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

PopePalpatine

Hmm...I wonder what this post would look like if a few changes were made...

Billy-Bob Gunney wrote: »

Seems to me a tiny percentage of the population is looking to redefine voting for the vast majority of the country and change it from being white-centered and selfless to being Negro-centred and selfish.

B0jangles

I was just in Lidl and saw something absolutely shocking.



:eek::eek::eek:

Rightwing

Zen65 wrote: »

Of course.

With a name like 'Rightwing' it would be strange for you to have any other position.

That's ridiculous.

At least the homosexuals are capable of making an argument in their favour, whether they are misguided or not is another question.

You on the otherhand are getting caught up on people's usernames, the most basic mistake of all.

K4t

Rightwing wrote: »

At least the homosexuals are capable of making an argument in their favour, whether they are misguided or not is another question.

Can you explain what you mean by this? I'm genuinely perplexed.

WoolyJumper

Rightwing wrote: »

That's ridiculous.

At least the homosexuals are capable of making an argument in their favour, whether they are misguided or not is another question.

You on the otherhand are getting caught up on people's usernames, the most basic mistake of all.

Don't worry, we're not misguided

Rightwing

K4t wrote: »

Can you explain what you mean by this? I'm genuinely perplexed.

Let's take you as an example. You are championing the cause of human rights. now I think you are gone off on a tangent, but at least it can be interpreted as a point/cause. The other poster is forming opinions on usernames. Doesn't lead to good debate imo.

Zen65

Rightwing wrote: »

You on the otherhand are getting caught up on people's usernames, the most basic mistake of all.

You chose your own username, and used a name that suggests you identify with politically right-wing views. Then you express a view that is very much from the conservative far-right. So I'm saying, it's no surprise, in fact it would be surprising for you to express any other view.

I'm not caught up on it at all, I'm merely pointing out that it is not surprising.

Zen65

Rightwing wrote: »

At least the homosexuals are capable of making an argument in their favour, whether they are misguided or not is another question.

Do you think that 'the homosexuals' are misguided in arguing for SSM?

Rightwing

Zen65 wrote: »

You chose your own username, and used a name that suggests you identify with politically right-wing views. Then you express a view that is very much from the conservative far-right. So I'm saying, it's no surprise, in fact it would be surprising for you to express any other view.

I'm not caught up on it at all, I'm merely pointing out that it is not surprising.

My name is more to do with sports than politics. The No. 14 jersey in rugby.

K4t

Rightwing wrote: »

Let's take you as an example. You are championing the cause of human rights. now I think you are gone off on a tangent, but at least it can be interpreted as a point/cause. The other poster is forming opinions on usernames. Doesn't lead to good debate imo.

Cool. It's not a tangent though. There are one or two self confessed yes voters who have attempted to portray me and my arguments in a negative light for what I can only assume is their own private pleasure and possible agenda. I enjoyed arguing with you yesterday but I think you're a bit obsessed with the whole homosexuality aspect of the debate; same sex marriage will allow same sex couples to marry; it won't give homosexuals any more rights than you or I and it won't change the institution of marriage, nor will it affect man woman marriages. You said yesterday you are not "enamoured with homosexuals", well me neither! But I still know that equality is right so I'm voting yes!

Rightwing

K4t wrote: »

Cool. It's not a tangent though. There are one or two self confessed yes voters who have attempted to portray me and my arguments in a negative light for what I can only assume is their own private pleasure and possible agenda. I enjoyed arguing with you yesterday but I think you're a bit obsessed with the whole homosexuality aspect of the debate; same sex marriage will allow same sex couples to marry; it won't give homosexuals any more rights than you or I and it won't change the institution of marriage, nor will it affect man woman marriages. You said yesterday you are not "enamoured with homosexuals", well me neither! But I still know that equality is right so I'm voting yes!

I respect your opinions and would classify you as having a genuine concern on the matter.

Zen65

B0jangles wrote: »

I was just in Lidl and saw something absolutely shocking.



:eek::eek::eek:

Shocking indeed. Why would anybody put fresh lemons into a freezer?

Annasopra

B0jangles wrote: »

I was just in Lidl and saw something absolutely shocking.



:eek::eek::eek:

Polygamous lemons trying to mate with fancies?

aloyisious

For info, PDF format version of Children and Family Relationship Bill released by Gov't today. When/if you open the link below, click on this 2nd (blue-ink) line down on it - Children and Family Relationships Bill 2015 as initiated (in PDF format). The bill-document is 109 A4 pages long.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?fn=/documents/bills28/bills/2015/1415/b1415d.pdf

Source of info - Breaking News.ie - http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/govt-publishes-wide-ranging-child-and-family-relationship-bill-662902.html

Zubeneschamali

aloyisious wrote: »

The bill-document is 109 A4 pages long.

I think I'll wait for the movie.

Annasopra

I'll be voting Yes on Harvey Milk day.

AlanS181824

22nd of May has been the date set by An Taoiseach for this.

Can't wait for Ireland to make history

Glass Prison 1214

AlanS181824 wrote: »

22nd of May has been the date set by An Taoiseach for this.

Can't wait for Ireland to make history

Thats good news I reckon as its after, rather than during college exams. Which should have a positive effect on the turnout of college students.

walshyn93

Glass Prison 1214 wrote: »

Thats good news I reckon as its after, rather than during college exams. Which should have a positive effect on the turnout of college students.

Many students will have left the country by then. Post exam holidays and J1s.

MOD: User banned for ignoring mod warning.

dizzy23

il be voting yes

AlanS181824

AlanS181824 wrote: »

22nd of May has been the date set by An Taoiseach for this.

Can't wait for Ireland to make history

Damn, was hoping for the 8th or the 15th. I'm supposed to be going to the UK for a few nights on the 21st. I know my one vote is unlikely to have much effect but I still want to be able to play my part and in 20 years time look back and say I (hopefully) helped same sex marriage happen in Ireland.

Oh well, time to go looking at the expense involved in changing flights, I guess...

rainbow kirby

My wedding is the day after the referendum...

Zubeneschamali

Panti on Facebook:

So the marriage equality referendum will be May 22nd, the day before Eurovision, which means the count/result will be on the same day as Eurovision, which means May 23rd has the potential to be so gay that the Earth's orbit is effected.

efb

Yes! And again thank you to all the people voting yes, even though it doesn't personally affect them

Bannasidhe

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Panti on Facebook:

So the marriage equality referendum will be May 22nd, the day before Eurovision, which means the count/result will be on the same day as Eurovision, which means May 23rd has the potential to be so gay that the Earth's orbit is effected.

Indeed.

Panic broke out across my newsfeed last night as the Eurovision junkies were tearing their hair out over having to change their travel plans.

Wonder if travel insurance companies will accept Eurovision clashing with Referendum as a valid reason to pay out to several hundred gay men :pac:

Perhaps the date was a cunning plan by secret anti-SSM agents who decided the day before Gayvision was the perfect time....

Rightwing

Rightwing wrote: »

So, if you don't like FF and vote against them you are discriminating against them, eh ?

I suppose that would depend - are you voting against them because you do not like their political policies - or you do not like them personally?

Would you be voting against SSM because you have some issue with SSM - or you have some issue with homosexuals?

If the former - it would be interesting to know what your issue actually is.

If the latter - as indicated it possibly is in your second post on this thread - then yes this does say more about you than anything else - and the word discrimination would be correctly applied.

Rightwing wrote: »

I'm not homophobic, rather I just don't want to see this thing get out of hand altogether. Next thing is it'll almost be a requirement to be gay to progress.

For someone who wrote "Hypothetical Q. Thereby rendering it useless." you seem to be happy to throw out fantastical hypothetical scenarios based on nothing at all - when it suits you.

Zubeneschamali

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Perhaps the date was a cunning plan by secret anti-SSM agents who decided the day before Gayvision was the perfect time....

...or perhaps the Yes side were trying to ensure Keith Mills didn't get to vote No :pac:

floggg

Gunney wrote: »

Two complementary human beings, the complimentary part being the gender difference.

Marriage involves two different things - in humans two different sexes, in cooking two different foods.

How and why are they complimentary and why is that necessary for marriage. It can't be just because you say so - there must be some objective and observable way in which both genders (as a rule) compliment each other, and which constitutes an essential pre-requisite for marriage.

So what is it exactly?

It can't be just genitalia, because that seems a pretty arbitrary distinction and not one which the state could maintain. Simply having mismatched genitals doesn't achieve anything of its self, and is not something which is worthy of state recognition in its own right.

It can't be procreation, because plenty of married heterosexuals cannot procreate or simply do not want to (and so cannot be said to be 'open to the possibility of procreation, which is a phrase commonly bandied about.

It can't be any appeal to nature or natural order, since homosexuality is a natural phenomenon, whereas marriage isn't. So two men (natural) spending the rest of their lives together (natural) is far more natural than the idea of a man and a woman standing in a building (not-natural) exchanging vows (not natural) and writing (not natural) their names (not natural) on a piece of paper (not natural) in order to enter into legally (not natural) binding covenants (not natural) which are recognised and enforced by the state (not natural).

What qualities do all women and all men lack that so compliment each other, and cannot be replicated or mirrored in a relationship between two men or two women?

Since you are so sure of its existence, I'm sure you can easily explain it.

floggg

K4t wrote: »

Cool. It's not a tangent though. There are one or two self confessed yes voters who have attempted to portray me and my arguments in a negative light for what I can only assume is their own private pleasure and possible agenda. I enjoyed arguing with you yesterday but I think you're a bit obsessed with the whole homosexuality aspect of the debate; same sex marriage will allow same sex couples to marry; it won't give homosexuals any more rights than you or I and it won't change the institution of marriage, nor will it affect man woman marriages. You said yesterday you are not "enamoured with homosexuals", well me neither! But I still know that equality is right so I'm voting yes!

If you are referring to me, you said something I thought to be kind of silly - and harmful to a yes vote.

It gives me no pleasure at all, and I have no agenda. The fact we agree on the substantive issue doesnt mean I have to accept everything you say.

Gunslinger92

Glass Prison 1214 wrote: »

Thats good news I reckon as its after, rather than during college exams. Which should have a positive effect on the turnout of college students.

DCU exams aren't finishing til the 23rd though, so there's a potential problem for those students. There's a campaign started though to not have any exams held on the 22nd. Not sure how that will pan out!