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

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

1…7778808283…325

Comments

  • #2372
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    I can try but I might not keep it for long :pac:

    Yes. They can enjoy all the pretending they want but when it comes down to it they wont be legally married and be unable to avail of anything married couples can.

    This is what we brought Civil Partnership in for.
    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Not being discriminated against due to religion, race, gender or sexuality.

    Here's a link. This is for Irish law but Im sure its similar in other countries
    http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/Equality_FAQ

    Marriage, as currently defined, with prevailing restrictions, is legal in Ireland and not considered discriminatory in domestic or European law.


  • #2373
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    reprise wrote: »
    This is what we brought Civil Partnership in for.



    Marriage, as currently defined, with prevailing restrictions, is legal in Ireland and not considered discriminatory in domestic or European law.

    as far as I know Europe did not say that , rather it was not in their competency .

    But so what anyway - Civil Partnership is not equal so why not grant ssm ?

    It affects no one other than those directly involved.


  • #2374
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    reprise wrote: »
    This is what we brought Civil Partnership in for.

    Which isnt marriage. Does this need to be explained to you again or do you understand they arent the same?
    reprise wrote: »
    Marriage, as currently defined, with prevailing restrictions, is legal in Ireland and not considered discriminatory in domestic or European law.

    Where is marriage defined?

    EU have said it is up for countries to decide. A heterosexual couple can marry, a homosexual couple cant. There has been no reason found to deny this so currently the homosexual couple is being denied the ability to marry based on their sexuality alone.

    Is treating someone different for no reason other than their sexuality equal? No.


  • #2375
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Which isnt marriage. Does this need to be explained to you again or do you understand they arent the same?

    I didn't accept the explanation. I am not alone. The European courts also felt they were acceptable.
    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Where is marriage defined?

    In law?
    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    EU have said it is up for countries to decide. A heterosexual couple can marry, a homosexual couple cant. There has been no reason found to deny this so currently the homosexual couple is being denied the ability to marry based on their sexuality alone.

    Is treating someone different for no reason other than their sexuality equal? No.

    Not how the courts saw it and we have already talked about the other parties disbarred from marriage where everyone agrees, distinctions apply.


  • #2376
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    marienbad wrote: »
    as far as I know Europe did not say that , rather it was not in their competency .

    They said they found no case for illegality or discrimination.
    marienbad wrote: »
    But so what anyway - Civil Partnership is not equal so why not grant ssm ?

    Why not make Civil Partnership equal and stop making such a big deal about it? Hows about a little bit of live and let live.
    marienbad wrote: »
    It affects no one other than those directly involved.

    Could be said for family, underage, etc etc


  • Advertisement
  • #2377
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    Hows about a little bit of live and let live.

    That's what essentially the yes side are asking people to do...


  • #2378
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    reprise wrote: »
    They said they found no case for illegality or discrimination.



    Why not make Civil Partnership equal and stop making such a big deal about it? Hows about a little bit of live and let live.



    Could be said for family, underage, etc etc

    -Not so, they said it is not yet in their competency , they even have a phrase for that kind of thing .

    -Exactly live and let live ! if it cost you nothing and you don't have to avail of it why not give ssm to those that want it.

    - you will have to expand on 'family, underage, etc etc' as I don't get your point


  • #2379
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    reprise wrote: »
    I didn't accept the explanation. I am not alone. The European courts also felt they were acceptable.

    You dont accept that civil partnership and marriage are different?
    reprise wrote: »
    In law?

    Where is marriage defined in law?
    reprise wrote: »
    Not how the courts saw it and we have already talked about the other parties disbarred from marriage where everyone agrees, distinctions apply.

    Distinctions apply, none exist for homosexual couples.


  • #2380
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    marienbad wrote: »
    -Not so, they said it is not yet in their competency , they even have a phrase for that kind of thing .

    You are cherry picking, we can go through the judgements if you like.
    marienbad wrote: »
    -Exactly live and let live ! if it cost you nothing and you don't have to avail of it why not give ssm to those that want it.

    Why is everyone running from the civil partnership expansion suggestion?
    marienbad wrote: »
    - you will have to expand on 'family, underage, etc etc' as I don't get your point

    Allow family members to marry each other etc


  • #2381
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    You dont accept that civil partnership and marriage are different?

    Not fundamentally, no.
    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Where is marriage defined in law?

    Google it or make your point.
    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Distinctions apply, none exist for homosexual couples.

    Since when?


  • Advertisement
  • #2382
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    reprise wrote: »
    Not fundamentally, no.

    "fundamentally"

    Do they differ or not?
    reprise wrote: »
    Google it or make your point.

    It isnt defined in law then.
    reprise wrote: »
    Since when?

    For as long as people could be gay?


  • #2383
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    "fundamentally"

    Do they differ or not?

    Not significantly, no.
    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    It isnt defined in law then.

    If you say so. Was that your point?
    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    For as long as people could be gay?

    Is it elective?


  • #2384
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    reprise wrote: »
    You are cherry picking, we can go through the judgements if you like.



    Why is everyone running from the civil partnership expansion suggestion?



    Allow family members to marry each other etc

    As far as I know the ruling was it is not in their competency , and the interpretation put on that is that it will be in the near future when it reaches critical mass across Europe. But it really is not that important - lets not be last yet again to grant another piece of autonomy to people over their own lives .

    Why expand Civil Partnership ? Are you suggesting eliminating marriage or what ? And if not why have two labels for the same thing - separate but equal and all that.


    Why should we restrict freedom to one group because another group may have a case ? You don't feed no one because you can't feed everyone .
    Furthermore there has been endless debate on ssm all over the western world , we know all the ins and outs of it. There has been none on family members and there are health and control/ coercion issues .


  • #2385
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    reprise wrote: »
    Not significantly, no.Yes

    I suppose that's the closest to a yes anyone will get from you.

    There we go, was that really so hard?
    reprise wrote: »
    If you say so. Was that your point?

    You mentioned definition of marriage, I asked what it was. You had no idea.
    reprise wrote: »
    Is it elective?

    Is what elective?


  • #2386
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    I suppose that's the closest to a yes anyone will get from you.
    There we go, was that really so hard?

    Was what hard? twisting words?

    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    You mentioned definition of marriage, I asked what it was. You had no idea.

    If you don't how marriage is currently defined, you should go educate yourself before making a fool of yourself here.
    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Is what elective?

    Being homosexual.


  • #2387
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    marienbad wrote: »
    As far as I know the ruling was it is not in their competency , and the interpretation put on that is that it will be in the near future when it reaches critical mass across Europe.

    They very specifically mentioned that, as no more than a possibility, in cases where there was no civil partnership provisions. They were adamant that marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman in human rights, whatever about the power to amend.
    marienbad wrote: »
    But it really is not that important - lets not be last yet again to grant another piece of autonomy to people over their own lives .

    Why expand Civil Partnership ? Are you suggesting eliminating marriage or what ? And if not why have two labels for the same thing - separate but equal and all that.

    I am asking what rights are not available under civil partnership and no-one seems to want to reply with anything substantive. Equality does not mean the same and "seperate but not equal" is little more than empty rhetoric.
    marienbad wrote: »
    Why should we restrict freedom to one group because another group may have a case ? You don't feed no one because you can't feed everyone .
    Furthermore there has been endless debate on ssm all over the western world , we know all the ins and outs of it. There has been none on family members and there are health and control/ coercion issues .

    I don't quite know what you are talking about here. Rephrase?


  • #2388
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    reprise wrote: »
    Was what hard? twisting words?

    How am I twisting your words? You said:
    Not significantly, no

    If there are no differences why not just say no?

    reprise wrote: »
    If you don't how marriage is currently defined, you should go educate yourself before making a fool of yourself here.

    Marriage is defined a lot of different ways, you were asked for where it turned up in Irish law as it is definitely not in the constitution. I found it in The Civil Registration Act but seeing as you struggle with the differences between civil partnerships and marriage when its put in front of you I wouldnt hold much hope in you actually knowing it was there.
    reprise wrote: »
    Being homosexual.

    As much as being straight is.


  • #2389
    Littlekittylou
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,357 ✭✭✭Littlekittylou


    I'm voting yes I am bi but beyond that it is the right thing to do.


  • #2390
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Marriage is defined a lot of different ways, you were asked for where it turned up in Irish law as it is definitely not in the constitution. I found it in The Civil Registration Act but seeing as you struggle with the differences between civil partnerships and marriage when its put in front of you I wouldnt hold much hope in you actually knowing it was there.

    Breaking news. I'm not arguing for a yes vote, it's not for me to do the running here and babysit you or anyone else through the arguments for change.


  • #2391
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    reprise wrote: »
    They very specifically mentioned that, as no more than a possibility, in cases where there was no civil partnership provisions. They were adamant that marriage was defined as being between a man and a woman in human rights, whatever about the power to amend.



    I am asking what rights are not available under civil partnership and no-one seems to want to reply with anything substantive. Equality does not mean the same and "seperate but not equal" is little more than empty rhetoric.



    I don't quite know what you are talking about here. Rephrase?

    -On 'separate but equal the American Supreme Court would very much disagree with you and the documentary record would more that substantiate that.

    -Quite simply why refuse equality to one group when it is on offer because it is not on offer to another group which may or may not have a case.


  • Advertisement
  • #2392
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    marienbad wrote: »
    -On 'separate but equal the American Supreme Court would very much disagree with you and the documentary record would more that substantiate that.

    On what grounds?
    marienbad wrote: »
    -Quite simply why refuse equality to one group when it is on offer because it is not on to another group which may or may not have a case.

    As I said, equality does not mean the same.


  • #2393
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    reprise wrote: »
    On what grounds?



    As I said, equality does not mean the same.

    -With the best will in the world separate but equal was found not to be the case .In variably the benefits went to the dominant group at the expense of the other

    - 'equality does not mean the same' How is that an answer ?


  • #2394
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    marienbad wrote: »
    -With the best will in the world separate but equal was found not to be the case .In variably the benefits went to the dominant group at the expense of the other

    - 'equality does not mean the same' How is that an answer ?

    A man and a woman can be equal, that does not make them the same.


  • #2395
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    reprise wrote: »
    A man and a woman can be equal, that does not make them the same.

    That is the reverse of what you are arguing ! two men ,or two women, a man and a women, all in a relationships are not the same ,but that is no reason for them not to be equal .


  • #2396
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    marienbad wrote: »
    That is the reverse of what you are arguing ! two men ,or two women, a man and a women, all in a relationships are not the same ,but that is no reason for them not to be equal .

    If there was no reason, we wouldn't be having this referendum in the first place.


  • #2397
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    reprise wrote: »
    If there was no reason, we wouldn't be having this referendum in the first place.

    yeah the reason is it is time to end this inequality .

    But you already know this and as you said yourself just because someone is different is not a reason to be unequal.


  • #2398
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    reprise wrote: »
    Breaking news. I'm not arguing for a yes vote, it's not for me to do the running here and babysit you or anyone else through the arguments for change.

    What? Seriously? I knew you were being stubborn in your ways but do you truly believe this? After how long did people try and get you to back up your claims or at least explain them properly and you refused. You're even doing the same now with short, choppy answers that you won't expand on and you consider doing so "babysitting"? You make a claim, you back it up. It's as simple as that.


  • #2399
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    sup_dude wrote: »
    What? Seriously? I knew you were being stubborn in your ways but do you truly believe this? After how long did people try and get you to back up your claims or at least explain them properly and you refused. You're even doing the same now with short, choppy answers that you won't expand on and you consider doing so "babysitting"? You make a claim, you back it up. It's as simple as that.

    Yes, I do truly believe that you will utterly fail to merely patronise or brow beat a yes vote. Listen to Olivia O'Leary again. Lot of clues there if you don't want to believe me.


  • #2400
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    reprise wrote: »
    Why is everyone running from the civil partnership expansion suggestion?

    Same sex couples have a right to actual equality, not air-quotes equality.


  • Advertisement
  • #2401
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    reprise wrote: »
    I do truly believe that you will utterly fail to merely patronise or brow beat a yes vote.

    Are you actually predicting a No vote? Because if so, you can win some handy money over at Paddypower.com at 7/2, pretty good odds in a two horse race.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement