How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

Daith · 29-01-2015 5:31pm

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I'm actually feeling awfully gay today No not homosexual did you not realize words can have more than one meaning? ?

The word has a religious context. No one was disputing the meaning.

Again though any reason why you're different from the No guy on VinB last night?

bodice ripper · 29-01-2015 5:33pm

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

No because you were too eager to assume it was religious based view.

I'm actually feeling awfully gay today No not homosexual did you not realize words can have more than one meaning? ?

Sure. But if you want people to believe you when you claim it has no basis in religion, you would do well to avoid word whose primary use is to describe religious ideas.

Pick a word to replace "sanctity" in "sanctity of marriage" that doesn't have religious connotations. See if you can find one that doesn't sound daft.

Ave Sodalis · 29-01-2015 5:33pm

floggg wrote: »

You cand have a vote without having a debate and ensuring people are informed.

And if it doesn't pass, best believe it will still be an issue. Same goes if it's ever repealed.

Inequality will always be an issue as long as it exists.

That's the problem. What debate can the no side have that will inform people? I'm all for giving the no side a chance to debate if they actually inform and make well thought out, reasonable arguments. But they won't (at least, as far as I've seen) so what do we do there?

Daith · 29-01-2015 5:34pm

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

least make sure you have the basic intelligence to check the actual meaning first (even if big words over 5 letters are hard for you) :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Like I said yesterday it doesnt particularly bother me its expectant when you discuss some in the sphere of the gay agenda you come under attack both subtle and not so subtle

I see.

It was you on VinnyB last night wasn't it?

floggg · 29-01-2015 5:36pm

spikeS wrote: »

I am saying it won't make it so gay people can adopt as that is the case already but it does make it easier as they can no longer discriminate due to not being a married couple. It's a good thing

It's a good side effect of the marriage referendum going through

Amy chance you can back this up with anything?

Given your other posts telling everybody that this is in the bag and we don't have to worry about anything, sometimes u wonder whether you aren't a really clever counter-intelligence agent sent by the no side to sabotage us from within.

Ctrl Alt Delete · 29-01-2015 5:37pm

Daith wrote: »

How do infertile straight couples have children when they marry?

Just to clear that up I'm not anti adoption but adoption and procreation Are not the same thing

Ave Sodalis · 29-01-2015 5:37pm

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Just to clear that up I'm not anti adoption but adoption and procreation Are not the same thing

Nobody said they were

floggg · 29-01-2015 5:38pm

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

It's like I asked yesterday. If a magic wand was waved and you had all the equal rights and standings of a married couple as civil partners would you be happy?

And like I asked, would you be and why?

Daith · 29-01-2015 5:38pm

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Just to clear that up I'm not anti adoption but adoption and procreation Are not the same thing

Yes I know?

floggg · 29-01-2015 5:39pm

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

No thats called Sharia law in Islam and has nothing to do with the topic really but it's their culture and their way of life. You argue people have no right to tell gays what to do surely it would be same here in that case no ?

The rule of law is what the world turns on like it or lump it.

Whats to stop you going up North and getting married and having the same rights under the Civil Partnership Bill in the South ?

Was legally sanctioned and enforced apartheid discriminatory.

Yes or no?

DeVore · 29-01-2015 5:40pm

The sacrament is Matrimony. Just you know, since everyone is being pedantic and all.

jobbridge4life · 29-01-2015 5:42pm

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

When I tried to bring up that it was previously criminal to be gay in this country to show the progress already made on equality I was rounded on fast.

Speaking of which I'd really like to hear your response to me. An apology would suffice.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I was five when society decided I shouldn't be in effect a criminal. I was fifteen when in response to my coming out my Mother told me 'people like you will never get elected'. I was 19 when my best friend and I fell in love. I am 26 years of age now and still very much in love but I am here trying my best to convince a man who doesn't know me, who shouldn't have a say in anything to do with my life to please use his vote to let me be an equal citizen in my own country. So don't tell me I don't understand the gradual nature of progress.

floggg · 29-01-2015 5:52pm

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

And as such I respect the law of their land as is their sovereign right. You have to respect the current law of the land here equally.

I mean after all there are plenty of countries around the world were gay marriage is legal , so why not just be equal and "go foreign" same way a straight couple would ?

Why should I have to go abroad to get seen as an equal?

And not to mention the fact that u might possibly want my foreign wedding actually recognised in home country when I return.

Unless I should be happy with just moving abroad if I want the same rights as everybody else?

Zubeneschamali · 29-01-2015 5:55pm

floggg wrote: »

Why should I have to go abroad to get seen as an equal?

I've a better idea: all the people who are grossly offended by SSM can move to Saudi Arabia.

floggg · 29-01-2015 5:58pm

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I stated my reasons multiple times and I will state it again in case you missed it.

My personal values on life, experiences, teachings and a very limited catholic influence on the matter lead to me to believe in the sanctity of marriage being between a male and a female only.

Outside of that I do not need to dissect or discuss my reasoning as my mind is firmly made up on the matter.

You aren't really explaining anything other than its what you believe. You have never said really why you think that to be the case or how my marriage would ever undermine your view of marriage.

Fine, you don't have to say any more if you don't want to, but it would be usual when participating.

But again, I would reiterate nobody shouted you down.

If we were aggressive at all, it was in pressing you to give a more thorough explanation of your reasoning.

aloyisious · 29-01-2015 5:58pm

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

When you are going to accuse someone of not understanding what they say at least make sure you have the basic intelligence to check the actual meaning first (even if big words over 5 letters are hard for you) :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

sanctity - 2. ultimate importance and inviolability EG "the sanctity of human life"

sacrosanct - adjective (especially of a principle, place, or routine) regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with.

synonyms: respected, inviolable, inviolate, unimpeachable, unchallengeable, invulnerable, untouchable, inalienable, set apart, protected, defended, secure, safe, unthreatened "the rights of parents are sacrosanct for this government"

See the above types of posted started yesterday as well. Like I said yesterday it doesnt particularly bother me its expectant when you discuss some in the sphere of the gay agenda you come under attack both subtle and not so subtle

Pardon me when I ask was your use of the word "expectant" a slip of the finger?

floggg · 29-01-2015 6:17pm

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

According to others here the majority are in favor so I dont see a major issue.

It's not a dangerous precendent, because guess what that precendent was set LONG ago the majority is always going to be asked to decide on the minority.

Though its a mute semantic point but the minority isn't the minority if it won, it was the majority deciding on itself.

Actually in a modern egalitarian republic of the kind we claim to be, the majority should never be in a position to vote on the rights of the minority. The constitution should be drafted in such a way so as to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

As was asked of you before, should we be allowed vote on the rights of black people under Irish law?

Arguably are constitution does do that in the present case, but the Government is unwilling to test that by legislating and letting the legislation be tested through an Article 26 reference.

Flem31 · 29-01-2015 6:19pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Actually, people change their minds all the time.

In 1986, Divorce was rejected 63.5 to 36.5. In 1996, divorce was adopted, 50.3% to 49.7%. That's a 14% swing in just 10 years - people really did change their minds.

The vote swing was 14% but people's attitudes didn't change as much as that in 9 years. In 1986 the yes side had the lead until the final week when the shock tactics were brought out by the no side which played on people's fears. Ireland was far more accepting of the idea of divorce in 1986 than the final result suggests.

Something more relevant re 1995 Referendum was that only about five counties in Ireland had overall yes votes but that was sufficient to wipe out the overall No's in the rest of the country.
In the forthcoming referendum, it may be similar.

floggg · 29-01-2015 6:21pm

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Also, you said "have children" which means the same as procreate, does it not?

Perhaps he meant to add "for dinner" afterwards?

floggg · 29-01-2015 6:29pm

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I hold the belief that man & woman should marry and have children end of discussion period.

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I didnt use the word procreate did I ?

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Hang on adoption is now defined the same as procreation now ????

The very act of adoption is an oxymoron of the word procreation.

So did you or didn't mean procreation? Or was it intended to be interpreted whichever way suited you best?

Flem31 · 29-01-2015 6:34pm

floggg wrote: »

The constitution should be drafted in such a way so as to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Nice idea in principle but would be open to all sorts of interpretations by minorities of all sorts (not just on this issue)

jobbridge4life · 29-01-2015 6:36pm

Flem31 wrote: »

Nice idea in principle but would be open to all sorts of interpretations by minorities of all sorts (not just on this issue)

It isn't just a nice idea it is fundamental moving forward. Potential complications are no reason not to attempt to buttress the protection of minorities.

Zen65 · 29-01-2015 6:45pm

reprise wrote: »

Meh.

I know a non-sequitur when I see it.

Clearly you do not.

Either it is a rational argument, or it is not. If not, why not?

Zen65 · 29-01-2015 6:56pm

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Legally as defined it is not discrimination and emotive terms like discrimination are pointless.

It is not discrimination by the person who refuses to conduct the SSM, but it is discrimination by the state because it is solely on the basis of gender & sexual orientation. In the past the state has been found to be in breach of international law on human rights.

Flem31 · 29-01-2015 7:13pm

jobbridge4life wrote: »

It isn't just a nice idea it is fundamental moving forward. Potential complications are no reason not to attempt to buttress the protection of minorities.

Ok then, new Constitution comes in and minority rights must be upheld

Example 1
I am from mainland Europe and I have driven there for 30 years.
I come to Ireland and don't understand this need to drive on the right side of the road. I organise myself and find say 30,000 like minded individuals and we get the right to drive on the left.

Example 2
I like guns and I particularly like the Gatling gun (Josey Wales film is my favourite film). Anyway, this country has no right to tell me I cannot have a Gatling gun, so because the majority are intolerant of my love of guns, I get a petition organised and I get the gun.

I deliberately chose two extreme examples, but if the Constitution reflects the right that the minority should not be bullied by the majority, it cannot be restricted to just social policy, but impact all aspects of life.

That's why I said nice idea in principle, but if it ever came into being, the courts would be full of individuals and groups looking for their own particular set of values to be vindicated.

jack1000 · 29-01-2015 7:24pm

I will vote yes.

floggg · 29-01-2015 7:25pm

Flem31 wrote: »

Ok then, new Constitution comes in and minority rights must be upheld

Example 1
I am from mainland Europe and I have driven there for 30 years.
I come to Ireland and don't understand this need to drive on the right side of the road. I organise myself and find say 30,000 like minded individuals and we get the right to drive on the left.

Example 2
I like guns and I particularly like the Gatling gun (Josey Wales film is my favourite film). Anyway, this country has no right to tell me I cannot have a Gatling gun, so because the majority are intolerant of my love of guns, I get a petition organised and I get the gun.

I deliberately chose two extreme examples, but if the Constitution reflects the right that the minority should not be bullied by the majority, it cannot be restricted to just social policy, but impact all aspects of life.

That's why I said nice idea in principle, but if it ever came into being, the courts would be full of individuals and groups looking for their own particular set of values to be vindicated.

Those examples don't make any sense.

Firstly, neither example bears any relationship to how our legal and political systems work.

Secondly, you aren't taking about rights or about discrimination. Just because you want to do something, doesn't mean you have the right to do it.

Driving on the right side of the road isn't a right. Neither is owning a gatling gun (in this country anyway).

In each case, the State has laid down particular rules which apply equally to all citizens without regard to race, colour, creed gender etc - but does rules don't infringe on anybody's rights.

Annasopra · 29-01-2015 7:25pm

spikeS wrote: »

Once the children and parents act comes in the adoption board can use this a priority

Married couples
CP couples
Single people

If the marriage referendum fails gay couple are still lower on the list and can be discrimated against, We need the marriage referendum to pass so gay couples are in the married couple section and that way the adoption board cannot discriminate against them.

The YES vote will not make it so gay couple can adopt as they will already be able but will make it a hell of a lot easier and equal.

What? Where are you getting this info that there is a list of who can be priortised? I've never heard this before. I doubt its true. Please provide links to back this up.

Annasopra · 29-01-2015 7:29pm

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I would argue that it is equal standing but respects marriage being between a man and a woman.

After all, you would have the same rights, privaliges as any married straight couple, legally being recognised as a civil partnership too so whats the problem ?

Well no because you wouldnt be constutionally recognised or protected. So you dont have the same rights or privileges.

spikeS · 29-01-2015 7:41pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

What? Where are you getting this info that there is a list of who can be priortised? I've never heard this before. I doubt its true. Please provide links to back this up.

Married couples always get priority, children and parent's act won't change that. So it's still harder to adopt as a guy couple unfortunately, once the referendum goes though that priority get evened.

How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

Comments