Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction

gravehold

timetogo wrote: »

. If Dominos were around and had a sign up saying Vote No to equal rights for black people they'd probably get calls for a boycott then too.

Domino's never did anything to push a no vote, a woman got leaflets in her post box and one happened to arrive at the same time as a Domino's leaflet.

She went crazy and the liberal left went calling for boycotts when Domino's did nothing wrong. The fact you still think Domino's are in wrong is showing the bullying someone gets if the yes side get even a hint you might not vote yes.

timetogo

gravehold wrote: »

Domino's never did anything to push a no vote, a woman got leaflets in her post box and one happened to arrive at the same time as a Domino's leaflet.

She went crazy and the liberal left went calling for boycotts when Domino's did nothing wrong. The fact you still think Domino's are in wrong is showing the bullying someone gets if the yes side get even a hint you might not vote yes.

Ok, sorry about that. See I can change my mind when somebody explains something to me. Something many posters can't seem to do and just keep repeating the same old tired rubbish again and again and again. Don't want to attack any poster. You know who you are
I was just reading the posts above about Dominos where somebody said they had posted about voting no. You know the post by ByfocalPhoto saying Dominos had put up No posters and the post that you thanked. If it was incorrect you probably shoudn't have thanked it.

And then, unlike some posters, I'll address your second point. For your second paragraph. Can you explain (in detail) how anything I said had anything to do with bullying.

ByfocalPhoto

Icepick wrote: »

thus confirming the assumption - denying human rights because you don't like someone

I am neither a yes or no voter but after this reply if I have any more suggestions as to how the Yes campaign might be more effective I will keep them to myself.

gravehold

timetogo wrote: »

Ok, sorry about that. See I can change my mind when somebody explains something to me. I was just reading the posts above about Dominos.

For your second paragraph. Can you explain (in detail) how anything I said was bullying.

Not you but the yes side in general

facebook.com/DominosIreland/posts/10152725345091671?fref=nf

Read through those comments from the yes side even after Domino's said it was nothing to do with them.

If the yes side get a wiff of not going to vote yes they are all over them justified or not

timetogo

First post replying to me.

gravehold wrote: »

The fact you ....

Second post.

gravehold wrote: »

Not you but the yes side in general

Can ya see where I got confused.

gravehold

timetogo wrote: »

First post replying to me.


Second post.


Can ya see where I got confused.

That fact you still believed Domino's did wrong and deserved a boycott was what I was saying was bad

wexfordman2

gravehold wrote: »

They have to follow the Catholic ethos and two married gays go against that so the adopted kid would also be not following the ethos.

Atm kids not following the ethos don't have to be accepted into the schools ie the unbaptised.

Theh can obviously still go to the non religious schools but most are worse and hard to find in the country

Are kids from single or unmarried parenta allowed into rc schools, seeing as that goes against rc teaching ?

timetogo

gravehold wrote: »

That fact you still believed Domino's did wrong and deserved a boycott was what I was saying was bad

You should really read the posts a bit better before replying. I didn't say I believed that Dominos did wrong or deserved a boycott.

Now you've told me they didn't put up a poster. Grand. If they did or not that's their right. It's also peoples right spend their money wherever they want. I wouldn't be marching or calling for a boycott. I just wouldn't use their services anymore. I'm sure anybody else could do the same. They might get more business from people who agreed with them.

timetogo

wexfordman2 wrote: »

Are kids from single or unmarried parenta allowed into rc schools, seeing as that goes against rc teaching ?

Or divorced.

gravehold

wexfordman2 wrote: »

Are kids from single or unmarried parenta allowed into rc schools, seeing as that goes against rc teaching ?

The chruch has said they will step up enforce their beliefs more if it passes

thejournal.ie/eamon-martin-same-sex-marriage-2083383-May2015/

ByfocalPhoto

sup_dude wrote: »

A quick read through the thread in AH (the original one) and you'll see where the true venom and hatred lie. Some of the things the No side have been saying have been horrendous.

I haven't seen any of that but I could easily have missed it.
I will do more research and may have to stand corrected.

I will reiterate, argue vehemently whichever side you're on but for heaven's sake lay off the boycotts and 2 am window bricks. That smacks of petulance.

Both sides need to learn from Voltaire
=============================================

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire

timetogo

gravehold wrote: »

The chruch has said they will step up enforce their beliefs more if it passes

thejournal.ie/eamon-martin-same-sex-marriage-2083383-May2015/

I'd be all for that. Imagine if churches stopped doing civil marriages. I don't know how many would just not bother getting married in a church. I would imagine it'd be quite a decent percentage.

Similar for schools. If schools started discriminating against gay, divorcees, unmarried people, people who work on Sundays etc. etc. then suddenly we'd see funding for non denominational schools all over the place.

Ave Sodalis

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

I haven't seen any of that but I could easily have missed it.
I will do more research and may have to stand corrected.

There even had to be a mod warning put on the first post because of the number of people who are voting No because they think gay people are paedophiles, lower class citizens, abusers etc.

timetogo

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

I will reiterate, argue vehemently whichever side you're on but for heaven's sake lay off the boycotts and 2 am window bricks. That smacks of petulance.

It also smacks of petulance that you're telling us to lay off 2am window bricks. Can you point to any poster on this thread calling for boycotts or threatening people because they're going to vote no. Or are you talking about a very very small minority of Irish society that thinks this kind of behaviour is acceptable?

ByfocalPhoto

timetogo wrote: »

Or are you talking about a very very small minority of Irish society that thinks this kind of behaviour is acceptable?

Yes that one - I am not aware of anyone on this thread advocating these but both have been sited as examples of what has been going on.
I was talking generally.

K-9

Mod

Good to see the thread calm down! I'll give the benefit of the doubt to some but attack the post and the contents and points in it, do not attack a poster personally or call somebody a troll.

It's an election campaign and things can get heated so us mods will allow for that, keep it civil and on topic and we'll be fine.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Huntergonzo wrote: »

After weeks of reading this and talking to people locally it very simply comes down to this = vote Yes if you gave a conscious, vote No if you're gullible enough to believe the lies of the Iona or Catholic institutions and or you're really just homophobic.

Well, not really. The formal No campaign only consists of a few marginal groups, who I expect don't hold much sway with anyone. The Yes campaign, on the other hand, seems to have the public support of just about every major institution. For all that, they don't actually have coherent reasons for why, all of a sudden, this issue is so important.

And Yes voters avoid questions they can't answer. For instance, you may have come across the famous spam list of changes that this referendum will bring in:

http://www.marriagequality.ie/download/xls/marriage_equality_missing_pieces_audit_full_list.xls

This list includes this item.

"Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 15 1, 3 (1) A "sexual act", unless rape, aggravated sexual assault, with a person under the age of 17 is an offence, except when the parties to the Act are married."

The normal minimum age for marriage in Ireland is 18, unless people get a dispensation by the Courts. To give a picture of that, only 11 people aged under 17 got married in 2013.

Most of us would say that's 11 too many. This referendum will open the door to even more marriages by people under 17, as clearly SSM will be allowed in similar circumstances.

I can't find any Yes voter explain to me why increasing, instead of reducing, the situations where under 17s will be able to marry is a good thing.

MrWalsh

timetogo wrote: »

I'd be all for that. Imagine if churches stopped doing civil marriages. I don't know how many would just not bother getting married in a church. I would imagine it'd be quite a decent percentage.

Similar for schools. If schools started discriminating against gay, divorcees, unmarried people, people who work on Sundays etc. etc. then suddenly we'd see funding for non denominational schools all over the place.

Schools and hospitals and any other institution run with funding from the Catholic Church can and do discriminate against people who don't adhere to the ethos. You can't sue on discrimination grounds if you are sacked by such an institution for not meeting with the ethos. It's legal discrimination.

While I agree it'd be a win win if the church refused to do civil registrations it's an empty threat, they need membership so they are not going to turn people away. It's a bluff but as a society we should be pushing for them not to be doing it, I'm not comfortable with priests signing legal documents and acting as instruments of the state.

This referendum passing will be one more step towards loosening the chokehold of the Catholic Church in ireland and that's a good thing.

timetogo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I can't find any Yes voter explain to me why increasing, instead of reducing, the situations where under 17s will be able to marry is a good thing.

Why do we have to? You've said yourself it shouldn't be allowed for heterosexuals either. I agree, under 17 is too young for anybody to be marrying.

So rather than say gays shouldn't marry because 1 or 2 gay people might ask for this permission how about getting rid of that clause for gay people and
heterosexuals. You know, equality.

Instead you're implying that you don't want gays under 17 marrying and you'll ignore the heterosexuals under 17 because ......(I can't think of a valid reason to put here, can you fill in the blank?)

How the hell did they get dispensation from the courts anyway. That's a whole other thread.

Legislation can be changed a lot easier than the constitution.

MrWalsh

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I can't find any Yes voter explain to me why increasing, instead of reducing, the situations where under 17s will be able to marry is a good thing.

It's not a reason to prevent same sex marriage. If you disagree with people under the age of 18 being able to marry then lobby to block it for all, both heterosexual and homosexual.

It's quite pathetic that you would think it a reason to block same sex marriage. It's irrelevant.

LookingFor

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, not really. The formal No campaign only consists of a few marginal groups, who I expect don't hold much sway with anyone. The Yes campaign, on the other hand, seems to have the public support of just about every major institution. For all that, they don't actually have coherent reasons for why, all of a sudden, this issue is so important.

And Yes voters avoid questions they can't answer. For instance, you may have come across the famous spam list of changes that this referendum will bring in:

http://www.marriagequality.ie/download/xls/marriage_equality_missing_pieces_audit_full_list.xls

This list includes this item.

"Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 15 1, 3 (1) A "sexual act", unless rape, aggravated sexual assault, with a person under the age of 17 is an offence, except when the parties to the Act are married."

The normal minimum age for marriage in Ireland is 18, unless people get a dispensation by the Courts. To give a picture of that, only 11 people aged under 17 got married in 2013.

Most of us would say that's 11 too many. This referendum will open the door to even more marriages by people under 17, as clearly SSM will be allowed in similar circumstances.

I can't find any Yes voter explain to me why increasing, instead of reducing, the situations where under 17s will be able to marry is a good thing.

We discussed this in another thread with you GCU.

If marriage law has 'warts', pretending we're dealing with them by not extending marriage to more people is a fallacy.

By the logic of 'fewer marriages' = 'fewer marriages of people under 17', we should just get rid of marriage altogether, for everyone. Then it wouldn't happen at all!

Or we could deal with that issue with a scalpel rather than a bazooka.

This is like asking someone in Saudi Arabia who is campaigning for the right of women to drive - "are you for more car accidents? Why don't you answer me that?!". I'm not surprised if 'yes people' are refusing to engage you on playing field built on that logic.

ByfocalPhoto

Paddy Power is yet another business to nail their colours to the mast -
http://www.thejournal.ie/paddy-power-tiocfaidh-ar-la-lorry-marriage-2070957-Apr2015/

GCU Flexible Demeanour

LookingFor wrote: »

We discussed this in another thread with you GCU.

I'm not sure that we have. I was actually told by a Mod on AH that it was off topic, despite the fact that I'm quoting from a list presented by Yes voters from a marriage equality website.

timetogo wrote: »

So rather than say gays shouldn't marry because 1 or 2 gay people might ask for this permission how about getting rid of that clause for gay people and heterosexuals. You know, equality.

I'd like to have the opportunity for a vote to protect the 11 under 17 year olds who married in 2013, but I didn't have the chance. What I can do is vote no and, as you say, at least protect maybe one or two gay people from a similar fate.

A concrete reason for voting No.

MrWalsh wrote: »

It's not a reason to prevent same sex marriage. If you disagree with people under the age of 18 being able to marry then lobby to block it for all, both heterosexual and homosexual.

Ah, like some of you guys say, I can only vote on the subject of this referendum. If they put a "ban all straight marriages under 18" referendum in front of us next, I'll take the same stance that time.

MrWalsh wrote: »

It's quite pathetic that you would think it a reason to block same sex marriage. It's irrelevant.

It's not merely relevant, its an item on the list of differences that Yes posters usually link when asked "what's the difference between marriage and civil partnership".

So, absolutely, you are asking me to vote for SSM for people aged under 17. And I'm voting no to that proposal.

timetogo

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

Paddy Power is yet another business to nail their colours to the mast -
http://www.thejournal.ie/paddy-power-tiocfaidh-ar-la-lorry-marriage-2070957-Apr2015/

Finally a valid reason to vote no. If No wins you could get 5/1.

timetogo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'd like to have the opportunity for a vote to protect the 11 under 17 year olds who married in 2013, but I didn't have the chance. What I can do is vote no and, as you say, at least protect maybe one or two gay people from a similar fate.

A concrete reason for voting No.

Grand. Can you answer the other bit of my question then

"you'll ignore the heterosexuals under 17 because ......(I can't think of a valid reason to put here, can you fill in the blank?)"

Like you said, it was 11 people under the age of 17 got married in 2013. That's not going to change by you voting No.

I'd argue that the smarter course of action was to fix the legislation. But No to this referendum is enough for you apparently.

gravehold

timetogo wrote: »

Finally a valid reason to vote no. If No wins you could get 5/1.

It was higher a few days ago, put €20 down just the odds where too good to pass up

MrWalsh

So, absolutely, you are asking me to vote for SSM for people aged under 17. And I'm voting no to that proposal.

I'm sorry you don't understand what you are being asked to vote on. Oh wait, you DO! This is your 4th (or maybe 3rd, I'm losing count), silly reason that you are pretending is why you are voting no?

Everyone knows why you are voting no. You're just making an even bigger fool of yourself with all the pseudo concern about unrelated issues.

Remember that this is the internet and the things you post here stay forever.

ByfocalPhoto

I would imagine someone somewhere on the no side will have trotted out the old "marriage for immigration or tax dodging" argument.
In fairness it's already an issue in straight marriage. All we are doing is doubling the pool of candidates.

Did anybody see the episode of Boston Legal where Denny and Alan got married and the the gay lobby slapped an injunction on them ?

Hilarious. ( yes, I know it's fiction ).

GCU Flexible Demeanour

timetogo wrote: »

<..>"you'll ignore the heterosexuals under 17 because ......(I can't think of a valid reason to put here, can you fill in the blank?)"

Oh, very easy. Because I'm not being asked to vote on that on the 22nd.

If I was asked to vote in favour of heterosexuals under 17 continuing to be allowed to contract marriage, I'd vote against that too.

Now, your reason why I should vote in favour of marriage under age 17 for gay couples is......(I can't think of a valid reason to put here, can you fill in the blank?)

GCU Flexible Demeanour

MrWalsh wrote: »

I'm sorry you don't understand what you are being asked to vote on. Oh wait, you DO! This is your 4th (or maybe 3rd, I'm losing count), silly reason that you are pretending is why you are voting no?

Everyone knows why you are voting no. You're just making an even bigger fool of yourself with all the pseudo concern about unrelated issues.

Remember that this is the internet and the things you post here stay forever.

Oh, I've set that out.

This is just me asking you to account for the material commonly presented by Yes voters to defend their position.

I notice you can't.