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…4243454748…69

Comments

  • #1322
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    Nodin wrote: »
    Why? Did you get a pay cut?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=82023269&postcount=11

    yes I stated a point that this therapy is considered in some countries.i myself have not done any research on the matter


  • #1323
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    fran17 wrote: »
    yes I stated a point that this therapy is considered in some countries.i myself have not done any research on the matter


    |Yeah, very likely.


  • #1324
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    This is taken from http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/07/04/look-me-in-the-eyes-and-tell-me-why-i-cant-marry/ so save myself having to type out a lot of quotes.



    Good lord Fran. Could you actually keep a straight face typing out that nonsense about an ambush it bias or whatever.

    If he's the best representative of your argument, it's time to get a better argument.


  • #1325
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    Nodin wrote: »
    |Yeah, very likely.

    you overestimate me nodin;)


  • #1326
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    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?

    I'll agree that it's hard to call that exchange a debate. Debate implies sound, reasoned arguments, and they were sadly lacking on Mullen's behalf. He was more concerned with playing the martyr than dealing with the issues.


  • Advertisement
  • #1327
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,701 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    you don't have to be part of the problem if you aren't part of the solution

    if you can't vote yes then abstain


  • #1328
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,290 ✭✭✭Daith


    floggg wrote: »
    If he's the best representative of your argument, it's time to get a better argument.

    There is no argument against equal marriage


  • #1329
    Jester252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,533 ✭✭✭Jester252


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Many people make decisions in referendums based on the behaviour of campaigners or similar factors. Most of us don't have the time or inclination to logically weigh up the pros and cons, especially if the consequence doesn't directly impact on our lives. I know that my vote in the Seanad referendum was influenced in part by the behaviour of some people, and I say that as someone who researched the issue.

    There are many people like Jester around the country, for whom this isn't a big issue, and who don't have a strong opinion on this either way. These are the people we need to be talking to, not to the people who have already made up their minds. We need to engage with them, make sure they understand the benefits of voting yes, and ask them for their vote. If it turns out that they're not really on the fence, but just masking their opposition, then so be it. I'd rather that than missing the chance to convince someone genuinely uncertain to vote yes.

    To that end, Jester, I would ask that you vote yes. Allowing gay couples to marry will mean they have the opportunity to be officially recognised as a family unit, and they will enjoy the same benefits, responsibilities and protections as a married heterosexual couple. This may not affect you directly, but odds are you know, or will know, at least one gay person, and voting yes will make sure their family is treated as equal under the law.

    Thank you

    You are the first person, on the yes side in this thread, that has not met a neutral person with insults and snide remarks.


  • #1330
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Jester252 wrote: »
    Thank you

    You are the first person, on the yes side in this thread, that has not met a neutral person with insults and snide remarks.

    Jester have you considered things from our perspective though?

    You are being asked in the referendum to vote on whether or not LGBT people like myself should be given the same rights as everybody else, whether our relationships should be seen as equal or less than.

    Can you imagine not only having your rights up for vote and debate, but being told by some people that they aren't convinced by your right to equality, and they will instead base their decision of which ever campaigners they find more personable.

    its kind of like telling us that our equality as a matter of law isn't something you necessarily think we deserve as a right, and if we aren't really nice to you, you won't give it to us.

    this is one of the many reasons i don't think this sort of thing should be decided by referendum. at the end of the day, you are being given a vote on this. id hope you wouldn't think this is some abstract theoretical argument - a yes vote will mean the world of difference for so many people and families, whereas a no vote will deny us equality and tell us we are less than, unworthy and unequal.

    So thats why people are upset you'd vote on the basis of which campaigner you preferred, rather than the issue itself.


  • #1331
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,949 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Jester252 wrote: »
    Thank you

    You are the first person, on the yes side in this thread, that has not met a neutral person with insults and snide remarks.

    Your first post on the thread was replied to calmly and with courtesy by a few different posters.

    It was only once you said that you might well base your vote on which campaign (or just campaigner) 'pushy':
    Jester252 wrote: »
    Not really on the fence per se. I am not a fan of pushy people. I have changed my vote because of a pushy campaigner.
    and started intimating that some posters on here might cause you to vote 'no':
    Jester252 wrote: »
    So? It's my right to vote how I see fit and it's your attitude that might not make me vote or vote no.

    that posters, with total justification, in my opinion, told you that your rationale for reacing a decision on how to cast your vote was a load of nonsense.

    And they are right. It is a load of nonsense. You are entitled to vote for who or whaever you want, but you can expect the extreme stupidity of your criterion to be pointed out to you.

    But I guess I'm just another poster making snide comments and insults.


  • Advertisement
  • #1332
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    Tigger wrote: »
    you don't have to be part of the problem if you aren't part of the solution

    if you can't vote yes then abstain

    the problem with that is that bloody thing called democracy getting in the way again


  • #1333
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    Chance The Rapper wrote: »
    I think adoption will be the main issue for a lot of no voters

    I think bigotry and homophobia will be the main issues for all no voters!


  • #1334
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,290 ✭✭✭Daith


    fran17 wrote: »
    the problem with that is that bloody thing called democracy getting in the way again

    Who voted for your right to marry?


  • #1335
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Jester252 wrote: »
    Thank you

    You are the first person, on the yes side in this thread, that has not met a neutral person with insults and snide remarks.

    I dont think thats quite true. There was many responses to neutral people that were polite enough. I think some people were a bit hostile to yourself because they felt almost a bit like you were sort of using emotional blackmail for your vote. Kind of like you were saying - "I dont care what the issue is. Be nice to me or I will vote no"

    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



  • #1336
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    Daith wrote: »
    Who voted for your right to marry?

    Jesus Christ for starters,mark 10:6-7,and every civilisation that existed since then.i mean to ask a question like that is to question the entire history of the world and the morals that were upholded til this very day.that would be one big ass thread we'd need.
    would it not give your cause more legitimacy to name it a same sex union as the word marriage itself has the historical meaning maritare,latin for to provide a husband or wife.ie male and female?
    does the use of the word marriage not dilute the result you seek?


  • #1337
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    fran17 wrote: »
    Jesus Christ for starters,mark 10:6-7,and every civilisation that existed since then.i mean to ask a question like that is to question the entire history of the world and the morals that were upholded til this very day.that would be one big ass thread we'd need.
    would it not give your cause more legitimacy to name it a same sex union as the word marriage itself has the historical meaning maritare,latin for to provide a husband or wife.ie male and female?
    does the use of the word marriage not dilute the result you seek?

    So noone.

    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



  • #1338
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    fran17 wrote: »
    Jesus Christ

    Lemme stop you right there, Jesus didn't invent marriage. It's been around as a civil practice for far, far longer, and in cultures other than a small part of the middle east. The rest of your post doesn't even merit a response.


  • #1339
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    fran17 wrote: »
    Jesus Christ for starters,mark 10:6-7,and every civilisation that existed since then.i mean to ask a question like that is to question the entire history of the world and the morals that were upholded til this very day.that would be one big ass thread we'd need.
    would it not give your cause more legitimacy to name it a same sex union as the word marriage itself has the historical meaning maritare,latin for to provide a husband or wife.ie male and female?
    does the use of the word marriage not dilute the result you seek?

    And it used to mean for life but that go changed.


  • #1340
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    And it used to mean for life but that go changed.

    And 12 year old girls could legally marry in 1937 and that got changed.

    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



  • #1341
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    fran17 wrote: »
    Jesus Christ for starters,mark 10:6-7,and every civilisation that existed since then.i mean to ask a question like that is to question the entire history of the world and the morals that were upholded til this very day.that would be one big ass thread we'd need.
    would it not give your cause more legitimacy to name it a same sex union as the word marriage itself has the historical meaning maritare,latin for to provide a husband or wife.ie male and female?
    does the use of the word marriage not dilute the result you seek?

    You know marriage has existed thousands of years before your religion was invented, which allowed for SSM with no issue at all. You know that, it's been said a thousand times in this thread before.

    It's pretty shocking how the religious only think history is as old as their religion is, and that it is to be completely unquestioned... I mean, completely unquestioned when it suits, like -cos I want to to fvck people on a Saturday night without getting married, go to mass as I see fit, eat shellfish whenever I want, wear mixed fabrics, cos it's so inconvenient otherwise.

    But bar the stuff that doesn't suit me, that I ignore anyway, yeah, that gay stuff is 100% true and must be upheld!

    Consistency and coherency FTW!!


  • Advertisement
  • #1342
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    And 12 year old girls could legally marry in 1937 and that got changed.

    Queer used to mean strange and retarded was an accepted term for mental disabilities.

    Words seems to change definition all the time. Marriage is just a word to describe something and has been changed before. If someone is against changing the definition of marriage then they are against divorce ad changing the age.


  • #1343
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    Links234 wrote: »
    Lemme stop you right there, Jesus didn't invent marriage. It's been around as a civil practice for far, far longer, and in cultures other than a small part of the middle east. The rest of your post doesn't even merit a response.

    I don't believe I said Jesus Christ invented marriage,but what better authority to legitimise it as a sacred covenant between man and woman?i also never said it began in the time of our lord and the fact that it has existed far longer and throughout the known world only strengthens my point.


  • #1344
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    fran17 wrote: »
    Jesus Christ for starters,mark 10:6-7,and every civilisation that existed since then.i mean to ask a question like that is to question the entire history of the world and the morals that were upholded til this very day.that would be one big ass thread we'd need.
    would it not give your cause more legitimacy to name it a same sex union as the word marriage itself has the historical meaning maritare,latin for to provide a husband or wife.ie male and female?
    does the use of the word marriage not dilute the result you seek?

    Jesus Christ voted on nothing. Nor did he, or Christianity that claims to follow him or Judaism the religion he followed, invent marriage. Nor is he responsible for the existence of any 'civilisation' - they pre-date him.

    Marriage is a legal mechanism where two people not connected by a close blood relationship become legally a 'family unit' - two people joined by law and pre-dates Jesus by thousands of years.

    There is no logical reason why two people of the same gender cannot be legally recognised as a 'family unit' in law in exactly the same way as two people of opposite genders can.

    Religious beliefs have no place in civil legislation nor should they determine a have and have not when it comes to equality under the law.

    Lastly, many Christians - such as Desmond Tutu - would not agree with you that Jesus would be anti- SSM.


  • #1345
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    You know marriage has existed thousands of years before your religion was invented, which allowed for SSM with no issue at all. You know that, it's been said a thousand times in this thread before.

    It's pretty shocking how the religious only think history is as old as their religion is, and that it is to be completely unquestioned... I mean, completely unquestioned when it suits, like -cos I want to to fvck people on a Saturday night without getting married, go to mass as I see fit, eat shellfish whenever I want, wear mixed fabrics, cos it's so inconvenient otherwise.

    But bar the stuff that doesn't suit me, that I ignore anyway, yeah, that gay stuff is 100% true and must be upheld!

    Consistency and coherency FTW!!

    profanities only lower debate.but tell me where same sex marriage before the time of our lord have existed?


  • #1346
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    fran17 wrote: »
    I don't believe I said Jesus Christ invented marriage,but what better authority to legitimise it as a sacred covenant between man and woman?i also never said it began in the time of our lord and the fact that it has existed far longer and throughout the known world only strengthens my point.
    So how does thousands of other cultures practising same sex marriage, even big fearsome cultures like the Romans, Greeks, Aztec, Mayans, Incas, Vikings, Native American tribes, and even cultures of Ancient Ireland, strengthen your point.

    If anything it just destroys it, because it shows actual traditional marriage allows for same-sex marriage, it's your religion that are breaking tradition in the eyes of history.


  • #1347
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    fran17 wrote: »
    profanities only lower debate.but tell me where same sex marriage before the time of our lord have existed?

    For The Win is a profanity now?

    I already have mentioned some civilisations that practised same-sex marriage.

    I think you're well aware it existed before your religion was created by man.


  • #1348
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    So how does thousands of other cultures practising same sex marriage, even big fearsome cultures like the Romans, Greeks, Aztec, Mayans, Incas, Vikings, Native American tribes, and even cultures of Ancient Ireland, strengthen your point.

    If anything it just destroys it, because it shows actual traditional marriage allows for same-sex marriage, it's your religion that are breaking tradition in the eyes of history.

    can I get a reply to my question first if I may?


  • #1349
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    For The Win is a profanity now?

    I already have mentioned some civilisations that practised same-sex marriage.

    I think you're well aware it existed before your religion was created by man.

    no but f**k people was the last time I checked


  • #1350
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Why does it matter what happened over 2000 years ago

    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



  • Advertisement
  • #1351
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    fran17 wrote: »
    can I get a reply to my question first if I may?

    Sorry what was your question? The one where you said who better to legislate on marriage than Jesus?

    Well Jesus actually never ever mentioned gay people or marriage.

    The stuff that makes you against gay people comes from Leviticus. You know, where it allows for killing/stoning and slave keeping and all the nice stuff you ignore for no reason, yet keep the gay basing thing as fact from god.


Advertisement