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

oscarBravo

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

johnnyskeleton

seamus wrote: »

Wow, this is insanely off-topic.

Indeed

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.

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.

constance tench

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

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.

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.

constance tench

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

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.

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...

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

oscarBravo

constance tench wrote: »

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

Nope. Still no clue.

constance tench

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

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.

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.

constance tench

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

Not.

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.

oscarBravo

constance tench wrote: »

Not.

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

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.

constance tench

oscarBravo wrote: »

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

I certainly did.

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.

constance tench

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Indeed

And you know very well it was FreudianSlippers [ 'Lawyer to the stars'][what ever that is] that started this insanely off topic posting.

constance tench

constance tench wrote: »

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.

Do you misinterpret Article 40 also?

1 All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

oscarBravo

This is like pulling teeth.

Why do you keep going on about article 40? We're not voting on an amendment to article 40.

traprunner

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is like pulling teeth.

Why do you keep going on about article 40? We're not voting on an amendment to article 40.

Maybe it mentions primates?

constance tench

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is like pulling teeth.

Why do you keep going on about article 40? We're not voting on an amendment to article 40.

You said it.

I am voting No to inserting the proposed text into Article 41, I have stated such, then mods and admins approve a farce of a thread like this because you can't understand a simple point and my reason for voting NO.

oscarBravo

constance tench wrote: »

I am voting No to inserting the proposed text into Article 41...

...but you'd vote Yes if it was amending Article 40?

CaveCanem

Assuming this isn't a spoof or an attempt to suggest that there's some unnoticed time bomb in the proposed amendment, the only thing left that I can think of is that you mean the constitution states that rights are conferred on individual persons and not an entity formed by two or more people? If that's not it then I just give up and am moving on unless you elaborate and articulate your point.

traprunner

Rewind and start again please. I'm genuinely confused.

constance tench

oscarBravo wrote: »

...but you'd vote Yes if it was amending Article 40?

We at least have to be able to debate it and consider it as stated in the original post on this thread [ created by a mod to appear as if I had titled the thread and approved by admin]

...but to answer your question...

If the result was that it safeguarded the existing rights of others, because I have my doubts about it being inserted into Article 41 [ and they are not being alleviated ] while giving giving the gay community the right to marry then, yes.

How is it fair or equitable to give a right to some while possibly taking away rights from others? [ed .or possibly all of us]

Having read the contents of the PM that I posted here that was subsequently deleted, are you now beginning to see how unfairly I have been treated by Mods and admins on board.ie ?

oscarBravo

constance tench wrote: »

If the result was that it safeguarded the existing rights of others, because I have my doubts about it being inserted into Article 41 [ and they are not being alleviated ] while giving giving the gay community the right to marry then, yes.

How is it fair or equitable to give a right to some while possibly taking away rights from others? [ed .or possibly all of us]

We're getting somewhere.

How would the proposed amendment to Article 41 take away rights from others?

Having read the contents of the PM that I posted here that was subsequently deleted, are you now beginning to see how unfairly I have been treated by Mods and admins on board.ie ?

Honestly? No.

constance tench

oscarBravo wrote: »

We're getting somewhere.
How would the proposed amendment to Article 41 take away rights from others? Honestly? No.

FreudianSlippers [what ever that is] started this insane posting but yet the thread or title wasn't attributed to him.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Legislation already prohibits marrying non-humans. I'm still not sure what a non-human person is? Aliens?

constance tench wrote: »

Surely you know this [Lawyer to the stars] or maybe it's an indication of your intolerance of the views of others?

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Still dancing around anything resembling a coherent point I see.

So it continues here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057430592

Are boards.ie admins and mods prepaired to apologise?

K-9

It's a thread on the internet, I think it is ok.

constance tench

K-9 wrote: »

It's a thread on the internet, I think it is ok.

Would it be OK if a thread and title were attributed to you by a mod from an out of context post?

K-9

The mod put in a nice big helpfull edit.

constance tench

K-9 wrote: »

The mod put in a nice big helpfull edit.

see post#42.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95496239&postcount=42

roverrules

oscarBravo wrote: »

This is like pulling teeth.

Why do you keep going on about article 40? We're not voting on an amendment to article 40.

Maybe because article 40, removes the need for a change to article 41?

oscarBravo

roverrules wrote: »

Maybe because article 40, removes the need for a change to article 41?

I could equally argue that a change to article 41 removes the need for a change to article 40, but that would be a bit circular, so I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how exactly the proposed amendment is going to take away anyone's rights.

constance tench

Are admins and mods prepared to apologise or are you happy to stand as self evidently biased?

oscarBravo

constance tench wrote: »

Are admins and mods prepared to apologise or are you happy to stand as self evidently biased?

Let me get this straight: you're demanding an apology for having some of your posts moved out of another thread?

There's no danger of you actually answering the question I've asked you twice now, is there? Or are you too busy sulking about something so trivial I'm having serious difficulty believing a grown human person is making an issue about it.