
Let's hope the more densely populated city vote gives a decisive yes that carries the law forward.
I agree with you, its wrong to be having a referendum about the constitutional rights of a minority. Its not an exercise in democracy, its more like tyranny of the majority. However, we have no choice, and nor does our government.
I'm afraid this is going to turn out like the first divorce referendum, where the polls showed yes, and the vote turned out to be no. It would stand a far better chance of being passed if it had been held on the same day as a general election, when people would be in the polling booth anyway. As it is, the yes voters are soft and apathetic, and the no voters are determined to stop the legalisation of same sex marriage.
I have a horrible feeling that alot of the yes voters won't turn up on the day, and the no voters will.
Why even bring up the kissing thing then? Would you 'avidly' watch a man and a woman kiss? That sounds a wee bit creepy...
Lol that's a slightly different discussion!
May I ask how you would vote in the Irish referendum, if you could - given your stated views on here?
So basically you're saying I'm ridiculous and I'm to blame because you are unaware of the meaning of universally accepted and defined terminology?
Discrimination of any kind against homosexuals is homophobia. Discrimination is prejudice in action.
Where did I assume you were religious? I didn't and I don't. You are trying to pass the buck to me with your own emotive language and misinterpretation of my post. You said in another thread homosexuals kissing would make you feel less comfortable than straight people kissing. Is that emotive? You said it and it's certainly not positive. Your opinion about porn is the same non argument as your earlier reference and comparison of this subject to the ridiculing of religion. Both personal choices of activity, both completely irrelevant comparisons, both diminishing and ridiculing of the equal rights of homosexuals. .
I for one, am grateful for that, as I am about any important subject. In Ireland's case the abhorrent, hypocritical and inhumane illegality of abortion is one such subject.
The majority should not be allowed to make decisions for any minority group who are mainly still oppressed and judged by the Catholic Church's questionable standards. I know Ireland well and I know the stranglehold and power has been removed to some extent, long may it continue..I'm also glad to say all of my Irish family are yes voters. As the voting's secret I hope that gives more people more courage to vote yes. A no vote would be a mockery of the democratically elected Government and political parties across the board.
Yes, I have a similar feeling, too.
I'd been feeling quite positive about the whole thing until fairly recently. I spoke to a friend who lives in Donegal and he tells me there are 'Yes' and 'No' posters up in fairly equal measure. And, like you say, the feeling is that 'No' voters will be more likely to get themselves to the polling stations, whereas a lot of 'Yes' voters won't bother.
I class apathetic people as 'Yes' voters, because I think there's a large amount of people who would say: "I'm straight and I'm not really bothered if gay people can get married or not, so I won't bother voting". If you pressed those people to give a yes or no answer (i.e. you wouldn't accept a "don't know" or "not bothered" response), they'd be more likely to say "well, I've got nothing against it, so if I was forced to choose I'd say yes".
The only positive thing is that the urban areas will be more likely to be liberal and more people are likely to turn out, as they won't have far to go. So Dublin, Galway, Cork, Limerick and Waterford could win it alone if the majority of those who turn up vote 'Yes'.
What has biology got to do with marriage someone asks? Well pretty much everything is my answer to that.
Other irrelevant topics brought in such as arranged marriages and of course mixed race
couples ,whatever any of this has to do with same sex relationships beats me.
As for a penis fitting an anus just as well is scraping the bottom of the barrel and rather a distasteful comment but I suppose when all else fails. I would not know about that but suspect it is not true.
The trouble is you can't accept the truth and no Gays can't have children together without the help of a third opposite sex participant.I am not homophobic or a troll,and to accuse me of such for speaking the plain truth is sad. What is wrong with being satisfied with civil partnerships equal but different?
Having children is not a requirement of marriage, if it were then older or infertile couples would also be excluded and they aren't. Marriage is also not a requirement before having children either. You are simply doing what you are accusing others of doing, distorting the truth. There is nothing in civil marriage whatsoever that requires a biological difference between those entering into it.
And why should gay people be satisfied with civil partnerships? Why shouldn't we aspire to marriage just as straight people do? Equal but different is a total oxymoron by the way.
Biology hasn't got anything to do with marriage. Reproduction isn't a necessity when you get married, you know. If an elderly man and woman were to get married, I doubt you would be against it, even though it's obvious they won't be having any children. So why does biology only come into the equation if it's two men or two women getting married?
A lot of gay couples aren't satisfied with civil partnerships. Why shouldn't I be able to get married if I meet a man who I love? A civil partnership sounds so cold and clinical. By excluding same sex couples from marriage it's implying their relationships aren't as equal or valid as opposite sex couples.
I'm glad same sex marriage is legal where I live, but I will still argue on behalf of other countries who are yet to legalise it.
No, it's pretty much a dictionary definition of the word bigot to oppose giving one group of people a right which another group of people enjoy for no good reason.