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

MrWalsh · 10-05-2015 03:14PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

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?)

Because if heterosexuals can, them it should be open to homosexuals also. Equality. Easy.

MrWalsh · 10-05-2015 03:16PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

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.

Can't what? You've been given the answer yet you seem unable to comprehend it.

gravehold · 10-05-2015 03:17PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Because if heterosexuals can, them it should be open to homosexuals also. Equality. Easy.

If it's about equality why add the part about two people that wasn't in the constitution in the first place adding discrimination to polygamous relationships

Ave Sodalis · 10-05-2015 03:17PM

gravehold wrote: »

If it's about equality why add the part about two people that wasn't in the constitution in the first place adding discrimination to polygamous relationships

This has been answered.

gravehold · 10-05-2015 03:19PM

sup_dude wrote: »

This has been answered.

Then why are they putting the under 18 marriage part in it's not cause of equality cuase they don't care about equality

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 10-05-2015 03:22PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Because if heterosexuals can, them it should be open to homosexuals also. Equality. Easy.

I disagree. Two wrongs don't make a right.

That you would so easily defend marriage of under 17 year olds is, to my mind, irresponsible.

But, sure, that's what we're voting on. You're in favour of teenage marriage, and I'm not.

timetogo · 10-05-2015 03:22PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

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?)

I'd answer that it's never OK for anybody under 17 to get married and that I'll be contacting my TDs to see what they can do about it.

As we can only fix one problem at a time I think that's the smarter way to go about it. Otherwise we'd never get anything fixed.

So with this referendum we'll get one problem fixed and we can start lobbying TDs to fix the second. With your solution gay people can't marry and under 17 year old girls and boys still can. That's not really acceptable to me. So can I count on your support?

Luckily we don't need a referendum on young marriage. This could be sorted easier with the right support.

Ave Sodalis · 10-05-2015 03:23PM

gravehold wrote: »

Then why are they putting the under 18 marriage part in it's not cause of equality cuase they don't care about equality

This has also been answered.

gingerhousewife · 10-05-2015 03:27PM

gravehold wrote: »

Gay couple cannot adopt a kid atm so it's a repercussion will come once a yes passes, it won't be there if the no place passes

Yes they can. It's covered under the Children and Relationships Act which was recently signed into law.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 10-05-2015 03:29PM

timetogo wrote: »

So with this referendum we'll get one problem fixed and we can start lobbying TDs to fix the second. With your solution gay people can't marry and under 17 year old girls and boys still can. That's not really acceptable to me. So can I count on your support?

No, with this referendum we'll have made the problem worse. I'm not aware of any proposal to change this.

I'm not voting in favour of under 17 marriage for anyone.

And, can I repeat, the material linked by Yes voters drawn from a marriage equality website calmly mentions this provision as if it assumes we'd all share the view that it should be open to all.

Sorry, folk. Hoist by your own petards.

MrWalsh · 10-05-2015 03:31PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I disagree. Two wrongs don't make a right.

That you would so easily defend marriage of under 17 year olds is, to my mind, irresponsible.

But, sure, that's what we're voting on. You're in favour of teenage marriage, and I'm not.

Grand. Equality is more important than the tiny number of teenage marriages that happen. But don't let that get in the way of your trolling.

timetogo · 10-05-2015 03:34PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No, with this referendum we'll have made the problem worse. I'm not aware of any proposal to change this.

Are you new to Ireland? Just because there's no proposal to fix it doesn't mean we live with it forever. You seem OK to keep allowing under 17 year old girls and boys get married to presumably people older than them. It just seems odd to me.

MrWalsh · 10-05-2015 03:35PM

People I strongly suggest you report the troll.

timetogo · 10-05-2015 03:36PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

People I strongly suggest you report the troll.

Yeah, you're right. Will just stop feeding.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 10-05-2015 08:04PM

timetogo wrote: »

You seem OK to keep allowing under 17 year old girls and boys get married to presumably people older than them. It just seems odd to me.

No, I've just never been asked to vote on the topic. I've very clearly said that I wouldn't vote to allow anyone to get married under age 17, so I can't understand your statement at all.

I notice this is yet another aspect of the proposal that yes voters can't explain. They're great with the soundbites like "160 differences". Ask them "why is this particular difference a problem" and they haven't a clue.

Persist, as they avoid the question, and they pretend you're trolling. Unbelievable.

MrWalsh · 10-05-2015 08:08PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No, I've just never been asked to vote on the topic. I've very clearly said that I wouldn't vote to allow anyone to get married under age 17, so I can't understand your statement at all.

I notice this is yet another aspect of the proposal that yes voters can't explain. They're great with the soundbites like "160 differences". Ask them "why is this particular difference a problem" and they haven't a clue.

Persist, as they avoid the question, and they pretend you're trolling. Unbelievable.

Ah GCU, still merrily trolling.

I'd like to welcome you to my ignore list.

JONJO THE MISER · 11-05-2015 02:44AM

A lot of people im talking to, both young and old are voting no.
The media seems to think most people will vote yes or they want to portray it that way.

ForstalDave · 11-05-2015 07:49AM

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

A lot of people im talking to, both young and old are voting no.
The media seems to think most people will vote yes or they want to portray it that way.

On the other side everyone i know is voting yes so from my view the media is right

SireOfSeth · 11-05-2015 07:50AM

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

Very disappointing that there are undemocratic morons on both sides.

Ebay are another example, for some reason they called for a yes vote. Not quite sure what it's got to do with them.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/same-sex-marriage-tech-giant-ebay-backs-yes-vote-1.2203685

Civil rights concerns everyone. I, for one, am happy to see businesses supporting the YES yote.

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/

Good on them.

Also saw that my local pet shop is supporting a YES vote.

traprunner · 11-05-2015 08:02AM

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/

How so? That is a typical Paddy Power advertising and it even displays odds.

ByfocalPhoto · 11-05-2015 09:00AM

traprunner wrote:

How so? That is a typical Paddy Power advertising and it even displays odds.

How so ? I think the clue is in the "We will prevail" if my limited Irish serves.

gravehold · 11-05-2015 09:24AM

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

How so ? I think the clue is in the "We will prevail" if my limited Irish serves.

Just like the actual IRA terrorist group the are comparing gay people to

traprunner · 11-05-2015 09:28AM

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

How so ? I think the clue is in the "We will prevail" if my limited Irish serves.

I think you are reading too much into it. Tongue in cheek as always. By your thinking the below ad would show support for parties other than UKIP and Lib Dem.
PaddyPowerDebateAd.ashx

ByfocalPhoto · 11-05-2015 10:34AM

I was talking to a 23 year old on the weekend who is voting no because he has 50 quid on a no vote with paddy power. I don't see that as commendable at all. Could it be that PP could accidentally slant the result by offering a financial incentive for a no vote ?

Ave Sodalis · 11-05-2015 10:38AM

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

I was talking to a 23 year old on the weekend who is voting no because he has 50 quid on a no vote with paddy power. I don't see that as commendable at all. Could it be that PP could accidentally slant the result by offering a financial incentive for a no vote ?

I doubt PP are the only bookies offering odds. To be honest, this post makes me rethink the Yes vote on lowering the presidential age...

gravehold · 11-05-2015 10:40AM

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

I was talking to a 23 year old on the weekend who is voting no because he has 50 quid on a no vote with paddy power. I don't see that as commendable at all. Could it be that PP could accidentally slant the result by offering a financial incentive for a no vote ?

I put 20 down just incase the odds where to great, and I am sure a lot of the vote votes are to scared to say what way they are voting so the polls are skewed

ByfocalPhoto · 11-05-2015 12:33PM

My friend was just telling me her 101 year old auntie is voting yes. It is clearly not an age thing.

jobbridge4life · 11-05-2015 12:48PM

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

My friend was just telling me her 101 year old auntie is voting yes. It is clearly not an age thing.

Well every single poll on every matter to do with homosexuality clearly indicates and age bias, with the younger being more accepting and the older you get the less so. So while anecdotes like your friends aunt are great they are exceptions unfortunately.

Sofiztikated · 11-05-2015 01:06PM

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

I was talking to a 23 year old on the weekend who is voting no because he has 50 quid on a no vote with paddy power. I don't see that as commendable at all. Could it be that PP could accidentally slant the result by offering a financial incentive for a no vote ?

sup_dude wrote: »

I doubt PP are the only bookies offering odds. To be honest, this post makes me rethink the Yes vote on lowering the presidential age...

Unfortunately there's more than a few idiots about that would slap a few quid down, and vote no, in order to try and win 5/1 back.

My faith in people is ebbing.

jobbridge4life · 11-05-2015 01:13PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Unfortunately there's more than a few idiots about that would slap a few quid down, and vote no, in order to try and win 5/1 back.

My faith in people is ebbing.

Sadly its only barely less legitimate a reason than most of the claptrap offered by the no side.

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

Comments