Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

SSM Referendum Spring 2015

1…4041434546…69

Comments

  • #1262
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    P_1 wrote: »
    Really? Is it even legal to challenge a constitutional amendment after it was passed by referendum?

    I'm guessing it is. In this case, they're challenging the way the referendum was funded and the constitutionality of the act governing the running of referendums. Both High Court challenges have been heard and dismissed, but both cases have been appealed to the Supreme Court with no dates fixed yet to hear those appeals.
    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    So even if it is passed via referendum it can be prevented by legal challenge?

    Potentially. If it's shown that the referendum wasn't carried out properly, then the result could be overturned. However, the burden of proof on the person bringing the challenge so they have to show it wasn't carried out properly. They can't just claim it was, which is the basis of one of the challenges to the Children's Referendum.

    I think it's unlikely a Yes result would be challenged though, unless the Government mess up like they did with the Children's Referendum. A challenge would be more likely if marriage was introduced via legislative change solely, and not Constitutional change. I think the Government could ultimately win that challenge, but between High Court and Supreme Court challenges, it would be a long process and with no guarantee of success.


  • #1263
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    http://newstalk.ie/Opening-debate-on-samesex-marriage-referendum

    Found this one in the thread in A&A.

    We need to be careful not to demonise people supposedly, but it doesnt count if they are gay, then work away.


  • #1264
    P_1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    http://newstalk.ie/Opening-debate-on-samesex-marriage-referendum

    Found this one in the thread in A&A.

    We need to be careful not to demonise people supposedly, but it doesnt count if they are gay, then work away.

    Crikey that Mullen character is insufferable isn't he.


  • #1265
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    http://newstalk.ie/Opening-debate-on-samesex-marriage-referendum

    Found this one in the thread in A&A.

    We need to be careful not to demonise people supposedly, but it doesnt count if they are gay, then work away.

    sorry but really that was the greatest charade I've heard in a long time.opening "debate" on same sex marriage,dont they mean opening ambush.whether your pro or anti you couldn't say that was a debate and hold a straight face could you?


  • #1266
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    fran17 wrote: »
    sorry but really that was the greatest charade I've heard in a long time.opening "debate" on same sex marriage,dont they mean opening ambush.whether your pro or anti you couldn't say that was a debate and hold a straight face could you?

    Indeed. Mullen was too busy trying to make sure they worded any questions to his liking to actually answer.


  • Advertisement
  • #1267
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    Indeed. Mullen was too busy trying to make sure they worded any questions to his liking to actually answer.

    ah now really.he never got more than three words into any answer before he was interrupted constantly by the monstrously biased interviewer.i know your very much pro and will defend your side of the debate and that's fine but that could have been scripted by Goebbels himself


  • #1268
    P_1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    fran17 wrote: »
    ah now really.he never got more than three words into any answer before he was interrupted constantly by the monstrously biased interviewer.i know your very much pro and will defend your side of the debate and that's fine but that could have been scripted by Goebbels himself

    In fairness attempting to define the term 'marriage equality' as a loaded term is just going to open you up to ridicule right off the bat.


  • #1269
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,036 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    fran17 wrote: »
    ah now really.he never got more than three words into any answer before he was interrupted constantly by the monstrously biased interviewer.i know your very much pro and will defend your side of the debate and that's fine but that could have been scripted by Goebbels himself

    Wait, did you just compare the pro equality side to a Nazi?


  • #1270
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,290 ✭✭✭Daith


    Fortunately Mullen can't just rely on saying no because of religion. He then needs to rely on the "won't somebody please think of the children".

    Saying we can't call it marriage equality is new. I think the Yes side should stop saying Same Sex Marriage and use equal marriage.


  • #1271
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    Interviewer to Ronan:
    "What evidence do you have to say that [gay marriage] will have any negative effect on children? How would [a gay relationship] not be the same as any other relationship?

    R: "You are putting words in my mouth!!""

    *state definition of marriage ramble, it's special....blah blah blah..
    avoiding question*

    "But really, Ronan, have you any evidence, because we're running out of time". So do you have any evidence that same-sex marriage will have any impact on the family?"

    R: "Ehhh, emmm, ehhhh, ehhhh. What I have noticed here already is that you haven't been cross-examining John this way!"

    "John has been here a couple of minutes..."

    R: "Did you grill him?!"

    "Absolutely! Did you hear it?"

    R: "No I didn't."

    *goes on to dodge the question regarding evidence and repeats spiel about definition of marriage*

    Such weaselling out of questions and dishonest arguing. Making himself out to be a victim here and getting picked on.

    What an absolute wanker in fairness.


  • Advertisement
  • #1272
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    I'm starting to think Mullen is the best weapon the Yes side have.


  • #1273
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    fran17 wrote: »
    ah now really.he never got more than three words into any answer before he was interrupted constantly by the monstrously biased interviewer.i know your very much pro and will defend your side of the debate and that's fine but that could have been scripted by Goebbels himself

    He avoided her when she asked for evidence when he claimed a man and woman was the superior way to raise a child and build a family around.

    He refused to engage with the questions put to him.

    He wasn't playing honestly in this debate at all, he wanted to skew it in his favour with irrelevant rambles about "special" definitions instead of addressing the points being put to him and having an actual two-sided argument about the topic at hand.


  • #1274
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    P_1 wrote: »
    In fairness attempting to define the term 'marriage equality' as a loaded term is just going to open you up to ridicule right off the bat.

    yes but if you read between the lines at the context of when and how she used the term it was a blatantly obvious attempt to belittle and shame the man.this will be the constant tactic of the yes campaign for the next nine month,attempt to shame them into silence.and john lyons remark of you can look me in the eye ronan,im a person,was pantomime.
    lyons spoke for 7.25 uninterrupted and mullins spoke for 5.30 and was interrupted twenty times I could count....


  • #1275
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,290 ✭✭✭Daith


    I bet Mullen gets lost looking into Johns eyes.

    Mullen couldn't answer a question. The whole children thing is s complete red herring.


  • #1276
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    fran17 wrote: »
    ah now really.he never got more than three words into any answer before he was interrupted constantly by the monstrously biased interviewer.i know your very much pro and will defend your side of the debate and that's fine but that could have been scripted by Goebbels himself

    He was given plenty of opportunity to answer. If he spent more time answering the question instead of debating if they are talking about marriage equality vs changing the definition of marriage. I am willing to listen to other peoples opinions but if these people wish to affect the lives of others I want to hear something that isn't a tangent or has no bearing to anyone not a member of a religion.


  • #1277
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    You're not exactly unbiased yourself there Fran17

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #1278
    P_1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    fran17 wrote: »
    yes but if you read between the lines at the context of when and how she used the term it was a blatantly obvious attempt to belittle and shame the man.this will be the constant tactic of the yes campaign for the next nine month,attempt to shame them into silence.and john lyons remark of you can look me in the eye ronan,im a person,was pantomime.
    lyons spoke for 7.25 uninterrupted and mullins spoke for 5.30 and was interrupted twenty times I could count....

    I'm sorry but in what world is using the term 'marriage equality' an attempt to belittle somebody?


  • #1279
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    fran17 wrote: »
    yes but if you read between the lines at the context of when and how she used the term it was a blatantly obvious attempt to belittle and shame the man.this will be the constant tactic of the yes campaign for the next nine month,attempt to shame them into silence.and john lyons remark of you can look me in the eye ronan,im a person,was pantomime.
    lyons spoke for 7.25 uninterrupted and mullins spoke for 5.30 and was interrupted twenty times I could count....

    Ronan didn't answered a single question that was asked of him. Each time he started ranting, the interviewer had to keep interrupting him because he wasn't answering the question. I find it much more concerning that Mullen implied that children with same sex parents are in danger. I assume you wouldn't classify this as remotely nasty.


  • #1280
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I'm starting to think Mullen is the best weapon the Yes side have.

    but that ambush will go along way to balance the scales


  • #1281
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,290 ✭✭✭Daith


    fran17 wrote: »
    but that ambush will go along way to balance the scales

    He was asked why two people shouldn't marry.

    Honestly if the anti-equality side are going to cry foul everytime they can't answer a question....


  • Advertisement
  • #1282
    P_1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Daith wrote: »
    He was asked why two people shouldn't marry.

    Honestly if the anti-equality side are going to cry foul everytime they can't answer a question....

    It's going to be a massive exercise in zen dealing with quite a lot of them to be honest.


  • #1283
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    fran17 wrote: »
    but that ambush will go along way to balance the scales

    You're right.

    I think we're losing sight of who's the victim here. It's not us who are looking to be treated equally, it's people like Ronan who are just doing their duty to keep us lot in our place. After all, we'd only endanger society with our deviant ways.

    Poor guy, like who would expect him to answer a question in an interview? Madness!


  • #1284
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    Ronan didn't answered a single question that was asked of him. Each time he started ranting, the interviewer had to keep interrupting him because he wasn't answering the question. I find it much more concerning that Mullen implied that children with same sex parents are in danger. I assume you wouldn't classify this as remotely nasty.

    assumptions can be dangerous.however I made my view on children and same sex couples very clear earlier in this thread and you'll be delighted to know I didn't say anything against it


  • #1285
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    fran17 wrote: »
    assumptions can be dangerous.however I made my view on children and same sex couples very clear earlier in this thread and you'll be delighted to know I didn't say anything against it

    So do you think it was highly irresponsible and nasty what he implied?


  • #1286
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    So do you think it was highly irresponsible and nasty what he implied?

    if you listen to the ambush carefully I honestly don't think he implied that at all.any confusion was caused by a very poor interviewer who was very much out of her depth.
    on a slight tangent though,everytime this subject is debated I always think of the sir Elton john fiasco where his backing dancers proceeded to strip down to there underwear and imitate sex acts dressed as boyscouts,as he sung the song "its a sin".the gay rights group stonewall immediately apologised saying that "it linked homosexuality with paedophilia" in all seriousness this always disturbed me


  • #1287
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    fran17 wrote: »
    if you listen to the ambush carefully I honestly don't think he implied that at all.any confusion was caused by a very poor interviewer who was very much out of her depth.
    on a slight tangent though,everytime this subject is debated I always think of the sir Elton john fiasco where his backing dancers proceeded to strip down to there underwear and imitate sex acts dressed as boyscouts,as he sung the song "its a sin".the gay rights group stonewall immediately apologised saying that "it linked homosexuality with paedophilia" in all seriousness this always disturbed me

    You keep calling it an ambush. Ambush suggests it was a surprise. What did Mullen think they were going to talk about?


  • #1288
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 13,822 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Marraige is silly anyway. Everyone should be entitled to it


  • #1289
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,178 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    "Ambush"? Any chance to play the victim, I guess. :rolleyes:

    Perhaps if you didn't want an "ambush", maybe Mullen should have been better prepared?


  • #1290
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    "Ambush"? Any chance to play the victim, I guess. :rolleyes:

    Perhaps if you didn't want an "ambush", maybe Mullen should have been better prepared?


    Easier to sneer at women who've had a hard time of it than go out and debate genuine questions, I suppose.


  • Advertisement
  • #1291
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,036 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    fran17 wrote: »
    if you listen to the ambush carefully I honestly don't think he implied that at all.any confusion was caused by a very poor interviewer who was very much out of her depth.
    on a slight tangent though,everytime this subject is debated I always think of the sir Elton john fiasco where his backing dancers proceeded to strip down to there underwear and imitate sex acts dressed as boyscouts,as he sung the song "its a sin".the gay rights group stonewall immediately apologised saying that "it linked homosexuality with paedophilia" in all seriousness this always disturbed me

    Elton John is not all gay people.

    Also, why do these debates always focus on gay men, and not women?


Advertisement