SSM Referendum Spring 2015

I Heart Internet · 02-07-2014 04:56PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

You can call someone a racist or sexist here without any sort of retaliation, but call them a homophobe and that's a ban. Even if it's calling a spade a spade.

It's fúcking bullshít.

I doubt that's the case. And it's certainly not the case in "real-life". One cannot call a person a racist or a sexist and assume that you are safe from legal challenge.

J_E · 02-07-2014 04:58PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I never supported or believed in civil marriage.

I believe marriage is before God, not the state. The problem is the state controls marriage in terms of legally recognising it.

Fair enough, but the fact remains that civil marriage is there and it's not going away. It serves a multitude of functions over civil partnership, why would you deny other people that recognition just because you don't 'believe in civil marriage'?

Just a reminder, that we are a secular country.

Daith · 02-07-2014 04:58PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I doubt that's the case. And it's certainly not the case in "real-life". One cannot call a person a racist or a sexist and assume that you are safe from legal challenge.

Hmm....

Opposed to interracial marriage? Probably a racist.
Opposed to equal marriage? Probably a homo.....ahhh your point is invalid

floggg · 02-07-2014 04:58PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Yes. It's Mr Kettle to you.

My kettle is a she actually.

I Heart Internet · 02-07-2014 05:00PM

Daith wrote: »

Hmm....

Opposed to interracial marriage? Probably a racist.
Opposed to equal marriage? Probably a homo.....ahhh your point is invalid

Try writing an article in a newspaper (for example) saying that celebrity X is a racist. See how long it takes for legal letters to start flying.

This nonsense of believing that one can slander people and get away with it is hilarious.

floggg · 02-07-2014 05:01PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I doubt that's the case. And it's certainly not the case in "real-life". One cannot call a person a racist or a sexist and assume that you are safe from legal challenge.

You can if the espouse said rumination against racial minorities or men/women.

If they espouse discrimination against gay people though...

J_E · 02-07-2014 05:02PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Try writing an article in a newspaper (for example) saying that celebrity X is a racist. See how long it takes for legal letters to start flying.

This nonsense of believing that one can slander people and get away with it is hilarious.

Then call them a homophobe and see people discussing and justifying it for various reasons, interesting difference.

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 05:03PM

floggg wrote: »

Sorry, but Ireland will not suffer if we vote no?

I'll suffer personally as my relationships will treated as second class in the eyes of the law. My future husband will equally suffer.

As will every other gay person in Ireland.

And their families and friends, who wish to see their loved ones treated with equal dignity and respect as a matter of law.

That's a lot of Irish people who will suffer, which means Ireland will suffer.

Ireland will not however suffer from a yes vote.

You are concerned about the law and your relationship. The problem is people look to the state for answers to all their problems, 'oh we need the state to do this or that'.
The less of the state in one's life the better and there is no valid reason to have the state controlling marriage, it should be as simple as going to a solicitor and signing upto what you and your partner want.

People who rely on the state for things will always suffer, people can feel discriminated if they think the state has a role in marriage, I think they have no role being in the business of marriage.
The thing about my position is the state wouldn't define marriage and there would be no need for a referendum and you could marry whoever you want.
Civil marriage is part of a nanny state.

I Heart Internet · 02-07-2014 05:03PM

floggg wrote: »

If they espouse discrimination against gay people though...

But you have to prove that they do. In the high-profile case we're all thinking of this wasn't the case, nor were the defendants willing to put it to the test.

I Heart Internet · 02-07-2014 05:04PM

Cydoniac wrote: »

Then call them a homophobe...........

.....and most people will sue you.

iwantmydinner · 02-07-2014 05:04PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Try writing an article in a newspaper (for example) saying that celebrity X is a racist. See how long it takes for legal letters to start flying.

This nonsense of believing that one can slander people and get away with it is hilarious.

No such thing as slander anymore.

And it's not defamation if it's the truth.

RobertKK · 02-07-2014 05:06PM

miss no stars wrote: »

Should Christianity/Judaism/Islam be enforced on everyone in your view? Just because YOU believe in whichever of the above? Must we all follow all of your chosen religion's teachings?

Seriously, do you believe that because YOU have a religious stance on something the rest of us should fall into line with that? And wouldn't that be putting yourself up there as some sort of idol for how we should conduct our society? Which goes against religious teaching about false idols..

I will vote with what I believe, not what someone else believes.

J_E · 02-07-2014 05:06PM

RobertKK wrote: »

You are concerned about the law and your relationship. The problem is people look to the state for answers to all their problems, 'oh we need the state to do this or that'.
The less of the state in one's life the better and there is no valid reason to have the state controlling marriage, it should be as simple as going to a solicitor and signing upto what you and your partner want.

People who rely on the state for things will always suffer, people can feel discriminated if they think the state has a role in marriage, I think they have no role being in the business of marriage.
The thing about my position is the state wouldn't define marriage and there would be no need for a referendum and you could marry whoever you want.

Unless you believe you are above the law, I'm not sure what you're on about. I'm confused - you claim the state should have never defined marriage yet you're against it on the way to becoming more inclusive? Rely on God instead, is that it? Apparently the Bible doesn't say you can marry who you want.

Civil marriage is part of a nanny state.

I Heart Internet · 02-07-2014 05:06PM

iwantmydinner wrote: »

No such thing as slander anymore.

And it's not defamation if it's the truth.

Sorry. Libel/defamation. I'm not a lawyerist.

floggg · 02-07-2014 05:09PM

RobertKK wrote: »

You are concerned about the law and your relationship. The problem is people look to the state for answers to all their problems, 'oh we need the state to do this or that'.
The less of the state in one's life the better and there is no valid reason to have the state controlling marriage, it should be as simple as going to a solicitor and signing upto what you and your partner want.

People who rely on the state for things will always suffer, people can feel discriminated if they think the state has a role in marriage, I think they have no role being in the business of marriage.
The thing about my position is the state wouldn't define marriage and there would be no need for a referendum and you could marry whoever you want.
Civil marriage is part of a nanny state.

Oh good lord.

There is no marriage without the state. Not any form of tangible marriage that carries any real commitments, rights or obligations.

And like it or not the state is currently in the marriage game, and does define it as a matter of enforceable and binding law.

It's a very real discrimination which has the force of law. It is a direct result of the way the state has chosen to define marriage. Only the state can cure the ill here.

So you're latest response makes no sense. It's like you heard that comeback on a fox new program, and while not really understanding it thought it sounded like a clever come back to use on "liberals."

floggg · 02-07-2014 05:10PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

But you have to prove that they do. In the high-profile case we're all thinking of this wasn't the case, nor were the defendants willing to put it to the test.

Gay marriage is a cruel parody of marriage. Gay people only want it to destroy traditional marriage yada yada. I'd take my chances before a jury to be honest.

Zubeneschamali · 02-07-2014 05:13PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I will vote with what I believe, not what someone else believes.

I will vote that everyone should be allowed believe whatever they believe, not just what I believe.

denhaagenite · 02-07-2014 05:14PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I never supported or believed in civil marriage.

I believe marriage is before God, not the state. The problem is the state controls marriage in terms of legally recognising it.

Then you shouldn't have an opinion on civil marriage equality. Don't worry, "God" will continue to not marry the gays in a church. If this changes, I'm sure the priest will have a referendum in the parish hall for you.

As far as I'm concerned, the only reason for our marriage is to legally afford full rights and privileges to my partner should the worst happen. We still have ties in Ireland and in the event of this, not being married would most certainly have a detrimental effect on one or both of us. We were quite happy with the security that a civil partnership awarded us in our country of residence, but we couldn't be confident that it would provide enough security for us with cross border issues at play. We took the safe option from a perspective of children, assets, family and I don't see how same sex couples having the same freedom of choice with relational security will affect me or mine in any way whatsoever.

I Heart Internet · 02-07-2014 05:14PM

floggg wrote: »

Oh good lord.

There is no marriage without the state. Not any form of tangible marriage that carries any real commitments, rights or obligations.

And like it or not the state is currently in the marriage game, and does define it as a matter of enforceable and binding law.

Disagree there. Religious marriage vows are valid and tangible - and they carry commitments, rights and obligations.

I'm moving more to the view (as a Roman Catholic myself) that the RCC should remove itself from the civil marriage process. People can partake in the civil marriage themselves. Those who wish to enter into the sacrament of marriage in the church can do so without thinking about the civil element.

For a long while now, the two (civil and religious marriage) have tended to happen at the same venue on the same day, minutes apart. There is no compelling reason why this need be the case.

I Heart Internet · 02-07-2014 05:15PM

floggg wrote: »

Gay marriage is a cruel parody of marriage. Gay people only want it to destroy traditional marriage yada yada. I'd take my chances before a jury to be honest.

Pity the RTE weren't so confident...

VinLieger · 02-07-2014 05:16PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Disagree there. Religious marriage vows are valid and tangible - and they carry commitments, rights and obligations.

I'm moving more to the view (as a Roman Catholic myself) that the RCC should remove itself from the civil marriage process. People can partake in the civil marriage themselves. Those who wish to enter into the sacrament of marriage in the church can do so without thinking about the civil element.

For a long while now, the two (civil and religious marriage) have tended to happen at the same venue on the same day, minutes apart. There is no compelling reason why this need be the case.

Well actually there is cus im guessing all those people getting married want to to be recognised in the eyes of the law as soon as possible for the benefit of any children involved or to be involved as well as the obvious tax reasons.

denhaagenite · 02-07-2014 05:18PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

For a long while now, the two (civil and religious marriage) have tended to happen at the same venue on the same day, minutes apart. There is no compelling reason why this need be the case.

I admire your opinion. As I said before, the only reason that many people do it is because they want a weekend wedding, the church venue, and are too lazy to look into other options.

J_E · 02-07-2014 05:19PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Pity the RTE weren't so confident...

RTE were up against a company with formidable US fundamentalist backing, and it was probably safer and cheaper to not challenge it.

Zubeneschamali · 02-07-2014 05:20PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Those who wish to enter into the sacrament of marriage in the church can do so without thinking about the civil element.

I think the usual in other jusridictions is that the Catholic Church won't marry you at all unless you get civil married first. Otherwise there is scope for a lot of really horrible legal messing - people married in a church who later claim they were never legally married etc.

_Redzer_ · 02-07-2014 05:21PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I doubt that's the case. And it's certainly not the case in "real-life". One cannot call a person a racist or a sexist and assume that you are safe from legal challenge.

It is the case here. I've challenged it many times and have been banned over it.

If you're racist or sexist in real life the easiest way to avoid that is to stop being racist or sexist. Such people are undeserving of protection if they're knowingly acting like cúnts to other people. They're not the victims.

floggg · 02-07-2014 05:21PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Disagree there. Religious marriage vows are valid and tangible - and they carry commitments, rights and obligations.

I'm moving more to the view (as a Roman Catholic myself) that the RCC should remove itself from the civil marriage process. People can partake in the civil marriage themselves. Those who wish to enter into the sacrament of marriage in the church can do so without thinking about the civil element.

For a long while now, the two (civil and religious marriage) have tended to happen at the same venue on the same day, minutes apart. There is no compelling reason why this need be the case.

Religious marriages only carry "moral" commitments - but they only apply as long as you want them to.

For example, under civil marriage rules you have a legally enforceable commitment to support your spouse.

If you only enter a religious marriage however, with no legal enforceability of same, there is nothing whatsoever from stopping you leaving your wife if you so wish.

You can argue your religious conscience may do so, but we all no people act outside of what their faith tells them every day. And that's assuming they don't decide to re-evaluate or change their beliefs at some point down the line (whether for convenience or not).

So no, I don't see a religious commitments as a real (at least in the sense of enforceability) commitment. It's something either party can walk away from at any time.

Sure they may have an issue with their maker (depending on their religion) but lots of people may run that risk and this renege on their commitment with impunity in this life at least.

And of course that's assuming that firstly there is actually a maker and secondly they picked the right one to believe in in the first place.

Edit - also religious marriages don't really come with any rights (again of the tangible enforceable kind). Only state marriage give you a right of support.

You might have an expectation of one in a religious marriage, but you have no power to vindicate or enforce it and it applies only so long as your spouses believes themselves bound to honour it.

jill_valentine · 02-07-2014 05:22PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Pity the RTE weren't so confident...

I'm not so sure it is, anymore. Held up the shower of tinpots in the esteemed institute for the clowns they are.

Zubeneschamali · 02-07-2014 05:26PM

jill_valentine wrote: »

I'm not so sure it is, anymore. Held up the shower of tinpots in the esteemed institute for the clowns they are.

Yep, worth the license money to get Waters off the BAI, out of the Times and basically ostracised from civilized society.

Corkfeen · 02-07-2014 05:34PM

fran17 wrote: »

Your so predictable it's comical.always the man,never the ball

I've addressed points of yours plenty of times in the past but the truth about you is you're hateful and bigoted. People are free to assess their opinion on you,based on what you say.

RobertKK wrote: »

There will be no embarrassment if it is not passed.

People would have to be feeling very self conscience if they cared what others thought, Croatia voted against it, no big deal.

There will be tonnes of embarrassment if does not pass. This country voting against a person's rights is shameful. However I believe it will pass.

RobertKK wrote: »

That they used their democratic right by voting?

I voting against, no need to feel mortified, I don't have to vote yes because some feel outsiders will be judging the country.
There are lots who are outside the country who will be mortified by a yes vote too, but one shouldn't care.

Realistically those who would be mortified by a yes vote are dicks.

RobertKK wrote: »

I never supported or believed in civil marriage.

I believe marriage is before God, not the state. The problem is the state controls marriage in terms of legally recognising it.

Civil marriage predates your god, it's been a thing for millenia, you don't have ownership over it and you're going to have deal with the fact it is also a legal contract. You are free to participate in it as a sacrament. The state is not going to force the church to do anything so it doesn't affect you. You really need to grow up.

Links234 · 02-07-2014 05:38PM

RobertKK's arguments are more circular than a circle >_< It's mindnumbing to read

SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Comments