Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

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

Options
1…4546485051…335

Comments

  • Options
    #1412
    Ozymandius2011
    Registered Users Posts: 1,149 ✭✭✭Ozymandius2011


    spikeS wrote: »
    These studies usually have a degree of bias there are ones that show the reverse, be careful posting studies as fact as research bias a very real thing
    Like what? The Regenerus study which was funded by US Christian Fundamentalists?
    NY Times wrote:
    Some criticism of Dr. Regnerus was well deserved; for example, he included in the same category the children of stable same-sex couples and children whose parents’ marriage dissolved after a gay affair. And it is understandable that he is still gun-shy (he refused to be interviewed for this column). But even if he won’t talk about his research, we should. It raises important questions about family structure, and — just as interesting — asks whether religious beliefs can shape scholarship...Dr. Regnerus’s critics have made much of the conservative institutions, the Witherspoon Institute and the Bradley Foundation, that financed his study. But it’s actually pretty easy to ignore sponsors, once their check has been cashed. It is harder to ignore one’s deepest convictions. Although he does not discuss it now, Dr. Regnerus has a long history as an outspoken Christian who once said his faith and his scholarship were intertwined. So it is fair to ask what he meant.


  • Options
    #1413
    spikeS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 179 ✭✭spikeS


    Ozymandius2011 wrote: »
    Like what? The Regenerus which was funded by Christian Fundamentalists in Texas?

    And there are funded by liberal gays, just be weary of taking them as fact they all have bias


  • Options
    #1414
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users Posts: 847 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    spikeS wrote: »
    These studies usually have a degree of bias there are ones that show the reverse, be careful posting studies as fact as research bias a very real thing

    I've yet to come across a study that shows the reverse that isn't clearly heavily biased, heavily funded by interest groups, discredited and heavily criticised.


  • Options
    #1415
    spikeS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 179 ✭✭spikeS


    WoolyJumper wrote: »
    I've yet to come across a study that shows the reverse that isn't clearly heavily biased, heavily funded by interest groups, discredited and heavily criticised.

    I can say the same for both sides


  • Options
    #1416
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    spikeS wrote: »
    I can say the same for both sides

    You can say it but you'd be wrong though. Demonstrably so just google.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1417
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    spikeS wrote: »
    I can say the same for both sides

    You can say it. Any examples would be great.


  • Options
    #1418
    spikeS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 179 ✭✭spikeS


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    You can say it but you'd be wrong though. Demonstrably so just google.

    Most of the ones posted here are from liberal pro gay academia are they not biased


  • Options
    #1419
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users Posts: 847 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    spikeS wrote: »
    And there are funded by liberal gays, just be weary of taking them as fact they all have bias

    When these studies are done they are published in scientific journals, where other scientists/researchers can read and critique them. Often certain groups with their own agenda will heavily scrutinise these studies to try and find some flaw in their research and prove them wrong. When they can't do this, they do the next best thing. Come out with their own heavily biased, poorly done research which will give them the answer they are looking for.

    Just in case you are wondering in this case the heavily biased research was carried out by the Christian fundamentalist when they couldn't poke holes in the research carried out by the "liberal gays" (ie the APA + Many others)


  • Options
    #1420
    spikeS
    Closed Accounts Posts: 179 ✭✭spikeS


    WoolyJumper wrote: »
    When these studies are done they are published in scientific journals, where other scientists/researchers can read and critique them. Often certain groups with their own agenda will heavily scrutinise these studies to try and find some flaw in their research and prove them wrong. When they can't do this, they do the next best thing. Come out with their own heavily biased, poorly done research which will give them the answer they are looking for.

    Just in case you are wondering in this case the heavily biased research was carried out by the Christian fundamentalist when they couldn't poke holes in the research carried out by the "liberal gays" (ie the APA + Many others)

    Regenerus was an academic peer reviewed study it's as valid as the others


  • Options
    #1421
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users Posts: 847 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    spikeS wrote: »
    Most of the ones posted here are from liberal pro gay academia are they not biased

    The American psychological association are liberal pro gay academia? Maybe they are pro gay due to all the research they have done and ultimately found no reason to be anti gay? Certainly the APA couldnt always be called pro gay. But with new research and knowledge they changed their position. That's how good science works.
    spikeS wrote: »
    Regenerus was an academic peer reviewed study it's as valid as the others

    Peer reviewed and criticised, as someone pointed out above.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1422
    COYVB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,660 ✭✭✭COYVB


    Daith wrote: »
    It's the BAI code for broadcasting.

    BAI is not law


  • Options
    #1423
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,799 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    spikeS wrote: »
    These studies usually have a degree of bias there are ones that show the reverse, be careful posting studies as fact as research bias a very real thing

    You made stuff up about adoption in this thread. We can hardly take you seriously now.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #1424
    ToddyDoody
    Registered Users Posts: 4,421 ✭✭✭ToddyDoody


    I'm voting no... For the children.


  • Options
    #1425
    Zen65
    Registered Users Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    reprise wrote: »
    I found this persuasive:

    http://goo.gl/U27D7W

    http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental-rights/files/networkcommentaryfinal_en.pdf

    So to summarise: MrPudding made the point "that being unable to have children naturally is not a valid argument against ssm". You dismissed his point as a non-sequitur, and now you have done some research to show that he was right!


  • Options
    #1426
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    Flem31 wrote: »
    It would have helped if you had read my entire post and read that I had called them two extreme examples.

    In Ireland today, neither are applicable but if (and I am quoting you)
    "The constitution should be drafted in such a way so as to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority."

    No matter how that is phrased in any constitution someone will use it as a justifiable reason to look for their own particular brand of what they think is acceptable.

    I am not making any reference to LBGT or this referendum, just merely pointing out that when the Constitution is changed to reflect minority views, then it leaves it open to all different interpretations.

    I never said it was a good thing, just that it leaves the Constitution more open to the "law of unintended consequences" that it already is.

    I read the post in full, it just doesn't really make an effective argument.

    Nobody is saying you change the Constitution(!) or legislation on a whim to appease every demand of a minority. That is not what minority protection is about.

    What we are saying is that a Constitution should be drafted from the outset which provides sufficient guarantees of equality and equal protection to all citizens, provides them with appropriate means to protect and vindicate their rights and which prevents the majority from arbitrarily and unjustifiably attacking those in minority positions.

    If that is done, minority rights can be protected by the checks imposed on the legislature when enacting new laws and vindicated in the courts against unfair attack.

    And neither will that allow minorities demand anything they wish. Muslims in Ireland would not be able to demand we introduce sharia law - but they would be able to ensure that the majority could not seek to prohibit the construction of mosques, or the teaching of islamic beliefs.


  • Options
    #1427
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    spikeS wrote: »
    Regenerus was an academic peer reviewed study it's as valid as the others

    Your misinformation and lies have no basis at all - and being peer reviewed does not make something valid. The process of peer review is the process by which we check if something is valid - whether the methodologies and conclusions are sound - and so forth.

    Peer review found that particular study to be a farce. Yet you ignore the results of peer review and merely act like having BEEN peer reviewed lends it credibility.

    You simply do not understand peer review. Or worse - you do understand it - but are willfully misrepresenting it for an agenda.


  • Options
    #1428
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    I don't need to offer a single explanation for my beliefs or opinions.

    A very convenient cop out for someone who does not HAVE such explanations. Weird that you would come specifically on to a discussion and debate forum touting those opinions all the same - if your intention was never to add substance of any form to them. Have you considered a blog format rather than a forum? Much better for one directional soap boxing.
    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    I hold the belief that man & woman should marry and have children end of discussion period.

    Well bully for you then because there are men and women who live together without getting married and have no children, without getting married and have children, and getting married but never have children. Three categories of people that do not do what you declare from your pedestal that they "should" do.

    But while you sit there dictating what everyone "should" be doing in your totalitarian world view of conformity - you are blatantly and transparently unable to justify that "should" or lend it any basis whatsoever. Your entire position appears to be "It should be, because it just should, so there".

    But by all means PLEASE get a room FULL of married childless couples - and get on the stage in front of them telling them what you feel they SHOULD be doing with their lives. Just please ensure I am there at the time to watch.

    And you can "End Discussion" any time you want - but you do not get to dictate to me when it is over.
    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Sure nice post deconstruct there but to be blunt again I believe in the importance and inviolability of marriage or to use another word sanctity

    Oh it is abudently clear what you believe in for sure. No requirement to repeat it at all. Soap boxing just gets repetitive. People - given this is a discussion forum after all and not a soap box - are inquiring as to the substance behind that belief. And when we do so you either refuse to give it, can not answer questions, or dodge posts entirely by either ignoring them or by running out of the thread and taking your ball home, before slinking back in hoping the people you ignored/dodged won't notice.
    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    The fact that I believe marriage should be between man and wife only means that same sex marriage would most definitely violate that belief.

    A belief that has absolutely no apparent basis other than a fetish for maintaining the status quo it seems.
    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    It's not my fault if all you see are a string of words and cant understand that.

    Oh I perfectly understand the string of words - which is why I was able to call them out as being empty bluster to maintain a front on a baseless position.
    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Also, seeing as alot of people quote me its easy to miss questions in such a fast moving thead ;)

    Which is not what you did with me and several other posters. You stormed out of the thread to dodge all those posts - and returned later not replying to ANY of them. Not just a handful you missed due to difficulties keeping up. You merely blatantly ignored and dodged them.
    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    And you would do well to understand that it is not a religious view

    Contradicting yourself now. You said in two posts that your religious background has influenced your view. Now you are saying the opposite.


  • Options
    #1429
    Flem31
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭Flem31


    floggg wrote: »
    Nobody is saying you change the Constitution(!) or legislation on a whim to appease every demand of a minority. That is not what minority protection is about.

    How will you be able to stop it.
    What clever wording in the Constitution would vindicate some minority demands/rights but not others.

    And how would a minority be defined, how many would be needed.
    I have no issue with your idea, but also see many trips down to the Four Courts to test it out to see where it is applicable or where it isn't.


  • Options
    #1430
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    ToddyDoody wrote: »
    I'm voting no... For the children.

    You do that.

    It's nice to see a well informed voter who is willing to cast a vote in a Referendum to 'protect' children from a piece of legislation that will be law by the time they cast their vote...

    Begs the question why are you even bothering to vote since it will have zero impact on children?

    I'm personally voting yes... for the dressmakers and wedding planners.


  • Options
    #1431
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,933 ✭✭✭Daith


    ToddyDoody wrote: »
    I'm voting no... For the children.

    I'm voting Yes.....For the children.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1432
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I'm personally voting yes... for the dressmakers and wedding planners.
    Don't forget the tailors. There'll be a Louis Copeland in every county and they'll all be out the doors :D


  • Options
    #1433
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    spikeS wrote: »
    Most of the ones posted here are from liberal pro gay academia are they not biased

    Not being anti something isn't being pro something.
    I wouldn't say Im Pro Gay. Im indifferent to how others live their private lives.


  • Options
    #1434
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Well bully for you then because there are men and women who live together without getting married and have no children, without getting married and have children, and getting married but never have children. Three categories of people that do not do what you declare from your pedestal that they "should" do.

    I'll try and be a bit clearer then seeing as how you had difficulty understanding what I said (or are choosing to try twist it).

    When I say a man and woman should marry and should have children.

    Where in that above sentence does it decree or dictate to anyone that they must have children as you like to try and twist it ?
    Deleted User wrote: »
    And you can "End Discussion" any time you want - but you do not get to dictate to me when it is over.

    But I do because I dont discuss my reasoning further, same way yo dictate whether or not to engage with me ;)
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Oh I perfectly understand the string of words - which is why I was able to call them out as being empty bluster to maintain a front on a baseless position.

    No what you did was try and over reach on a point that didnt need to be over reached in the first place and fell down on your own empty rant.

    I don't need bluster or empty words to maintain or justify my position you seem to also fail to understand this and also fail to understand I am not alone in this thinking.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Which is not what you did with me and several other posters. You stormed out of the thread to dodge all those posts - and returned later not replying to ANY of them. Not just a handful you missed due to difficulties keeping up. You merely blatantly ignored and dodged them.

    You seem to be under some very misguided impression that I feel a need to "dodge" questions in the first point. I don't by the way
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Contradicting yourself now. You said in two posts that your religious background has influenced your view. Now you are saying the opposite.

    Can you quote me where I said my religious background was the main influence of my view?

    You simply can't because your trying to twist things again , gg :rolleyes:

    I mean we've even had serious multiple suggestions on this thread that the no side shouldnt even be allowed to voice their opinions equally to the yes side , that the no side shouldnt be given air time at all and that we essentially do away with the democratic / constitutional process in the first place and if we answer no then we can roll again till we get a yes all to suit the pro gay agenda :rolleyes:

    Attacking the poster (or anyone pro status quo) and not the post has become par for the course in this thread, for me and a few others.

    Follow the pro gay agenda or else bully boy type of approach.


  • Options
    #1435
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,933 ✭✭✭Daith


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    When I say a man and woman should marry and should have children.

    Where in that above sentence does it decree or dictate to anyone that they must have children as you like to try and twist it ?

    It also doesn't say that men and women must get married.

    What are your requirements for marrying?
    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Follow the pro gay agenda or else bull boy type of approach.

    It's the pro equality agenda thanks!


  • Options
    #1436
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    Daith wrote: »
    It also doesn't say that men and women must get married.

    What are your requirements for marrying?

    Because I never said that men and women must get married either (more trying to twist words pointlessly).

    In relation to your second point that entirely depends on where your living really but like I said marriage should be between a man and woman.


  • Options
    #1437
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,933 ✭✭✭Daith


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    That depends on were your living really but like I said marriage should be between a man and woman.

    Should be but doesn't have to be?

    Like they should have children but don't have to?

    Not seeing how two men marrying don't fit your requirements here.


  • Options
    #1438
    Ctrl Alt Delete
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 789 ✭✭✭Ctrl Alt Delete


    Daith wrote: »
    Should be but doesn't have to be?

    Like they should have children but don't have to?

    Not seeing how two men marrying don't fit your requirements here.

    Yes should as is in a man and woman are free to enter into marriage or procreate.

    And in fairness you have been one of the more intelligible posters here and Im not going to point out the obvious answer which you well know as to how man / man or woman / woman marrying and being unable to procreate does not compare to man and a woman being married.


  • Options
    #1439
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Can you quote me where I said my religious background was the main influence of my view?

    What else have you got?


  • Options
    #1440
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Im not going to point out the obvious answer which you well know as to how man / man or woman / woman marrying and being unable to procreate does not compare to man and a woman being married.

    Please do point that out, and I'll bring up my Dad's second marriage again.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1441
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,933 ✭✭✭Daith


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    which you well know as to how man / man or woman / woman marrying and being unable to procreate does not compare to man and a woman being married.

    I didn't think you had to procreate?
    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    Where in that above sentence does it decree or dictate to anyone that they must have children as you like to try and twist it ?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement