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! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

1…168169171173174…195

Comments

  • #8502
    B_Wayne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,039 ✭✭✭B_Wayne


    Turtwig wrote: »
    I'd have accepted your apology if you'd posted some cute puppy pics. Instead, I'm afraid I have to ban you. :p

    Here, this good enough?
    who-is-awesome.jpg


  • #8503
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    It's perfect!:)


  • #8504
    B_Wayne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,039 ✭✭✭B_Wayne


    Turtwig wrote: »
    It's perfect!:)

    Abuse of moderator powers, right there! My ugly dog was beautiful in his own right! There were far more horrifying options. :(


  • #8505
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,860 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    No-side unhappy that Gardai are present at a voter registration table which has Yes banners present.

    https://twitter.com/KeithM/status/590145350473748480



    https://twitter.com/geoffsshorts/status/590156871891341312

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #8506
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,684 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    I've to walk past a 10 ft Mary or Jesus where I vote. Its like something out of the Blues Brothers.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #8507
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,022 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    SW wrote: »
    No-side unhappy that Gardai are present at a voter registration table which has Yes banners present.

    https://twitter.com/KeithM/status/590145350473748480



    https://twitter.com/geoffsshorts/status/590156871891341312

    Maybe he doesn't want there to be a neutral guardian present to allow citizens exercise citizens rights, ala the photo of a Garda and an elderly person outside Pearse St Garda Stn reminding people to register to vote must have been as upsetting to him as it was (apparently) to other opponents to SSM, the notion of Granny voting YES.


  • #8508
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    SW wrote: »
    No-side unhappy that Gardai are present at a voter registration table which has Yes banners present.

    "New photos" from a voter registration event show Garda involvement... as is legally required to be the case! Voter registration often involves young people, and thus has an inherent anti-no bias. Outrage!

    Is the "no" side making any effort whatsoever to encourage registration?


  • #8509
    fisgon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,747 ✭✭✭fisgon


    This was on Newstalk earlier, at lunchtime.

    They got the gay guy from M&FM to be all outraged about Garda involvement at an event in UCC where they were trying to register students for the vote, and the rep from the Students' Union came on and said that a Garda had to be there to witness the registration and was not "handing out Yes campaign material", as had been claimed.

    In fact, the No campaigner got very offended, and started claiming things that were simply not true and that never happened, and was given short shrift by the presenter. He made a bit of a fool of himself, tbh.


  • #8510
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    Anti-gay rentagob Breeder O'Brien is in the papers again....well lets face it other than Quinn who else is there? http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/gays-should-abstain-from-sex-like-all-unmarried-couples-31153701.html

    Interestingly she does seem to be an advocate of family planning even though that's against church policy.
    "To be sexually attracted to people is obviously completely natural and gay people can love as much as anyone else. But if you are looking as nature intended, I think that sex is very bound up with having children."

    So where does all this fit in, in the context of her own life?

    Are you going to have any more children?

    "No."

    Does that mean you abstain forever?

    "No. Because sex is about bonding and pleasure and expressing love."

    But you said it should be bound up with having children?

    "I said that was one aspect of it but they don't always have to go together… I think the bonding aspect of it is really important."


  • #8511
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Turtwig wrote: »
    I'd have accepted your apology if you'd posted some cute puppy pics. Instead, I'm afraid I have to ban you. :p

    latest?cb=20120915021710

    Or is this better?
    XSVpW.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #8512
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,022 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    Anti-gay rentagob Breeder O'Brien is in the papers again....well lets face it other than Quinn who else is there? http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/gays-should-abstain-from-sex-like-all-unmarried-couples-31153701.html

    Interestingly she does seem to be an advocate of family planning even though that's against church policy.

    And there I was thinking that the taking of pleasure from sex was ever so naughty and sinful for Christians, that it was all about increasing the pattering of tiny feet around the home. Maybe Breda has been assimilated by the gay agenda, it's all about SEX.


  • #8513
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,022 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    Anti-gay rentagob Breeder O'Brien is in the papers again....well lets face it other than Quinn who else is there? http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/gays-should-abstain-from-sex-like-all-unmarried-couples-31153701.html

    Interestingly she does seem to be an advocate of family planning even though that's against church policy.

    And there I was thinking that the taking of pleasure from sex was ever so naughty and sinful for Christians, that it was all about increasing the pattering of tiny feet around the home. Maybe Breda has been assimilated by the gay agenda, it's all about SEX.

    Cute photo of the puppy above, BTW.


  • #8514
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    aloyisious wrote: »
    And there I was thinking that the taking of pleasure from sex was ever so naughty and sinful for Christians, that it was all about increasing the pattering of tiny feet around the home.
    Thus proving she's a Maverick! Not just buffering for the bishops, after all.

    Or is even more self-servingly cherry-picking. Depending on personal taste.


  • #8515
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    silverharp wrote: »
    I've to walk past a 10 ft Mary or Jesus where I vote. Its like something out of the Blues Brothers.


    ...when you go into the booth, every time you go to mark the "yes" box a Nun will clatter yer hand with a ruler.


  • #8516
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,533 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    BlaasForRafa wrote: »
    Interestingly she does seem to be an advocate of family planning even though that's against church policy.

    Nah, wait for the menopause and then make up for lost time

    Still 'open to life' so still God Approved.

    Scrap the cap!



  • #8517
    BlaasForRafa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭BlaasForRafa


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Nah, wait for the menopause and then make up for lost time

    Still 'open to life' so still God Approved.

    So Breeder'll be going at it like a japanese pornstar. Scary stuff.


  • #8518
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    Opposing the referendum is not homophobic. What it does is to show a commitment to civil marriage. Not to religious marriage because that doesn't change, but to civil marriage as a valuable and useful institution.

    Even if we limit ourselves to Ireland, and even if we only examine the last couple of hundred years or so, then we can see that the "definition of marriage" has always changed, and quite radically so, to reflect the changes in society.

    These days, a marriage is seen as a commitment between two people in a romantic relationship to that relationship and to live together, though the last part is not actually part of the "definition".

    In the last couple of centuries, a marriage

    - Was likely to be arranged, either by family or a matchmaker
    - Was seen as a social duty
    - Involved the husband receiving authority over the wife
    - Was likely to involve the transfer of a dowry
    - Meant all property now belonged to the husband, with limitations set on his use of the dowry property
    - Could not be dissolved in a divorce
    - Was not seen as primarily something driven by romantic love

    We are not even looking into differences between marriage customs and expectations between classes: a marriage between rural working class people was very different from one the urban rich.

    All these things changed, radically, and with it the way we think about marriage.

    And it is not the case that the way we thought about marriage changed first, and that society followed suit: it is the other way around. Our attitudes change, and then we need to amend the legal definitions to fit our current thinking. The idea of equality of the sexes was not a product of the changes in the definition of marriage: we changed the definition because we began to accept the idea of gender equality.

    By the same token, allowing marriage equality merely reflects the current attitude: we no longer condemn same-sex relationships.

    We are not trying to alter some eternal, unchanging institution here. We are merely applying the latest update, as we have been doing all along.

    Hey, go back far enough, and you will find out that this works both ways: I hear Celtic marriages already had divorces. We actually changed our stance on that twice, I guess!

    So these "Let us be careful to change fundamental institutions" arguments are a bit silly. I guess we could simply start replying "Yeah, just look at the chaos that ensued when we started allowing married women to own property"


  • #8519
    Bobby42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,314 ✭✭✭Bobby42


    Saw a few vote no posters on my way into work this morning.

    One had a picture of a small girl and had SURROGACY? at the top and then "she needs a mother for life not just 9 months at the bottom.

    Another had "There's already civil partnership, don't redefine marriage, Vote No!"


  • #8520
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,860 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Bobby42 wrote: »
    Saw a few vote no posters on my way into work this morning.

    One had a picture of a small girl and had SURROGACY? at the top and then "she needs a mother for life not just 9 months at the bottom.

    Another had "There's already civil partnership, don't redefine marriage, Vote No!"

    actually saw this tweet in response to that explaining why it needs to be marriage equality and not civil partnership.

    https://twitter.com/cairotango/status/590421280656097281

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #8521
    Bobby42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,314 ✭✭✭Bobby42


    I find it funny that the no side go on and on about a child's right to a mother and father. They're obviously very concerned about children's welfare, or so it would seem.

    Yet, the Dublin Region Homeless Executive have released a report this morning that shows that there are 1000 children in emergency homeless accommodation in Dublin.

    Not a peep from the iona institute about these kids right to a home.

    It seems the no side are only concerned about children's welfare when lgbt people are looking to be treated equally as citizens. Outside of this, well, tumbleweeds.

    Where's the posters campaigning against homeless children? They could have the same poster of the little girl and have it say Homelessness? She needs a home, not a bedsit?

    But sadly the no side are not interested in a topic that is having a vastly detrimental impact on the welfare of one thousand, yes one thousand, children, because it doesn't suit their narrative.


  • #8522
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Bobby42 wrote: »
    I find it funny that the no side go on and on about a child's right to a mother and father. They're obviously very concerned about children's welfare, or so it would seem.

    Yet, the Dublin Region Homeless Executive have released a report this morning that shows that there are 1000 children in emergency homeless accommodation in Dublin.

    Not a peep from the iona institute about these kids right to a home.

    It seems the no side are only concerned about children's welfare when lgbt people are looking to be treated equally as citizens. Outside of this, well, tumbleweeds.

    Where's the posters campaigning against homeless children? They could have the same poster of the little girl and have it say Homelessness? She needs a home, not a bedsit?

    But sadly the no side are not interested in a topic that is having a vastly detrimental impact on the welfare of one thousand, yes one thousand, children, because it doesn't suit their narrative.

    Thats the way the organizations work,
    Its all about the rights for "poor little baby's" and rights for "kids to have mothers and fathers", but in the cold hard light of day these organizations care little about a baby when its born or where it lives once its born....as long as its not with the gheys!!!!!.

    Its not surprisingly at all when you look at the track record of the religious organization that have spawned the likes of Lolek Ltd, Youth Defense and others.

    If we look back at history we can see that catholic and christian organisations have done so so much to ensure that women who weren't married were treated with utter disgust in Ireland, they had next to no rights, they received no support from the goverment or society and that a nice handy profit could be made by selling off there godless children to good fine (unvetted) catholic married couples in America.

    Its not about the children, it never was. All the children have ever been for these organisatons are play things...like a football they kick around a field of hurt.


  • #8523
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    ^^^

    I lament the inability to 'like' a post more than once.


  • #8524
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    What I don't get is how they are getting away with using adoption as an argument at all. Gay people can already adopt! The only impact this is going to have is that gay couples can adopt as a married couple. There is no bar to adoption by gay people being lifted here at all!

    The only real impact is that a gay couple with an adopted child that go through a bereavement don't have to worry about sorting out guardianship for the remaining parent.


  • #8525
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,860 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Poor ole David forgets to check if it's only the yes campaign that have organised registration drives before tweeting.

    https://twitter.com/DavQuinn/status/590227188500328449
    https://twitter.com/Zoddub/status/590442661586276354

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #8526
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,860 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    LOL

    https://twitter.com/ConorUCCLaw/status/590444855274381312

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #8527
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    SW wrote: »
    Poor ole David forgets to check if it's only the yes campaign that have organised registration drives before tweeting.

    Understandable mistake, in a way. Who knew that the No side entertained any hopes of persuading any new voters at all! (Though it must be said that changes of address are perhaps less credulity-stretching.)


  • #8528
    Mr. CooL ICE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,646 ✭✭✭✭Mr. CooL ICE


    Mildly off-topic, but may as well ask here anyway.

    I'm currently registered to vote in my home town (Co Cork) and changed it to Dublin (where I now live). I completed the RFA1 form, put new address in the top part and old address in the bottom part and sent it to the Dublin Civic office. That's what I was supposed to do, right?


  • #8529
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,860 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Nicolas Cage wrote: »
    Mildly off-topic, but may as well ask here anyway.

    I'm currently registered to vote in my home town (Co Cork) and changed it to Dublin (where I now live). I completed the RFA1 form, put new address in the top part and old address in the bottom part and sent it to the Dublin Civic office. That's what I was supposed to do, right?

    yep. New address on top section (amend to register) and old address on bottom section (delete from register).

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #8530
    alaimacerc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,224 ✭✭✭alaimacerc


    Nicolas Cage wrote: »
    I'm currently registered to vote in my home town (Co Cork) and changed it to Dublin (where I now live). I completed the RFA1 form, put new address in the top part and old address in the bottom part and sent it to the Dublin Civic office. That's what I was supposed to do, right?
    I might be wrong, but I think you're actually supposed to have used an RFA3 form in this case? i.e. you've changed LAs, not just address within a LA. The RFA1 notes on this aren't completely explicit, though, so maybe "good enough"...


  • #8531
    freyners
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,300 ✭✭✭freyners


    Looking through David's tweets the irony is amazing. Favourite so far is a recent retweet of some nutjobs complaints about Atlantic Philanthrophies funding GLEN. This is of course coming from a man who organisations refuses to release details of its own funding, probably due to the embarrassment of the amount of american funding coming from designated hate groups


  • Advertisement
  • #8532
    Skrynesaver
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,109 ✭✭✭Skrynesaver


    And I'm the 666th person to vote yes in the boards poll


  • #8533
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Nicolas Cage wrote: »
    Mildly off-topic, but may as well ask here anyway.

    I'm currently registered to vote in my home town (Co Cork) and changed it to Dublin (where I now live). I completed the RFA1 form, put new address in the top part and old address in the bottom part and sent it to the Dublin Civic office. That's what I was supposed to do, right?

    Did you include the returning officer's "little incentive";)?


  • #8534
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Well this is ****ed up: http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/convicted_serial_rapist_is_spokesperson_for_pastors_fighting_lgbt_nondiscrimination_bill
    A group of pastors and conservative businessmen in a small Arkansas town are fighting a bill that would protect LGBT people from discrimination. Claiming gay, and especially transgender people are dangerous pedophiles, violent rapists, and "sex offenders," they are using a man who, it turns out, is a convicted serial rapist, as their spokesperson.


  • #8535
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    Links234 wrote: »
    Well this is ****ed up: http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/convicted_serial_rapist_is_spokesperson_for_pastors_fighting_lgbt_nondiscrimination_bill

    Jesus H.

    That is seriously ****ed up. I can't say Eureka Springs is on my bucket list of places to visit. Love how they think that LGBT rights will damage tourism to the town and not the fact that they have pastors who get 30 to 60 years for raping and beating an 80 yr old woman.


  • #8536
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,022 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Some-one raised their P.O.V. on one of the M.E. threads recently about why polygamy and polyamory was not been treated as deserving of equality on a par to what SSM proponents are seeking. Well, it seem's Mothers And Fathers Matter are on their side, in as far as an M.A.F.M expert think's the P/P argument is as valid as that of S.S.M supporters. Dr Tom Finegan of M.A.F.M in today's irish Times..... though he think's the S.S.M claim is incoherent and irrational.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/marriage-is-not-putty-in-the-hands-of-the-dominant-political-paradigm-1.2182576.


  • #8537
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    aloyisious wrote: »
    http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/marriage-is-not-putty-in-the-hands-of-the-dominant-political-paradigm-1.2182576.

    That was from yesterday, and here are the letters pulling apart his article! http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/marriage-referendum-1.2183905


  • #8538
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    Shrap wrote: »
    That was from yesterday, and here are the letters pulling apart his article! http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/marriage-referendum-1.2183905


    “The referendum was treated [by the bishops] as a rite of renewal directed to the maintenance of cultural supremacy.” (on the 1983 Abortion referendum)

    Indeed.


  • #8539
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    pauldla wrote: »
    “The referendum was treated [by the bishops] as a rite of renewal directed to the maintenance of cultural supremacy.” (on the 1983 Abortion referendum)

    Indeed.

    Yes, spotted that wonderful quote. And I do believe it's still pertinent (even though the Bishops seem to be restricting themselves to their statement so far) as we have the usual suspects, Patricia Casey et al, wheeling out to peddle their lies in the papers. Anybody see her article on Sunday where she calls out Mary McAleese and James Reilly for commenting on the higher incidence of LGBT suicidality? And I quote:
    If Mrs Mc Aleese has data from peer-reviewed studies to support her claim, then I would wish to know so that I can contribute to a campaign to reduce suicide among gay men and women.
    Patricia Casey - apparently a professional psychiatrist.

    It is without doubt the coldest piece of writing I have ever seen from the Iona shills. Sociopathic in it's detachment actually :mad:

    Might have been posted here already, but if not, make sure you're sitting down or holding onto something (preferably someone). http://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/making-a-simplistic-connection-ignores-complexity-of-the-issue-31153675.html


  • #8540
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Seems the no side are getting their way on the mural,
    Question is, if somebody rights "Vote Yes" on it, can it be placed as promotion for the yes vote for the ref under Referendum Act.

    Also if Dublin CC are so quick to want this removed, perhaps they should do the same for other murals in the city......no?
    Warning letter sent calling for removal of giant same-sex marriage mural
    It’s on the side of a building on South Great George’s St.

    http://www.thejournal.ie/letter-council-removal-same-sex-marriage-mural-2061972-Apr2015/


  • #8541
    fisgon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,747 ✭✭✭fisgon


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Some-one raised their P.O.V. on one of the M.E. threads recently about why polygamy and polyamory was not been treated as deserving of equality on a par to what SSM proponents are seeking. Well, it seem's Mothers And Fathers Matter are on their side, in as far as an M.A.F.M expert think's the P/P argument is as valid as that of S.S.M supporters. Dr Tom Finegan of M.A.F.M in today's irish Times..... though he think's the S.S.M claim is incoherent and irrational.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/marriage-is-not-putty-in-the-hands-of-the-dominant-political-paradigm-1.2182576.

    Classic muddying of the waters, bringing in polygamy and the like, things the Yes side have never mentioned, and things no-one, anywhere, is demanding.

    They really are getting desperate, the No side is really showing itself to be contemptible, willing to throw in any kind of red herring to confuse the undecideds.

    BTW, anyone know the background of Mothers and Fathers matter, or of this Dr. Finnegan himself? I am assuming that they have some kind of religious affiliation, though it is not obvious.


  • Advertisement
  • #8542
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 50,224 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    fisgon wrote: »
    Classic muddying of the waters, bringing in polygamy and the like, things the Yes side have never mentioned, and things no-one, anywhere, is demanding.
    classic irish whataboutery.


  • #8543
    fisgon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,747 ✭✭✭fisgon


    Skrynesaver wrote: »
    And I'm the 666th person to vote yes in the boards poll

    Now 87% in favour, I imagine that says more about Boards users than about the likely result of the referendum. Interesting though.


  • #8544
    MetalDog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 904 ✭✭✭MetalDog


    Lads I hate to be the token pessimist here but there's a chance this won't pass.

    The No side are going to get very, very nasty, and there's a calendar month to go starting today. They are not stupid. They are masters at manipulation, deceit, lies and underhand tactics.

    These guys are going to pull a Lisbon on this and start coming up with all sorts of sh1t. Those stupid posters, clearly designed to appeal to sentimental idiots, are just the start.

    So, assuming this doesn't pass, what then? Learn from the mistakes and run it again in 5 years when all the auld cunts are dead? Get it legislated for anyway?


  • #8545
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,684 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    I saw some no posters around baggot st. Yesterday , one was fair enough as these things go but the other one was the mothers and father's argument , which is not what we are being asked to vote on.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #8546
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Constitution Expert says No side are telling porkies.
    In summary, the claims made on Sunday’s Marian Finucane Show regarding the legal impact of the referendum result on the area of AHR are not supported by the relevant case law. The outcome of the referendum will have no impact in this area. The Oireachtas will remain free to regulate AHR as it sees fit. Article 41 of the Constitution has played almost no role in the case law to date and is therefore of minimal significance to any future constitutional challenges in this area. Article 40.1 mandates equality in the absence of compelling evidence justifying discrimination, which suggests that social science rather than law may be the real consideration in any theoretical attempt to restrict access by same-sex couples to AHR services.
    http://constitutionproject.ie/?p=503


  • #8547
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Constitution Expert says No side are telling porkies.

    The problem is that there is no requirement on any campaigner to tell the truth; nor is there a requirement on any voter to educate themselves as to whether they're being lied to.

    I really, really hate referendums.


  • #8548
    pH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    silverharp wrote: »
    I saw some no posters around baggot st. Yesterday , one was fair enough as these things go but the other one was the mothers and father's argument , which is not what we are being asked to vote on.

    It's so tempting to fight fire with fire - come up with dishonest (but populist) soundbites for the yes side and force these morons to spend their time countering them.

    The bullsh1t asymmetry principle says:

    "The amount of energy necessary to refute bullsh1t is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

    And here the media *have* to take some responsibility, because if it isn't stopped, all public debate is going to become meaningless.

    for example - they know the "think of the children" argument still has traction, no matter how tolerant and open some people are, so even though the referendum actually has nothing to do with it, they conflate the 2 and make people on the other side waste time and effort countering it, whilst constantly pushing the "gay men with kids - yuck" idea.

    It's not clever at all, it's actually trivially easy to do - because the media blindly parrot it and throw it in the face of a Yes support - "How do you respond when so-and-so says 'X...'"

    I say start a campaign saying that "A yes vote is all about protecting children from paedophile priests" - then play using the current rules of "public discourse"

    No side: "Of course this had nothing do do with paedophile priests"

    Response "WTTFFFFFF - you're denying that abuse happened?"

    "No I didn't say that .."

    "You don't think that kids should be protected from paedophile priests?"

    etc etc etc


  • #8549
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,971 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    fisgon wrote: »
    Classic muddying of the waters, bringing in polygamy and the like, things the Yes side have never mentioned, and things no-one, anywhere, is demanding.

    They really are getting desperate, the No side is really showing itself to be contemptible, willing to throw in any kind of red herring to confuse the undecideds.

    BTW, anyone know the background of Mothers and Fathers matter, or of this Dr. Finnegan himself? I am assuming that they have some kind of religious affiliation, though it is not obvious.

    I'd imagine they'd have the same sort of donors as the Ionanists, i.e. Ancient Order of Hibernia-types.


  • #8550
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Constitution Expert says No side are telling porkies.

    http://constitutionproject.ie/?p=503

    I guess the constitution experts are biased. The no side continues to be oppressed.


  • Advertisement
  • #8551
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    I guess the constitution experts are biased. The no side continues to be oppressed.

    Well, I was behind Conor O Mahoney in a queue in the staff canteen once and I heard him say he doesn't like a particular food stuff so obviously he is the kind who discriminates based on personal bias.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement