walrusgumble wrote: » And what is society says "feck off" on this ? Will you and people like you adapt your attitude and accept that the status quo stays?
efb wrote: » I presume we would continue to fight for equality
Phill Ewinn wrote: » Welcome to the ignore list.
walrusgumble wrote: » So, why can't those who won't accept the "new brave world" decide not to accept the new regime and fight to change it? Wouldn't you not just accept the will of the people as you expect the opposition if gay marriage did come in? (of course you would, naturally, seeking to continue the fight - just responding to the bland remark made earlier)
Phill Ewinn wrote: » This isn't helping.
floggg wrote: » Well if that's a change for the better, than why the **** not?
Phill Ewinn wrote: » Which is what we should be discussing. With all the ten year olds on here yelping and name calling its hard to get to any kind of discussion.
Phill Ewinn wrote: » You want to change marriage. Societies view of marriage will be changed. Ergo the impact marriage has had on society will change. Ergo society will change. Comprendez? Marriage is as I said earlier is a foundation of society. And we know it works as it is. So why change?
walrusgumble wrote: » Sweet suffering Jesus H Christ. Some posters are thicker than 4 x4's. There is an INDIRECT definition. That Word "Marriage" is clearly stated in Article 41 and such families being the only ones that enjoy preference. Article 41 concerns the Family. There is a distinct Constitutional difference of treatment of all family units in Irish Society. Hence why the marriage issue is a big deal. If there was no disctinction, or the family provision in Article 41 was the same as Article 8 of ECHR, then it would be hard to argue for Constitutional Referendum. Government could probably just legislate Moreover, from a social and political point of view marriage definition has, for most part , meant man + woman.(not to say that can change) Correct, hence the referendum as the legislator don't feel confident in legislating for democratic reasons. It was the Zappone's not the State who sought intervention from the Courts remember. Oh, and the case was a Constitutional Law Case! Correct, and if Labour fecked off, it would probably stay that way. Alas , Conservative of governments does not neccessarily mean the voters are Conservative, hence the people demand a voice on this, by making our Constitution Confirm that gays should enjoy the same Constitutional rights as married people. Ideas on gay marriage have been surfacing a bit longer than that Eh, why would Zappone refuse to accept the Constitution was a livign document, that was their argument You mean the Court? Correct, but I already pointed that out. I stated as such in my post. Why regurgiate what I said and try and suggest that I don't understand what Zappone said. I pointed out that the said interpretation method was just one of many methods Correct, hence that messed up the living document argument. Alas, however, the historical interpretation argument played a role too , especially when the harmonious approach was made when looking at other provisions of the Constitution Would not bank on that ! We have different ethos and laws than Britain. Feck all of the USA have legislated , weirdly some in California "regret" it
Daith wrote: » Nobody's changing marriage.
Phill Ewinn wrote: » We talked about this earlier. Yes, we are changing marriage. That's why were having a referendum. I'm defo not going over the first point again.
Maximus Alexander wrote: » Does " hard to get to any kind of discussion" in this context mean "hard to get people to casually agree with my baseless opinions"? Because there's a pretty lively discussion going on here.
efb wrote: » A referendum changes the constitution
Phill Ewinn wrote: » lol You don't want equality at all. Your merely on here trying to feather your own nest. Marriage equality as I said isn't the inclusion of one group over another. The clue is in the word ''equality''.
Phill Ewinn wrote: » If you believe they're baseless then why respond? Let me tell you why. Because they are not baseless.
Sarky wrote: » Presumably rights for women and fathers is a cunning ruse in your master strategy to feather your own nest while destroying the fabric of society. Admit it, the gay agenda stole the pope's blood for their nefarious mission to force everyone to gay marry and give their children away to gay couples.
Phill Ewinn wrote: » 10/10
Phill Ewinn wrote: » We talked about this earlier. Yes, we are changing marriage. That's why were having a referendum.
Phill Ewinn wrote: » I'll come back to this in fifty pages. Seems to have only dawned on people that were having a referendum? I dunno.
lazygal wrote: » If the gays can get married will that mean my husband and I won't be good parents to our two children anymore?
Corkfeen wrote: » I'm surely not the only one who is completely oblivious to what Phil believes will be the negative societal impact of same sex couples marrying will be? Any chance of putting his reasoning in bullet point format so it's comprehensible?
floggg wrote: » What are we, birds? The feathers are clearly for our boas
