Month and Week Decided this is getting Real

anonyanony

marienbad wrote: »

Why not scrap all the equality legislation as you are at it ?

It's fine and good for state businesses, private business should be allowed to set their own clientele and the free market will decide if it's ok.

Also how does curves get around this, I am all for them being allowed to just allow women but according to you it should not and men should be allowed in.

jobbridge4life

Thread is destroyed.

Daith

anonyanony wrote: »

It's fine and good for state businesses, private business should be allowed to set their own clientele and the free market will decide if it's ok.

This has what to do with marriage? All of your examples can already happen for any type of discrimination.

I'm failing to see your point.

floggg

anonyanony wrote: »

I am all for personal rights as long as it does not infringe on others, I don't think the two getting married impacts on anyone other then themselves, but in things after if places are forced to do something then there freedom is being infringed I will say there will be plenty of places wanting to do gay after parties as it will be very good money, but if a place has a moral objection I want that to be respected.

Honest question - do you think a baker not being allowed to discriminate against or refuse service to gay people as a bigger injustice than gay people not being treated equally as a matter of law or having their relationship recognised as equal to a straight persons?

Is that really a good reason to vote in favour of continued discrimination against me?


Also, you could flip your argument around fairly easier and say that the bakers right to freedom of religion or expression is infringing the gay persons right to equality and family rights.

Human rights law is all about balancing competing interests.

You have to ask yourself whether the right of somebody to express their disdain for somebody else's private life should outweigh the right to equality and equal protection of law.

Daith

Tis going to be a long few months.

Daith

I do wonder what the actual referendum question is going to be.

Would it be too broad to say "any person regardless of their sexuality can marry?"

anonyanony

floggg wrote: »

Honest question - do you think a baker not being allowed to discriminate against or refuse service to gay people as a bigger injustice than gay people not being treated equally as a matter of law or having their relationship recognised as equal to a straight persons?

Is that really a good reason to vote in favour of continued discrimination against me?

The bakers right of who to chose to serve in their private business is a big injustice to me.

My reason why I might vote no is I want to find out if a yes will not remove anymore rights from private individuals.

The way I go about deciding to vote on things are, the position that changes nothing is my default, I them go to a forum that's pro the change they have to convince me the change won't change any personal freedom which I and others already have, I also go to the no side and see if they say the changes will impact my rights.

It's up to the side changing the system to win me to their side as keeping it the same definitely won't effect me.

anonyanony

anonyanony wrote: »

Honestly I don't want to make it easier, I don't think gay or single straight or gay people should be allowed to adopt.

So your issues with the legilation being proposed next year are:

1) How it will affect adoption.
2) How it will affect businesses and their rights about refusal or trade.
3) What it might compel churches to do.

It has been pointed out to you multiple times however that the proposed changes have ZERO effect on these three things.

Now that this has been pointed out to you - and you can stop worrying about these three things entirely - have you any other concerns or questions about the proposed changes?

anonyanony wrote: »

You cannot provide a male and female upbringing for the kid

There is no such thing. That is a fabrication of a reality that simply is not there. By all means start a thread on the topic and I will engage with you on the error you have made.

anonyanony

Deleted User wrote: »

So your issues with the legilation being proposed next year are:

1) How it will affect adoption.
2) How it will affect businesses and their rights about refusal or trade.
3) What it might compel churches to do.

It has been pointed out to you multiple times however that the proposed changes have ZERO effect on these three things.

Now that this has been pointed out to you - and you can stop worrying about these three things entirely - have you any other concerns or questions about the proposed changes?



There is no such thing. That is a fabrication of a reality that simply is not there. By all means start a thread on the topic and I will engage with you on the error you have made.

My main question is will this change cause the loss of any freedoms I know have atm. I am asking this of the no side too, I default to no change and the yes side have to convince me it won't more then the no.

Daith

Daith wrote: »

Would it be too broad to say "any person regardless of their sexuality can marry?"

Probably too broad yes. The reason being that one of the arguments the anti gay marriage lobby level against gay marriage is to point out that the above -are the rights they have already-.

I have lost count of how many times someone has said "Gay people just want equal rights to marry" and been responded to "They already do have equal rights to marry - they have the same right as everyone else to marry someone of the opposite sex".

And your wording would like feed into that non-argument. The fact is that _right now_ any person can marry regardless of their sexuality. The issue is WHO they can marry.

anonyanony

anonyanony wrote: »

My main question is will this change cause the loss of any freedoms I know have atm. I am asking this of the no side too, I default to no change and the yes side have to convince me I won't more then the no.

Sounds like "guilty until proven innocent" to me. Surely the onus of proof lies solely at the people claiming the vote WILL change your personal rights - not at the feet of the people who say it will not.

If the "no" side present a cogent argument suggesting your personal rights will be changed by this change in the law - then come back to us and let us know what that argument is. Until this time however - there is no onus on anyone here to prove a negative.

Daith

Deleted User wrote: »

And your wording would like feed into that non-argument. The fact is that _right now_ any person can marry regardless of their sexuality. The issue is WHO they can marry.

Agreed but then would the state need to officially recognize specific sexualities?

The wording and ability to twist the wording is going to be key.

Or would it be a person can marry regardless of gender? Would gender be the better word?

anonyanony

Deleted User wrote: »

Sounds like "guilty until proven innocent" to me. Surely the onus of proof lies solely at the people claiming the vote WILL change your personal rights - not at the feet of the people who say it will not.

If the "no" side present a cogent argument suggesting your personal rights will be changed by this change in the law - then come back to us and let us know what that argument is. Until this time however - there is no onus on anyone here to prove a negative.

Truthfully voting no changes nothing for me for definite, a yes vote also changes nothing for me but might lead to the removal of some of my freedoms.

I don't care enough to look into it fully and instead ask the questions on both sides, yes side need to reassure me of what the changes will and won't bring as I am not going to read hundreds of pages for something that won't bring me any benefit whatsoever if they cannot convince me of nothing will change I will vote to keep the status quo.

Daith

anonyanony wrote: »

Truthfully voting no changes nothing for me for definite, a yes vote also changes nothing for me but might lead to the removal of some of my freedoms.

How about nothing will change for you?

anonyanony wrote: »

I am not going to read hundreds of pages for something that won't bring me any benefit whatsoever if they cannot convince me of nothing will change I will vote to keep the status quo.

You want something that will bring you benefit but you want to keep the status quo?

floggg

anonyanony wrote: »

The bakers right of who to chose to serve in their private business is a big injustice to me.

My reason why I might vote no is I want to find out if a yes will not remove anymore rights from private individuals.

The way I go about deciding to vote on things are, the position that changes nothing is my default, I them go to a forum that's pro the change they have to convince me the change won't change any personal freedom which I and others already have, I also go to the no side and see if they say the changes will impact my rights.

It's up to the side changing the system to win me to their side as keeping it the same definitely won't effect me.

Well that's a very selfish view. You are voting on people's rights here so you need to consider more than just your own position.

You should also ask whether the default position is right in the first place. Just because a group doesn't have certain rights to begin with, that doesn't mean they shouldn't.

Is "keeping things the same" really a good reason to actively go out and vote to deny those people rights and equality?

Or the right of somebody to express their hatred or dislike?

Imagine you have a gay kid and in 20 years time he asks you how you voted in the referendum. Do you really want to tell him that since you had nothing personally to gain you didn't feel any onus to vote in favour treating gay people equally to everybody else.

And that you saw a baker being able to refuse service on bigoted grounds as more important than equality or the rights of a minority.

Daith

Daith wrote: »

Agreed but then would the state need to officially recognize specific sexualities?

That I am afraid you would need to ask someone who has more legal knowledge than my zero knowledge I am afraid

With my lack of legal expertise I can only imagine and guess at wordings. Something suggesting that consenting adults can marry regardless of SEX - rather than regardless of sexuality - would probably be more relevant?

anonyanony

anonyanony wrote: »

Truthfully voting no changes nothing for me for definite, a yes vote also changes nothing for me but might lead to the removal of some of my freedoms.

Again I feel that it is solely the people claiming such a change will occur - who have the onus of proof to declare this.

I think I take a less selfish and self centred approach to voting though. I would of course be interested in what affect on ME such a change will cause - but I would then hold up that detriment (or benefit?) to me personally against the relative benefits of the change to others too.

I am happy to lose SOME degrees of freedoms or rights if the resulting net benefit to others genuinely warrants it.

But as I said - it would be up to the "no" campaign to first convince me a change affecting me is actually going to occur before I would engage in that decision making. "No will change nothing for me - and yes might in some way as yet unknown" is a process of paranoid NON thinking to me - and I would not vote accordingly.

anonyanony wrote: »

if they cannot convince me of nothing will change I will vote to keep the status quo.

And as I said - I simply do not operate in a similar self centred and selfish approach. I do not consider solely my own position when I evaluate and vote on changes to society. I would find myself quite an abhorrent and ugly individual if I did.

anonyanony

Daith wrote: »

How about nothing will change for you?



You want something that will bring you benefit but you want to keep the status quo?

I want guarantee that if I vote yes it won't cause the removal of other freedoms, the yes side have to convince me of that.

floggg

anonyanony wrote: »

Truthfully voting no changes nothing for me for definite, a yes vote also changes nothing for me but might lead to the removal of some of my freedoms.

I don't care enough to look into it fully and instead ask the questions on both sides, yes side need to reassure me of what the changes will and won't bring as I am not going to read hundreds of pages for something that won't bring me any benefit whatsoever if they cannot convince me of nothing will change I will vote to keep the status quo.

Can I suggest in that case not voting. By your own admission you don't care either way - so abstain.

But voting no means you actively vote to deny equality. Your actively trying to keep the status quo in place for no good reason other than its the status quo.

So if you aren't truly engaged on the issue, and arent really concerned if it doesn't effect you, then please don't do something which will do actual harm to LGBT people.

Because a no vote does great harm. Apart from the continued discrimination, do you know the knot I feel in my stomach when I try to picture how I'll feel waking up to hear my country voted to discriminate agaisnt me, that a majority of people think I'm unequal, that my relationship is unequal and that we aren't worthy as the same respect as straight relationships.

floggg

anonyanony wrote: »

I want guarantee that if I vote yes it won't cause the removal of other freedoms, the yes side have to convince me of that.

It won't remove any freedoms. Equality legislation already equally applies to gay and straight relationships and family rights.

The position of your baker won't change - he already can't refuse service on the grounds of sexual orientation or martial status (which includes civil partnerships).

Whether you call it a wedding cake or a CP cake will make no difference.

anonyanony

Deleted User wrote: »

I am happy to lose SOME degrees of freedoms or rights if the resulting net benefit to others genuinely warrants it.

This is where we differ I am totally against the removal of freedoms of millions for the benefit of thousands. The whole greater good you need to lose you freedoms is a system the sjw use that I hate, I know most lgbt are not the crazy authoritarian type but their influence in the system has made we Skeptical of voting for something they push without knowing the full extent of the outcome on greater society.

anonyanony

floggg wrote: »

Can I suggest in that case not voting. By your own admission you don't care either way - so abstain.

No you cannot complain about the system if you don't vote, I always vote after talking to both sides the yes side needs to win me over.

marienbad

anonyanony wrote: »

I want guarantee that if I vote yes it won't cause the removal of other freedoms, the yes side have to convince me of that.

You have no intention of voting yes , do the right thing because it is the right thing or else fcuk off and stop trolling, this is not an auction.

anonyanony

anonyanony wrote: »

This is where we differ I am totally against the removal of freedoms of millions for the benefit of thousands.

I think we identified more than one place where we differ in my last post.

However: Too general. That is why I emphasised SOME. It is too contextual. I would need to know WHAT the removal or modification of a freedom would be - and what is paying for it. I do not blanket dismiss - as you declare you do - any and all such modifications for freedoms without seeing the full balance sheet. Nor do I measure that balance sheet merely in the number of people affected - as you claim to - but use the number as a multiplier on the quantitative changes.

You have - however - had it explained to you that this change has no effect on your freedoms or that of bakers. So lets see if the "no" side - who you suggest you are also polling on this - can come up with one.

You might even be surprised to find that I am more sympathetic to your position than you might guess. I would like to see - in some ways anyway - owners of private business MORE free to implement their bigotry and phobias in choosing who to do business with. I - like you seem to - wish to live in a society where someone who chooses to start a private business - should be free to decide who to trade with as they see fit and should not be compelled to do so.

And I retain my right to mirth and pleasure when such bigots have customers vote with their feet - go elsewhere - and end up going destitute and homeless as a result. I fully support their rights to have this happen to them - and my rights to campaign for customers to take their business elsewhere too so I can aid in their progress towards destitution and ruin.

floggg

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That I am afraid you would need to ask someone who has more legal knowledge than my zero knowledge I am afraid

With my lack of legal expertise I can only imagine and guess at wordings. Something suggesting that consenting adults can marry regardless of SEX - rather than regardless of sexuality - would probably be more relevant?

It can be done in any number of ways. They could introduce a definition of marriage (along the lines of "marriage is between two people ") or delete the provision in the Civil Registartoon Act saying that the fact both parties are the same sex is an impediment to marriage, or bring in an explicit statement that the fact that two people are of the same sex is not an impediment.

And the referendum question could be phrased very differently from the actual implementation of the law.

there may be issues in bringing in a form constitutional definition of marriage as it would mean that further referendums might be required to change it in the future for whatever reason. It's the type of thing that's better fleshed out in legislation.

Ten of Swords

Daith wrote: »

I do wonder what the actual referendum question is going to be.

Would it be too broad to say "any person regardless of their sexuality can marry?"

It will most likely give a very brief (one or two lines) text showing what the law currently is and a brief text showing changes they propose (usually in the form of ammended definitions), the question will simply be - do you approve this change?

The constitution of Ireland does not actually define marriage as one man and one woman but several acts define it as such, they are ultimately what must be ammended, but changes to other secondary portions of the constitution may be needed to allow this to happen.

ixoy

anonyanony wrote: »

This is where we differ I am totally against the removal of freedoms of millions for the benefit of thousands.

You're grossly exaggerating this topic. What freedoms are you really seeing being removed by this that's not already covered by legislation? We're adding elements of freedom not removing them.

Daith

Ten of Swords wrote: »

The constitution of Ireland does not actually define marriage as one man and one woman but several acts define it as such, they are ultimately what must be ammended, but changes to other secondary portions of the constitution may be needed to allow this to happen.

This is the actual issue. As the constitution doesn't define marriage it will be the first time marriage is actually defined.

I think gender rather the sexuality makes sense. Asking a Irish person to vote yes to having a word with "sex" in it could be disastrous.

floggg

anonyanony wrote: »

This is where we differ I am totally against the removal of freedoms of millions for the benefit of thousands. The whole greater good you need to lose you freedoms is a system the sjw use that I hate, I know most lgbt are not the crazy authoritarian type but their influence in the system has made we Skeptical of voting for something they push without knowing the full extent of the outcome on greater society.

Granting equality to black people meant a loss of freedom and rights for the White majority in the US (freedom to discriminate, reduction in the value and power of their vote, right to preferential treatment etc).

Would you have voted no to civil rights?

Also, why is it ok for me to be denied freedoms for your benefit?

Why are your freedoms more important than mine?

Why shouldn't we all be treated equally?

Daith

ixoy wrote: »

You're grossly exaggerating this topic. What freedoms are you really seeing being removed by this that's not already covered by legislation? We're adding elements of freedom not removing them.

It's the whole "gays need to work hard for my vote" that gets me.

I've no problem working hard and talking to my neighbours, friends, family, colleagues but wasting time on-line isn't one of them.