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

floggg

WoolyJumper wrote: »

Try being in a position where you are denied your rights, i eluded to this a few posts ago but it gets tiresome hearing every mother and her son have an opinion on my life, my ability to love, what i am and am not entitled to, my ability to form a relationship, my effect on marriage. No matter how ludicrous and far from reality these opinions are it was decided that in the name of fairness all opinions hold equal weight. So yeah some people here are boiling with anger and I dont blame them.

Something i've noticed about the no side is the complete lack of ability to put yourself in another's shoes and see how you would feel in there position. We are talking about real peoples lives here and not some philosophical discussion.

Reminds of the US Senate Rob Portman.

He was staunchly opposed to marry ah e equakity until his son came out and he changed his stance.

When asked why he now supported marriage equality, he responded by saying that when his son came out he began to try and put himself in shoes and consider the argument from his sons perspective.

Which caused many to ask, as a politician entrusted to make decisions in the best interest of all constituents, why the he'll had he never tried to consider the argument from the opposite perspective before hand. Surely it should be a pre-requisite before taking any decision which would affect people's lives.

floggg

reprise wrote: »

Not neccessarily. They do rule against states laws, such as Irelands laws on homosexuality (see Norris vs Ireland). The judgements are not binding per se, but normally treated as such.

See my edit. Yes, the ECHR does defer to member states on "moral" issues in the manner I suggested.

While that doesn't stop it declaring laws incompatible with the Convention, it does mean that it will give Member States varying degrees of leeway on moral social issues.

I will read the judgement you cited though when I can and assess it.

jobbridge4life

reprise wrote: »

Appeal to emotion?

This thread should be donated to anyone researching logical fallacies.

Please do point out some examples you feel would be of particular interest to them.

Meanwhile as shruikan2553 hilariously highlighted this gem is particularly entertaining...

How could anyone not understand how marriage is for procreation unless you are straight

reprise

sup_dude wrote: »

This is what I mean. Making random statements without offering an explanation

You may not know this, but the posts go up sequentially with no hard coded intelligence as to who is addressing who. Once you crack this, it might start making sense.

reprise

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Please do point out some examples you feel would be of particular interest to them.

Meanwhile as shruikan2553 hilariously highlighted this gem is particularly entertaining...

How could anyone not understand how marriage is for procreation unless you are straight

You were doing a fine job of trying to claim a right that actually didn't exist.

I'm torn between logical fallacy and delusional.

Ave Sodalis

reprise wrote: »

You may not know this, but the posts go up sequentially with no hard coded intelligence as to who is addressing who. Once you crack this, it might start making sense.

You may not know this, but I was making an example, in case you didn't know what I meant with my previous posts. How and ever, it's worth pointing out that you're on a public forum where your posts are open for disection by anyone so it's probably a good idea to have less of the smarmy comments as it's making your already weak case even weaker

reprise

sup_dude wrote: »

You may not know this, but I was making an example, in case you didn't know what I meant with my previous posts. How and ever, it's worth pointing out that you're on a public forum where your posts are open for disection by anyone so it's probably a good idea to have less of the smarmy comments as it's making your already weak case even weaker

Get something straight. I am not advocating a side. I am quite happy to go with whatever result comes from this referendum.

And it is a public forum, where numerous yes posters pouncing on every single post that isn't screaming yes, and slavishly thanking each other, no matter how absurd the post, doesn't go unnoticed.

If you are happy to discuss the referendum, so am I.

Ave Sodalis

reprise wrote: »

Get something straight. I am not advocating a side. I am quite happy to go with whatever result comes from this referendum.

And it is a public forum, where numerous yes posters pouncing on every single post that isn't screaming yes, and slavishly thanking each other, no matter how absurd the post, doesn't go unnoticed.

If you are happy to discuss the referendum, so am I.

I have been more than happy to discuss the referendum since the start of the thread. There was even an attempt to discuss it with you but making statements that you dont back up is not a discussion and you can't pretend you even tried to discuss the referendum.
Also, the only "pouncing" that was done was with posts that didn't make sense or made random statements without explanation. Unfortunately, that was all of your posts so if you actually attempted to justify your posts, then you wouldn't feel so attacked. However, you can't state something, not back it up and then expect people to sit there and accept it.

reprise

sup_dude wrote: »

I have been more than happy to discuss the referendum since the start of the thread. There was even an attempt to discuss it with you but making statements that you dont back up is not a discussion and you can't pretend you even tried to discuss the referendum.
Also, the only "pouncing" that was done was with posts that didn't make sense or made random statements without explanation. Unfortunately, that was all of your posts so if you actually attempted to justify your posts, then you wouldn't feel so attacked. However, you can't state something, not back it up and then expect people to sit there and accept it.

It is for the Yes side to justify a change in law here not the No. When you are looking for change in work, in society, in life, the default switch is normally no. Believe it or not, there isn't enough gay people to carry the vote on their own. You need to convince the voters to get up off their arses and vote Yes.

I am completely underwhelmed by the Yes side. I can't believe how weak your arguments have been. The abuse and vitriol meted out to the precious few who dare oppose you is scandalous and completely undermining your goal.

If you want to debate the issue and pick me up on something you misunderstood, please feel free to do so. Vaguely referring to posts I made is disingenuous.

shruikan2553

reprise wrote: »

It is for the Yes side to justify a change in law here not the No. When you are looking for change in work, in society, in life, the default switch is normally no. Believe it or not, there isn't enough gay people to carry the vote on their own. You need to convince the voters to get up off their arses and vote Yes.

I am completely underwhelmed by the Yes side. I can't believe how weak your arguments have been. The abuse and vitriol meted out to the precious few who dare oppose you is scandalous and completely undermining your goal.

If you want to debate the issue and pick me up on something you misunderstood, please feel free to do so. Vaguely referring to posts I made is disingenuous.

Seriously? You mean the side that hasnt come up with an argument that cant be proven wrong except for "its what I believe" are the ones with a strong argument?

The people who claim that being gay is an illness or treats gay people as second class citizens arent the abusive ones?

marienbad

reprise wrote: »

It is for the Yes side to justify a change in law here not the No. When you are looking for change in work, in society, in life, the default switch is normally no. Believe it or not, there isn't enough gay people to carry the vote on their own. You need to convince the voters to get up off their arses and vote Yes.

I am completely underwhelmed by the Yes side. I can't believe how weak your arguments have been. The abuse and vitriol meted out to the precious few who dare oppose you is scandalous and completely undermining your goal.

If you want to debate the issue and pick me up on something you misunderstood, please feel free to do so. Vaguely referring to posts I made is disingenuous.

Is not extending equality a strong enough argument ?

Zubeneschamali

reprise wrote: »

You were doing a fine job of trying to claim a right that actually didn't exist.

Same sex couples absolutely do have a right to marry. It follows from the fact that discrimination on the basis of sexual preference is wrong.

That's why a majority of people, a majority of them straight, will vote to allow SSM here in May.

We recognize that right.

reprise

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Same sex couples absolutely do have a right to marry. It follows from the fact that discrimination on the basis of sexual preference is wrong.

That's why a majority of people, a majority of them straight, will vote to allow SSM here in May.

We recognize that right.

There is no right to same sex marriage in Ireland and the European courts have rejected the argument that this is a result of discrimination.

reprise

marienbad wrote: »

Is not extending equality a strong enough argument ?

It is, but be mindful that the European Courts were satisfied that civil partnership settled that aspect of the claim.

reprise

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Seriously? You mean the side that hasnt come up with an argument that cant be proven wrong except for "its what I believe" are the ones with a strong argument?

Do you just not want to win? Deal with the people who might vote yes.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

The people who claim that being gay is an illness or treats gay people as second class citizens arent the abusive ones?

They are not worth your time.

floggg

reprise wrote: »

You were doing a fine job of trying to claim a right that actually didn't exist.

I'm torn between logical fallacy and delusional.

I see you have dodged various questions about rights which were previously unrecognised.

For example, did slaves have a right I Liberty?

You stance that a right doesn't exist until its recognised by law is also at odds with the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court which frequently strikes down laws for failure to recognise unenumerated rights.

If they didn't exist, how could they be recognised?

reprise

floggg wrote: »

I see you have dodged various questions about rights which were previously unrecognised.

For example, did slaves have a right I Liberty?

You stance that a right doesn't exist until its recognised by law is also at odds with the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court which frequently strikes down laws for failure to recognise unenumerated rights.

If they didn't exist, how could they be recognised?

I don't quite follow.

Can you give an example of a court striking down a law in conflict with a "unenumerated right".

Zubeneschamali

reprise wrote: »

There is no right to same sex marriage in Ireland

The Irish legal and political system does not recognize and vindicate the right to same sex marriage in Ireland. But it will.

As the language tells you: we are not creating a right, we are not deciding to allow same sex couples to have a new right - we are recognizing something that is there right now. I recognize it already. It has always been here.

reprise

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The Irish legal and political system does not recognize and vindicate the right to same sex marriage in Ireland. But it will.

As the language tells you: we are not creating a right, we are not deciding to allow same sex couples to have a new right - we are recognizing something that is there right now. I recognize it already. It has always been here.

What language?

marienbad

reprise wrote: »

It is, but be mindful that the European Courts were satisfied that civil partnership settled that aspect of the claim.

The European Court isn't everything . Do you agree it would make Gay couples equal to straight couples ?

reprise

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You don't appear to have any desire to debate the issue though. You just lazily file everything said to you as a logical fallacy, even while making arguments that could easily be described as mere appeals to tradition.

I made one example of logical fallacy on a post that was unnecessarily whimsical. I am not forensically examining each post.

reprise

marienbad wrote: »

The European Court isn't everything .

It is the last word on human rights and not afraid to walk on anyone's toes.

marienbad wrote: »

Do you agree it would make Gay couples equal to straight couples ?

Civil partnership or marraige?

marienbad

reprise wrote: »

It is the last word on human rights and not afraid to walk on anyone's toes.



Civil partnership or marraige?

Marriage

K4t

reprise wrote: »

Believe it or not, there isn't enough gay people to carry the vote on their own.

That's not something anybody should be proud of.

I am completely underwhelmed by the Yes side. I can't believe how weak your arguments have been.

Extending a right to humans that other humans already have is never a weak argument. That you think it is says everything anyone needs to know about your arguments.

Annasopra

reprise wrote: »

It is, but be mindful that the European Courts were satisfied that civil partnership settled that aspect of the claim.

No. The European Court of Human Rights has not looked at this in Ireland.


In addition to that civil partnership is not equality. It does not offer the protection the Constitution affords to marriage and family life.

reprise

marienbad wrote: »

Marriage

I'm not sure. I struggle to understand what it achieves that civil partnertship hasn't for example.

Annasopra

reprise wrote: »

I'm not sure. I struggle to understand what it achieves that civil partnertship hasn't for example.

Civil Partnerships are not afforded the same constitutional protections as marriages.

reprise

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No. The European Court of Human Rights has not looked at this in Ireland.

So what. Case law and precedent prevail either way. Same sex marriage is illegal, we offer civil partnership. What makes us so special?

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

In addition to that civil partnership is not equality. It does not offer the protection the Constitution affords to marriage and family life.

Such as what?

marienbad

reprise wrote: »

I'm not sure. I struggle to understand what it achieves that civil partnertship hasn't for example.

Are you familiar with the 'separate but equal' case law in the USA on segregated education in 50's and 60's ?

This is a somewhat similar scenario whereby we have separate institutions for different classes of citizens .

The Supreme Court ruled that even with the best of intentions it was impossible to have equality as you were creating a separate caste which was inherently inferior.

It is not so much what Civil Partnership achieves - it should be enough that it raises a distinction . When I get on a train I don't want to be told that because I am xy or z I have to use a different carriage ,even if that carriage is exactly the same as every other one .

reprise

marienbad wrote: »

Are you familiar with the 'separate but equal' case law in the USA on segregated education in 50's and 60's ?

This is a somewhat similar scenario whereby we have separate institutions for different classes of citizens .

The Supreme Court ruled that even with the best of intentions it was impossible to have equality as you were creating a separate caste which was inherently inferior.

It is not so much what Civil Partnership achieves - it should be enough that it raises a distinction . When I get on a train I don't want to be told that because I am xy or z I have to use a different carriage ,even if that carriage is exactly the same as every other one .

With respect, I find virtually all of the analogies unhelpful, especially at a time when the courts have been adjudicating on the specific issue to hand.