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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

My Mate's a Prime Mate and other outlandish tales of the 2015 Referendum

  • 10-05-2015 10:48am
    #1
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭


    See post #55 for an explanation of what this post is doing here.


«134567…15

Comments

  • #2
    constance tench
    Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭constance tench


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Still dancing around anything resembling a coherent point I see.


    I don't accept that.

    Here it is, again.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95390545&postcount=641

    MOD: There is a lot of demand to discuss some pretty usual arguments about incest, marrying monkeys and other such stuff. Rather than censoring that stuff, I'm going to try to move it away from the real discussion threads. So if you want to make a whacky point, this is the place to do it rather than clogging up the other threads.

    Please continue to report actual personal abuse or breaches of the site T&Cs, but otherwise go wild.


  • #3
    CaveCanem
    Registered Users Posts: 150 ✭✭CaveCanem


    constance tench wrote: »
    I don't accept that.

    I am not sure I get your point either but as a wild guess I would say you feel that 'person' could be redifined, like animal rights groups may agitate to have the great apes designated persons? If so, it would still fail the test for legal marriage as, persons or not, they cannot give consent. As soon as they are asked to say 'I do' or 'yes' when asked do they consent, the process stops when they are unable or unwilling to agree.


  • #4
    constance tench
    Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭constance tench


    CaveCanem wrote: »
    I am not sure I get your point either but as a wild guess I would say you feel that 'person' could be redifined, like animal rights groups may agitate to have the great apes designated persons? If so, it would still fail the test for legal marriage as, persons or not, they cannot give consent. As soon as they are asked to say 'I do' or 'yes' when asked do they consent, the process stops when they are unable or unwilling to agree.

    That certainly is wild.

    You could drop the word human from the presented text, it was just to illustrate how the text would fit better in Article 40 Personal rights along with a repeal of Section 2 (2) (e) of the Civil Registration Act 2004.


  • #5
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    constance tench wrote: »
    That certainly is wild.

    You could drop the word human from the presented text, it was just to illustrate how the text would fit better in Article 40 Personal rights along with a repeal of Section 2 (2) (e) of the Civil Registration Act 2004.

    That's besides the point because we are not being asked to vote on that. We can only vote on what is the referendum states.


  • #6
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    traprunner wrote: »
    That's besides the point because we are not being asked to vote on that. We can only vote on what is the referendum states.

    An if you don't agree with wording or unforeseen ramifications you are safer to vote no. He just wan't to talk about the wording, if you can't give answers to the questions people should vote no until answers can be given


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    CaveCanem wrote: »
    I am not sure I get your point either but as a wild guess I would say you feel that 'person' could be redifined, like animal rights groups may agitate to have the great apes designated persons? If so, it would still fail the test for legal marriage as, persons or not, they cannot give consent. As soon as they are asked to say 'I do' or 'yes' when asked do they consent, the process stops when they are unable or unwilling to agree.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washoe_%28chimpanzee%29

    Would negate that argument, unless sign language is ruled out, which means that anyone who is deaf and/or mute is also prohibited to marry


  • #8
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washoe_%28chimpanzee%29

    Would negate that argument, unless sign language is ruled out, which means that anyone who is deaf and/or mute is also prohibited to marry

    Isn't there an iq requirement to consent, can't mentally disabled people not consent due to iq like people with downs


  • #9
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    gravehold wrote: »
    Isn't there an iq requirement to consent, can't mentally disabled people not consent due to iq like people with downs
    Downs people can get married, really it's up to the court to decide if the individual(s) involved are capable of consent as it's commonly understood.

    And "capable to consent" includes the ability to understand the impact of that consent.

    So to take the signing gorilla argument, if you can prove that the gorilla understands what marriage is and the impact of consenting to it, then you may be onto something. But just being able to communicate "I do", isn't enough.

    Wow, this is insanely off-topic.


  • #10
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,532 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    seamus wrote: »
    Wow, this is insanely off-topic.

    Indeed


  • #11
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    gravehold wrote: »
    Isn't there an iq requirement to consent, can't mentally disabled people not consent due to iq like people with downs

    Cavecanem suggested that a primate couldn't say I Do, I'm merely pointing out that it could.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Cavecanem suggested that a primate couldn't say I Do, I'm merely pointing out that it could.

    The primate can not obtain a government issued birth cert so is ruled out immediately. It is one of the conditions to allowing a person/thing/object get married.


    PS. I love the name of this thread.


  • #13
    constance tench
    Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭constance tench


    I did not start this thread ...mods or admins did. Shows the level of maturity here.


  • #14
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    constance tench wrote: »
    I did not start this thread ...mods or admins did. Shows the level of maturity here.

    You did, to be fair, instigate a great deal of discussion on the whole question of human persons. I'm still at a complete loss as to why.


  • #15
    constance tench
    Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭constance tench


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    You did, to be fair, instigate a great deal of discussion on the whole question of human persons. I'm still at a complete loss as to why.

    You know I didn't.


  • #16
    constance tench
    Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭constance tench


    These are the deleted posts from the other thread... mods or admins?


  • #17
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    constance tench wrote: »
    You know I didn't.
    I do? You seem to be mistaking me for someone who had the faintest idea what you were going on about; you were far from forthcoming with an explanation.


  • #18
    constance tench
    Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭constance tench


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I do? You seem to be mistaking me for someone who had the faintest idea what you were going on about; you were far from forthcoming with an explanation.

    You know very well they are deleted posts from the 'why are you voting no' thread...


  • #19
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    constance tench wrote: »
    You know very well they are deleted posts from the 'why are you voting no' thread...

    Yes, I know. I'm still at a loss as to what point you were trying to make on that thread.


  • #20
    constance tench
    Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭constance tench


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Yes, I know. I'm still at a loss as to what point you were trying to make on that thread.

    You really think you are doing board.ie any favours?


  • #21
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    I don't know if it's any help, but I think only Dev knows why the term "human persons" is used in that Article. It's not a commonly used term.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    constance tench wrote: »
    You really think you are doing board.ie any favours?

    Not for the first time, I have no clue what you're talking about.


  • #23
    constance tench
    Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭constance tench


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Not for the first time, I have no clue what you're talking about.

    The i.p will tell the tale. You are not doing boards.ie any favours.


  • #24
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    constance tench wrote: »
    The i.p will tell the tale. You are not doing boards.ie any favours.

    Nope. Still no clue.


  • #25
    constance tench
    Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭constance tench


    Who titled the thread?...it certainly wasn't me.


  • #26
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    constance tench wrote: »
    Who titled the thread?...it certainly wasn't me.

    The moderator who split the irrelevant waffle from the other thread did.


  • #27
    constance tench
    Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭constance tench


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The moderator who split the irrelevant waffle from the other thread did.

    It was made to appear as if I posted it, that is my objection.


  • #28
    constance tench
    Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭constance tench


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    The moderator who split the irrelevant waffle from the other thread did.

    Not.


  • #29
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    constance tench wrote: »
    It was made to appear as if I posted it, that is my objection.

    Well, for the avoidance of doubt: you didn't start this thread, and you didn't choose the thread title.


  • #30
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,820 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    constance tench wrote: »
    Not.

    Well, you won't explain it, and it looks like irrelevant waffle to me, so...


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    constance tench
    Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭constance tench


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Well, for the avoidance of doubt: you didn't start this thread, and you didn't choose the thread title.

    This is still disgraceful behaviour from Boards.ie.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement