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

SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Options
1…6364656769

Comments

  • Options
    #1982
    P_1
    Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    sup_dude wrote: »
    By my last post I meant, can you genuinely not see the problems with incest and how they don't apply to SSM, or are you just ignoring it?
    Incest is a different argument. There are very strong, factual based arguments against it, which I am not going to go through in this thread as it's not relevant. Same sex marriage does not have these arguments against it. It has no real argument against it except petty opinions.

    Isn't the only problem associated with incest the potential health risks to potential offspring? Anyways we're going way off topic here at this stage.


  • Options
    #1983
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users Posts: 7,548 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    P_1 wrote: »
    Isn't the only problem associated with incest the potential health risks to potential offspring? Anyways we're going way off topic here at this stage.

    Yeah, and I know the stats aren't high but it is putting kids at risk of serious disease at an above average rate. Marriage equality is more about saying "yeah that's fine, we accept you as a people" at this stage, and incestuous relationships have the potential to cause damage to more than themselves. (if there a way around that, then Id say go for it) Same sex marriage is not going to cause damage to anyone, and affects no one else. This is the critical difference and the reason I don't think they're currently comparable.


  • Options
    #1984
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    P_1 wrote: »
    Isn't the only problem associated with incest the potential health risks to potential offspring? Anyways we're going way off topic here at this stage.

    There are other reasons against it too - but I'm not going to dignify the pathetic attempt at side tracking the debate and playing the slippery slope game made here.

    If he cares, he'll post a new thread.

    And one last point IHI - you also seem smart enough to know that the LGBT people are never the intended audience for incest arguments, and it's proponents never care what out views on it are - the intended audience is people who may be on the fence who may themselves have an issue with incest, with the hope that the two become conflated and treated as equivalent or leading to each other in the minds of the undecided.

    So please go make you case elsewhere and leave us out of it.


  • Options
    #1985
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    It's insulting to compare a relationship between consenting adults with bestiality Joey. Not nice.

    Mental competence is called into question with incestuous relationships. Coercion, abuse, manipulation and grooming is pretty common so this automatically calls into question the power balance in the relationship and a person's ability to enter into a contract. So incest is far more complex an issue than two consenting adults of the same gender.


  • Options
    #1986
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    Mental competence is called into question with incestuous relationships. Coercion, abuse, manipulation and grooming is pretty common so this automatically calls into question the power balance in the relationship and a person's ability to enter into a contract. So incest is far more complex an issue than two consenting adults of the same gender.


    If for nothing else, this post alone was worth the mind-numbing pattern these threads always take. That's why I didn't bother my arse contributing until now and just to say thank you Corkfeen for giving me the language to explain to people exactly why I object to incestuous unions and why they, nor polygamous relationships, are a completely irrelevant, separate, and distinct issue that has no relation to the issue of marriage equality for LGBT citizens of this country to give them the exact same rights as heterosexual citizens of this country.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1987
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    Mental competence is called into question with incestuous relationships. Coercion, abuse, manipulation and grooming is pretty common so this automatically calls into question the power balance in the relationship and a person's ability to enter into a contract. So incest is far more complex an issue than two consenting adults of the same gender.

    Sibling or cousin marriage is not "far more complex". You're just making generalised, vague negative accusations that you can't back up. Same as homophobes do for gay relationships.

    Coercion, abuse, manipulation, grooming and abuse of power are all things that can occur in homosexual or hetrosexual relationships aswell.

    Seems like everyone wants to exclude someone in this world.


  • Options
    #1988
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,038 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Sibling or cousin marriage is not "far more complex". You're just making generalised, vague negative accusations that you can't back up. Same as homophobes do for gay relationships.

    If you want legal marriage for siblings go argue for it somewhere else. Its not relevant. You know that. You're just on some whataboutery derailment agenda for some reason.

    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
    #1989
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    If you want legal marriage for siblings go argue for it somewhere else. Its not relevant. You know that.

    It's relevant to the dismissive tone taken towards potential No voters though.

    When No voters query SSM, they are shot down in flames, but the same defenders of SSM want to ban others, who they see as being in unusual or odd or "wrong" relationships from civil marriage.


  • Options
    #1990
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Sibling or cousin marriage is not "far more complex". You're just making generalised, vague negative accusations that you can't back up. Same as homophobes do for gay relationships.

    Um no. It is. There is different phsycology behind it. Homosexuality is just 2 strangers with nothing in common except they are attracted to each other. I'm am open to studies that say there are no phsycology issues as mentioned above but have yet to see it. We have studies that say there is no negatives to a same sex relationship.


  • Options
    #1991
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,038 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    It's relevant to the dismissive tone taken towards potential No voters though.

    When No voters query SSM, they are shot down in flames, but the same defenders of SSM want to ban others, who they see as being in unusual or odd or "wrong" relationships from civil marriage.

    Whatabout the horses? Can I marry my horse?
    Whatabout microwaves? Can I marry my microwave?
    Whatabout derailment? I know lob incest in there

    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



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1992
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Um no. It is. There is different phsycology behind it. Homosexuality is just 2 strangers with nothing in common except they are attracted to each other. I'm am open to studies that say there are no phsycology issues as mentioned above but have yet to see it. We have studies that say there is no negatives to a same sex relationship.

    Why can't you accept that two reasonable adults may want to get married? Any two adults. Why do you question the sanity of them just because you do not share their attraction?

    Akin to homophobia because you are not attracted to partners of your gender.


  • Options
    #1993
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Whatabout the horses? Can I marry my horse?
    Whatabout microwaves? Can I marry my microwave?
    Whatabout derailment? I know lob incest in there

    Your just being silly now.


  • Options
    #1994
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,038 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Your just being silly now.

    Just illustrating your attempts at derailment and whataboutery.

    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
    #1995
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Why can't you accept that two reasonable adults may want to get married? Any two adults. Why do you question the sanity of them just because you do not share their attraction?

    Akin to homophobia because you are not attracted to partners of your gender.

    Are you denying that the phsycological relationship between close family members are different?
    If there are no issues go for it. I don't care what other people do as long as nobody is harmed.


  • Options
    #1996
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Why can't you accept that two reasonable adults may want to get married? Any two adults. Why do you question the sanity of them just because you do not share their attraction?

    Akin to homophobia because you are not attracted to partners of your gender.

    I'm surprised at how shameless you are at pursuing this tactic even after it's been called out.

    No, take this goddamn irrelevant rabbit hole elsewhere. It is not our job to make or break the case for incest in this thread. It you want to argue about why we should ber for or against it, start another thread. It's irrelevant to this one, and it's a Fran style derailment we've all seen a thousand times.

    We're not getting into the conversation of how similar or how differwnt they are, it has absolutely nothing to do with a referendum on SSM, no matter how much people like you and Iona try to introduce it. You said it yourself, they're totally different - the conversation we're having now is about SSM, not incest or toaster marriage or polygamy or any other bloody thing else.


  • Options
    #1997
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    It's relevant to the dismissive tone taken towards potential No voters though.

    No it's not. It has as much relevance to No voters as religion which you yourself said we shouldn't talk about.


  • Options
    #1998
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    OK. I'll drop this particular topic.

    Let us resume debating the redefinition of marriage, but only to the extent that we are happy and comfortable speaking about.

    Let us not talk of other redefinitions, that we see as bad, again.

    For the record, I am in favour of same sex civil marriage for those who want it.


  • Options
    #1999
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 50,630 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Mod

    Okey Dokey boys and girls.

    This is a thread about the Same Sex Marriage referendum. Please stick to the subject of Same Sex Marriage.

    Thanking you kindly.


  • Options
    #2000
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Let us resume debating the redefinition of marriage, but only to the extent that we are happy and comfortable speaking about.

    Or more importantly the one that the topic is about. There is no definition of marriage. Only a list of who and who can't get marry.
    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    For the record, I am in favour of same sex civil marriage for those who want it.

    Yes we know. We also know you can't say you'll vote in favour of it though


  • Options
    #2001
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    OK. I'll drop this particular topic.

    Let us resume debating the redefinition of marriage, but only to the extent that we are happy and comfortable speaking about.

    Let us not talk of other redefinitions, that we see as bad, again.

    For the record, I am in favour of same sex civil marriage for those who want it.

    Marriage is not being redefined - this has been pointed out umpteen times.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2002
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Daith wrote: »
    We also know you can't say you'll vote in favour of it though

    I will vote in favour of same-sex marriage, as long as it is a clear-cut, solid amendment that is proposed.


  • Options
    #2003
    StudentDad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,489 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    Skimming this thread is a bit like reading the results of a car crash. Although religion has nothing to do with this debate it has been dragged in and now we have ridiculous arguments surrounding incest etc. If I were an angler I'd have my pick of red herrings.

    Reading this it reminds me of a conversation I had with a couple in their 40's prior to the divorce referendum and how they were voting against it as they felt divorce would somehow lessen their marriage. Irony of ironies they were amongst the first to get separated and then divorced.

    Ultimately this has nothing to do with marriage equality of itself and everything to do with change. Recognition of marriage equality is not only necessary and needed. It is a logical requirement of a secular state in the 21st century.

    From where I'm sitting those who use 'belief' as a justification for discrimination on grounds of orientation, gender etc are doing a disservice to their religion and ultimately trying to hold back the necessary development of society into a tolerant and more equal society.

    For me if an individual has strongly held religious beliefs, those beliefs do not entitle that individual to impose them on others. We are not living in a theocracy.

    SD


  • Options
    #2004
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    old hippy wrote: »
    Marriage is not being redefined - this has been pointed out umpteen times.

    Of course it it.

    It's going from an implicit definition where is can only be between one mand and one woman to (hopefully) a state where it is explicitly defined to be between any two people, irrespective of gender.


  • Options
    #2005
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Of course it it.

    It's going from an implicit definition where is can only be between one mand and one woman to (hopefully) a state where it is explicitly defined to be between any two people, irrespective of gender.

    It is not being redefined, it is being made more inclusive. Please stop obfuscating.


  • Options
    #2006
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Of course it it.

    It's going from an implicit definition where is can only be between one mand and one woman to (hopefully) a state where it is explicitly defined to be between any two people, irrespective of gender.

    No it's not. There is no definition of marriage only an interpretation. Marriage will be for the first time defined next year.


  • Options
    #2007
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Sibling or cousin marriage is not "far more complex". You're just making generalised, vague negative accusations that you can't back up. Same as homophobes do for gay relationships.

    Coercion, abuse, manipulation, grooming and abuse of power are all things that can occur in homosexual or hetrosexual relationships aswell.

    Seems like everyone wants to exclude someone in this world.
    Here you are. While consensual relationships do occur, they don't tend to reoccur. The only exceptions being those separated at birth. An aversion to incestuous relationships tends to exist from birth. So stop this bull**** homosexuality argument. It's not valid. Feel free to start a separate campaign if you want but don't drag it into this discussion.
    http://www.mpicc.de/ww/en/pub/forschung/forschungsarbeit/gemeinsame_projekte/inzest/inzest_krim.htm


  • Options
    #2008
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    old hippy wrote: »
    It is not being redefined, it is being made more inclusive.........

    ....by being redefined.


  • Options
    #2009
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    ....by being redefined.

    By being defined

    Show me the definition of marriage in our constitution.


  • Options
    #2010
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Daith wrote: »
    No it's not. There is no definition of marriage only an interpretation. Marriage will be for the first time defined next year.

    There is of course a definition of marriage. It isn't written in our constitution, but it is defined by the limits, rules and regulations in our legislation (age, gender, process of solemnising, etc).

    We are adding an explicit amendment to our constitution so that a redefinition in law will stand up to any constitutional challenge. Why else would we be having a referendum, if marriage is something we are just going to define in Spring 2015?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2011
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    ....by being redefined.

    It is not being redefined. This has been pointed out to you again and again.


Advertisement