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

StewartGriffin

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you would describe 1951 as the latter half of the twentieth century? :rolleyes:

er....yeah.

Maximus Alexander

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you would describe 1951 as the latter half of the twentieth century? :rolleyes:

You wouldn't?

ohnonotgmail

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

You wouldn't?

its the middle of the 20th century. it was quite clear what the poster meant when he said latter half. But well done on derailing the thread again.

StewartGriffin

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

its the middle of the 20th century. it was quite clear what the poster meant when he said latter half. But well done on derailing the thread again.

Now, now, I was questioning Dan about Ireland being back in the latter half of the 20th century regarding SSM. You're the one who decided to be smart and make rolly-eyes at me for an error that was all your own. Then accuse another of derailing the thread.:P

ohnonotgmail

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Now, now, I was questioning Dan about Ireland being back in the latter half of the 20th century regarding SSM. You're the one who decided to be smart and make rolly-eyes at me for an error that was all your own. Then accuse another of derailing the thread.:P

jog on. you have nothing constructive to add here.

Maximus Alexander

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

its the middle of the 20th century. it was quite clear what the poster meant when he said latter half. But well done on derailing the thread again.

'Latter half' is completely unambiguous. Words mean things, and what that means isn't open to interpretation.

Regardless - who had SSM in any part of the 20th century?

StewartGriffin

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

jog on. you have nothing constructive to add here.

Sweet. Jog on. Your debating skills are dazzling this morning.

Matched only by your blinding intellect.:)

kylith

1951 is the latter half of the 20th century the same way that 26 is your 'late 20s'. Technically correct, but not generally used in that way. Also, totally beside the point.

Maximus Alexander

kylith wrote: »

1951 is the latter half of the 20th century the same way that 26 is your 'late 20s'. Technically correct, but not generally used in that way. Also, totally beside the point.

Not quite, 'late 20s' is ambiguous. The 'latter half' of your 20s is not.

humanji

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

jog on. you have nothing constructive to add here.

StewartGriffin wrote: »

Sweet. Jog on. Your debating skills are dazzling this morning.

Matched only by your blinding intellect.:)

MOD: Give it a rest you two. There's enough petty bickering as it is in this thread, so there's no reason to add to it.

Bannasidhe

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Words mean things, and what that means isn't open to interpretation.

*cough* marriage *cough*

Baggy Trousers

Fergus Finlay (CEO Barnardos) was very impressive on Newstalk this morning when talking about the Marriage Referendum.
He was clear and concise and made a huge amount of sense. I hope he gets more airtime on this issue because he is very fair and very clever.
He was disgusted by how some No groups were trying to move the goalposts but he did make one good comment: For child welfare, it is never ever about the nature of the parent, it is always about the quality of the parenting.

Zen65

PopePalpatine wrote: »

When you're faced with this sort of bullshit, sometimes there's a limit as to how far you can stretch your patience.

What the heck is that? Who published it?

Maximus Alexander

Bannasidhe wrote: »

*cough* marriage *cough*

Hah! Marriage is a word that has always had a fairly broad meaning though.

Bannasidhe

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Hah! Marriage is a word that has always had a fairly broad meaning though.

In your opinion...



:pac:

kitten_k

"Gay people who want to marry have no desire to redefine marriage in any way. When women got the right to vote, they did not redefine voting. When the African-Americans got the right to sit at a lunch counter, alongside white people, they did not redefine eating out. They were simply invited to the table." - Cynthia Nixon

Maximus Alexander

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In your opinion...



:pac:

It's not a matter of opinion. :P

crestglan

Marriage to me always meant two people sharing their lives together does it matter who that's with? once they love each other

Bannasidhe

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

It's not a matter of opinion. :P

*furiously trawls internet for definitions of marriage that state it has one meaning and one meaning only*

:cool:

pwurple

yvo8hzxb9fku3e wrote: »

I started off as a yes voter but would now describe myself as a soft yes. The behaviour of many on the yes side to resort to bullying and name calling is really putting me off. Respectful debate is in short supply. If this goes through it will be because the majority agreed to it. The yes side seem to think it's some sort of war or something and the thoughts of them celebrating a "victory" is offputting. The older generations are in the No camp (many of them anyways) and don't need to be told they're bigots etc. A campaign appealing to them rather than bullying them would be far more effective

I hear yeah. People will distance themselves from thuggery. Same as what happened with Irish Water.

I know people who were previously wearing "Je Suis Charlie" t-shirts championing free speech, who are now tearing down posters and burning them, and hurling abuse at people putting them up, because the slogans offend them.

I don't know how they can reconcile the two. Is potentially offensive free speech ok, or is it not.

ohnonotgmail

pwurple wrote: »

I hear yeah. People will distance themselves from thuggery. Same as what happened with Irish Water.

I know people who were previously wearing "Je Suis Charlie" t-shirts championing free speech, who are now tearing down posters and burning them, and hurling abuse at people putting them up, because the slogans offend them.

I don't know how they can reconcile the two. Is potentially offensive free speech ok, or is it not.

or you could just vote on the issue at hand and ignore both campaigns.

Maximus Alexander

pwurple wrote: »

I know people who were previously wearing "Je Suis Charlie" t-shirts championing free speech, who are now tearing down posters and burning them, and hurling abuse at people putting them up, because the slogans offend them.

I don't know how they can reconcile the two. Is potentially offensive free speech ok, or is it not.

I don't think this is a reasonable comparison at all. They're (allegedly) tearing down posters, not gunning down the people who put them up.

Trudiha

pwurple wrote: »

I hear yeah. People will distance themselves from thuggery. Same as what happened with Irish Water.

I know people who were previously wearing "Je Suis Charlie" t-shirts championing free speech, who are now tearing down posters and burning them, and hurling abuse at people putting them up, because the slogans offend them.

I don't know how they can reconcile the two. Is potentially offensive free speech ok, or is it not.

There are always limits on free speech, you aren't allowed to shout 'fire' in a crowded auditorium for example, there are people who don't hold with misleading the electorate and even those who take the 8th Commandment seriously.

Personally, I think that the posters are an absolute gift to equal marriage supporters, probably more so than any pro-equal marriage poster I've seen. I think it's a shame to take them down but that doesn't make anyone doing it a thug, just a bit misguided.

20Cent

pwurple wrote: »

I hear yeah. People will distance themselves from thuggery. Same as what happened with Irish Water.

<b> I know people who were previously wearing "Je Suis Charlie" t-shirts championing free speech, who are now tearing down posters and burning them, and hurling abuse at people putting them up, because the slogans offend them.</b>

I don't know how they can reconcile the two. Is potentially offensive free speech ok, or is it not.

No you don't.

Shrap

Well I just had a lovely moment in parking the heavily decorated rear-end of my car facing my local councillor (who had a major run-in with me when he was looking for my vote in the local elections and turned out to be not in favour of SSM) and a large team of blokes doing some village stuff, who all said hello and had a good read of my car-posters

"Marriage is defined by commitment not gender" and a nicely blinged up "vote yes", plus my treasured "I'm on team Panti" sticker. I expect to have a fair few conversations about them in the coming weeks, wherever I park.

aloyisious

VinLieger wrote: »

Before i listen will you please tell me am I gonna be infuriated by lies upon lies being spouted by breda as per the norm? And how effective is noels rebuttal of said lies, does he call her out and completely destroy them? I ask as I simply cannot listen to another iona rep and bigot spouting ****e and not being properly called on it

Sorry, should have put health NSFW with the link. I cannot lie, there will be lies. Have you had to take to your bed?

aloyisious

I heard a snippet this morning that the parents of the child on the face of the NO campaign posters did not give it permission to use the photo, which was apparently taken for another use by persons other than the NO campaign. I await developments if the snippet is true and if the parents might request the ceasing of use of their daughter's image by the NO campaign before the referendum is voted on.

Ozymandius2011

aloyisious wrote: »

I heard a snippet this morning that the parents of the child on the face of the NO campaign posters did not give it permission to use the photo, which was apparently taken for another use by persons other than the NO campaign. I await developments if the snippet is true and if the parents might request the ceasing of use of their daughter's image by the NO campaign before the referendum is voted on.

Source? This could turn into a defining moment of the campaign.

I assume you mean the ones of the parents kissing the child?

frostyjacks

aloyisious wrote: »

I heard a snippet this morning that the parents of the child on the face of the NO campaign posters did not give it permission to use the photo, which was apparently taken for another use by persons other than the NO campaign. I await developments if the snippet is true and if the parents might request the ceasing of use of their daughter's image by the NO campaign before the referendum is voted on.

Wow. I guess I'll have to vote yes now.

Smiley92a

pwurple wrote: »

I hear yeah. People will distance themselves from thuggery. Same as what happened with Irish Water.

I know people who were previously wearing "Je Suis Charlie" t-shirts championing free speech, who are now tearing down posters and burning them, and hurling abuse at people putting them up, because the slogans offend them.

I don't know how they can reconcile the two. Is potentially offensive free speech ok, or is it not.

The French themselves never had that problem. The bodies were barely cold before they were jailing comedians (I can't post a link yet, I'm talking about Dieudonné, though he wasn't the only one)

And 'freedom of speech' has nothing to do with the way people react to you. All it guarantees is that the state won't punish you for saying something. How actual people react to it is between you and them, and the no side have not gotten a good reaction. It's not a handful of 'thugs' stripping whole streets bare, it's normal people who have rejected the lies being put out by these mysteriously-funded lobby groups masquerading as charities.