Referendums - Marriage Equality; Presidential Age

Tom Young

Polls

MarkAnthony

Yes but no to presidential age, I've just got there and don't need the competition. Seriously though - No on the age reduction but that's probably a tangent no one cares about anyway.

hullaballoo

Could you not have made the poll public so I can go and bully anyone who voted no?

They are the reason I don't believe in democracy.

TinkledPink

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Yes but no to presidential age, I've just got there and don't need the competition. Seriously though - No on the age reduction but that's probably a tangent no one cares about anyway.

So you're okay with discrimination on the basis of age, but not okay with discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Gotcha

Manach

hullaballoo wrote: »

Could you not have made the poll public so I can go and bully anyone who voted no?

They are the reason I don't believe in democracy.

Feel free mate.

Saipanne

TinkledPink wrote: »

So you're okay with discrimination on the basis of age, but not okay with discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Gotcha

A toddler president sound good?

TinkledPink

Saipanne wrote: »

A toddler president sound good?

Nobody is forcing you to vote for a toddler president but I think these toddlers deserve a shot at the title. Tots 4 Prez 2018.

robindch

hullaballoo wrote: »

Could you not have made the poll public so I can go and bully anyone who voted no?

That'll only work if the 88-odd percent of the population who says they're "catholic" would pretend they're being persecuted by the other 12% first.

MarkAnthony

TinkledPink wrote: »

So you're okay with discrimination on the basis of age, but not okay with discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Gotcha

Yep and we're all okay with discrimination to greater or lesser degrees on the basis of a balancing test. For example; We're generally okay with the premier league being a segregated sport, despite there being no need. Personally I'm not. We're generally okay with blood donations being limited to hetrosexuals (are lesbians allowed?) who have never been resident in the UK; Personally I'm not.

TinkledPink

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Yep and we're all okay with discrimination to greater or lesser degrees on the basis of a balancing test. For example; We're generally okay with the premier league being a segregated sport, despite there being no need. Personally I'm not. We're generally okay with blood donations being limited to hetrosexuals (are lesbians allowed?) who have never been resident in the UK; Personally I'm not.

Blood donations? Balancing tests? Premier league segregation?

I think you're in the wrong thread, mate :cool:

MarkAnthony

TinkledPink wrote: »

Blood donations? Balancing tests? Premier league segregation?

I think you're in the wrong thread, mate :cool:

No, I think perhaps you are though, mate.

TinkledPink

MarkAnthony wrote: »

No, I think perhaps you are though, mate.

Okay look. Discrimination can be justified in certain circumstances. I don't know what you meant by the Premier league's segregation but regarding blood donations, yes, if it can be shown that gay people are at a higher risk of transmitting HIV, limitations can be justified.

But this is about eligibility to run for President. A 'YES' vote doesn't actually mean there will ever be a 21yo President. I just think your position in strange in that you'd vote 'YES' on gay marriage but 'NO' on the age referendum. I don't see your logic.

MarkAnthony

TinkledPink wrote: »

Okay look. Discrimination can be justified in certain circumstances. I don't know what you meant by the Premier league's segregation but regarding blood donations, yes, if it can be shown that gay people are at a higher risk of transmitting HIV, limitations can be justified.

But this is about eligibility to run for President. A 'YES' vote doesn't actually mean there will ever be a 21yo President. I just think your position in strange in that you'd vote 'YES' on gay marriage but 'NO' on the age referendum. I don't see your logic.

So you felt the best way to go about having that explained was to mock the position? You felt it would be a good idea to then do that a second time when an explanation was offered to you. Perhaps that explains why I think you're on the wrong thread/forum.

How can there be a higher risk of HIV transmission when all blood is tested? The blood donation issue stems back to systemic failures and has nothing to do with the concern Gay people have a higher risk of HIV infection. But as you agree with the point that discrimination is based on a balancing test we can leave that point.

Lets not forget that this referendum does not seek to end discrimination in relation to a President's age, it merely wants to reduce it to 21. I personally feel this is too young and the person couldn't possibly have the life experience to properly represent the country. I think limiting the field to over 35, amongst other things, will mean that good candidates don't jump the gun too early possibly ruling them out of standing for election in later life.

I also have concerns about an overly young president running on the basis of a lark and perhaps attracting enough of the youth vote to push them though if two or more good candidates split the vote.

Small concerns possibly, it's also a small restriction and the current referendum does not seek the establish equality for the post anyway.

TinkledPink

MarkAnthony wrote: »

So you felt the best way to go about having that explained was to mock the position? You felt it would be a good idea to then do that a second time when an explanation was offered to you. Perhaps that explains why I think you're on the wrong thread/forum.

How can there be a higher risk of HIV transmission when all blood is tested? The blood donation issue stems back to systemic failures and has nothing to do with the concern Gay people have a higher risk of HIV infection. But as you agree with the point that discrimination is based on a balancing test we can leave that point.

Lets not forget that this referendum does not seek to end discrimination in relation to a President's age, it merely wants to reduce it to 21. I personally feel this is too young and the person couldn't possibly have the life experience to properly represent the country. I think limiting the field to over 35, amongst other things, will mean that good candidates don't jump the gun too early possibly ruling them out of standing for election in later life.

I also have concerns about an overly young president running on the basis of a lark and perhaps attracting enough of the youth vote to push them though if two or more good candidates split the vote.

Small concerns possibly, it's also a small restriction and the current referendum does not seek the establish equality for the post anyway.

I only mocked your position because you didn't explain it. And then when you tried to explain it, you didn't do a great job.

Now that you've actually elaborated on it coherently, I take your points about (i) the quality of candidates and (ii) having concern over what a young President might mean. That's fair enough.

Still, imo it's a little funny that people would vote 'YES' on marriage and 'NO' on age. If the proposed amendment stated that a President had to be under the age of 65 to be elected, you'd find it became an equality issue very quickly. But that's probably just a reflection on young people's disinterest in the political process.

I personally love when referendums come around because words like "equality", "rights" and "discrimination" get bandied about, yet nobody seems to have the foggiest idea of what these concepts actually entail in the grand scheme of things

MarkAnthony

TinkledPink wrote: »

I only mocked your position because you didn't explain it. And then when you tried to explain it, you didn't do a great job.

1) Well there's your problem - perhaps if people approached things with a bit more of an open mind and with less emphasis on scoring cheap points the level of the debate might get raised.

TinkledPink wrote: »

I personally love when referendums come around because words like "equality", "rights" and "discrimination" get bandied about, yet nobody seems to have the foggiest idea of what these concepts actually entail in the grand scheme of things

See point 1)

TinkledPink

I never took a cheap shot. I questioned your position when you didn't/couldn't explain yourself and you got defensive by talking about irrelevant things like football & blood. I'm only looking for an insight so there's no need to interpret this discussion as an interrogation. I wasn't having a go at you or anything despite the fact I disagree with your stance. Goodnight.

MarkAnthony

TinkledPink wrote: »

I never took a cheap shot. I questioned your position when you didn't/couldn't explain yourself and you got defensive by talking about irrelevant things like football & blood. I'm only looking for an insight so there's no need to interpret this discussion as an interrogation. I wasn't having a go at you or anything despite the fact I disagree with your stance. Goodnight.

You did exactly that. If you wanted an explanation and asked for one I would have been happy to provide it. I then pointed out that at some level we all discriminate and there is a balancing test as to whether that discrimination is justified. You again took another cheap shot, emoticons et al. It seems when you don't understand you mock, fair enough but as I say it's cheap and doesn't help, it's only half a step above trying to turn the issue into some sort of surrogacy and adoption debate.

TinkledPink

MarkAnthony wrote: »

You did exactly that. If you wanted an explanation and asked for one I would have been happy to provide it. I then pointed out that at some level we all discriminate and there is a balancing test as to whether that discrimination is justified. You again took another cheap shot, emoticons et al. It seems when you don't understand you mock, fair enough but as I say it's cheap and doesn't help, it's only half a step above trying to turn the issue into some sort of surrogacy and adoption debate.

:eek:

Hunchback

Xrist!

I had a word with some canvassers who seemed really nice in Monkstown Crescent yesterday and I asked them what the feedback was like and they reported that it was mixed and felt that it was about 60/40 in favour. And this being Dun Laoighaire which is usually the most liberal voting constituency in the country, well... it doesn't necessarily tally with all the polls that have been taken here and there over the course of the past couple of years. I suppose at the end of the day most among us knew that that was something of a soft vote, but still - if Dun Laoighaire does come in at only 60/40, you can see a situation on the day of counting where it will be very tight in many constituencies and many constituencies voting no.

Johnboy1951

TinkledPink wrote: »

I only mocked your position because you didn't explain it. And then when you tried to explain it, you didn't do a great job.

Now that you've actually elaborated on it coherently, I take your points about (i) the quality of candidates and (ii) having concern over what a young President might mean. That's fair enough.

Still, imo it's a little funny that people would vote 'YES' on marriage and 'NO' on age. If the proposed amendment stated that a President had to be under the age of 65 to be elected, you'd find it became an equality issue very quickly. But that's probably just a reflection on young people's disinterest in the political process.

I personally love when referendums come around because words like "equality", "rights" and "discrimination" get bandied about, yet nobody seems to have the foggiest idea of what these concepts actually entail in the grand scheme of things

I would vote yes to that if it appeared.
Given that a 65 year old would be 72 at the end of term, it is my believe that a younger person, suitably qualified, would have more energy to spend on 'the job'.
Let's not forget this is a job.
Retirement age for most occupations is specified for a reason.
Why should the job as president be a whole lot different?

Also I would vote no to employing a 21 year old in the job, and would vote to exclude such persons from even 'applying'.

On the other hand I would vote yes to the marriage equality question.