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…4748505253…69

Comments

  • #1472
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    It depends on the person in question. Some may feel more offended by "gay boy" than "queer" and vice-versa.

    Are you just asking which is more offensive so you know which one to shout out at any gay people you see?

    exactly so in many situations the terms gay boy and fag hag are not derogatory terms.statistically the chances of meeting gay people are quite slim and how would I know there gay just by seeing them?they look different to straight people?


  • #1473
    Chance The Rapper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 494 ✭✭Chance The Rapper


    fran17 wrote: »
    exactly so in many situations the terms gay boy and fag hag are not derogatory terms.statistically the chances of meeting gay people are quite slim and how would I know there gay just by seeing them?they look different to straight people?

    Why would you say it/not say it just because you know they're gay?


  • #1474
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,288 ✭✭✭Daith


    fran17 wrote: »
    exactly so in many situations the terms gay boy and fag hag are not derogatory terms.statistically the chances of meeting gay people are quite slim and how would I know there gay just by seeing them?they look different to straight people?

    We look better than straight people.


  • #1475
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    fran17 wrote: »
    exactly so in many situations the terms gay boy and fag hag are not derogatory terms.statistically the chances of meeting gay people are quite slim and how would I know there gay just by seeing them?they look different to straight people?

    Chances are given your posting history on the subject, that coming from you both of those terms are likely to be highly derogatory. Perhaps they might not be from someone's partner or close friend in a jokey, term of endearment type of way. But that would really depend on the person.

    And 'statistically the chances of meeting gay people are quite slim'? I think not!


  • #1476
    mickydoomsux
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,287 ✭✭✭mickydoomsux


    P_1 wrote: »
    In my eyes, people should be free to label (or conversely, not label) themselves as they see fit but others shouldn't have the right to label them.

    I used to agree with this until people started calling themselves "gender queer trans dragonkin who identifies as a man" and the like.


  • Advertisement
  • #1477
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    See I discuss the topic and do not denigrate people because of their sexuality. You do. I want people to be treated equally, you do not. In fact, one of the main reasons I discuss this topic at length because of views such as your own which would love to threaten one's rights. My argument is founded in fact,reason and respect for my fellow human being. Yours is not, you've never put forward semi decent argument in opposition to it besides it making you feeling icky.

    Check mate


  • #1478
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    fran17 wrote: »
    Check mate

    How so? You show a clear lack of respect for a group in society because of their sexual orientation. Now,you've managed to reduce yourself to an even lower bar in this discussion by using random inexplicable one liners.


  • #1479
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,288 ✭✭✭Daith


    mickydoomsux wrote: »
    I used to agree with this until people started calling themselves "gender queer trans dragonkin who identifies as a man" and the like.

    I've never met anyone like that. You must have been to more gay places and must know more gay people than me.


  • #1480
    fran17
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,262 ✭✭✭fran17


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    How so? You show a clear lack of respect for a group in society because of their sexual orientation. Now,you've managed to reduce yourself to an even lower bar in this discussion by using random inexplicable one liners.

    I show an opposing point of view,the clear lack of respect is shown by the pro lobby in this thread with some hugely offensive statements.and as for discussion,it hardly is when you refuse to answer my questions.that's my answer to your question


  • #1481
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    fran17 wrote: »
    I show an opposing point of view,the clear lack of respect is shown by the pro lobby in this thread with some hugely offensive statements.and as for discussion,it hardly is when you refuse to answer my questions.that's my answer to your question

    With posts like this:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88911629&postcount=2901
    this tread is a prime example of how this poison is seeping into the fabric of society nowadays.completely one sided with gay boys and fag hags having a rant about the pillars our society have been built on for thousands of years.why nowadays is anyone who disapproves of homosexuality immediately attacked for being a bigot and a "homophobe"(whatever that means)?

    mod: user was banned for this post

    You'll forgive us for not lining up to give you sympathy.


  • Advertisement
  • #1482
    P_1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    mickydoomsux wrote: »
    I used to agree with this until people started calling themselves "gender queer trans dragonkin who identifies as a man" and the like.

    And what, pray tell, is wrong with them doing that?


  • #1483
    tomwaterford
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭tomwaterford


    fran17 wrote: »
    exactly so in many situations the terms gay boy and fag hag are not derogatory terms.statistically the chances of meeting gay people are quite slim and how would I know there gay just by seeing them?they look different to straight people?


    is it like 10% of the population??


  • #1484
    TheBegotten
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 541 ✭✭✭TheBegotten


    Out of curiosity, what's the difference between marriage and civil partnership? Is it a legal definition? Are the bonds less binding between civil partnerships? I can't imagine the church will condone gay weddings in the faith so that's out of the question.


  • #1485
    TheBegotten
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 541 ✭✭✭TheBegotten


    tomwaterford wrote: »
    is it like 10% of the population??

    Not quite that much. Based on the people I know I'd say it's around the 5% mark are openly gay.


  • #1486
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    fran17 wrote: »
    I show an opposing point of view,the clear lack of respect is shown by the pro lobby in this thread with some hugely offensive statements.and as for discussion,it hardly is when you refuse to answer my questions.that's my answer to your question

    What question did I refuse to answer? Also, what well thought out post from you actually proves some negative impact from people of the same sex marrying? Same sex marriage has been around for a decade in some places and these very same places have not descended into anarchy as as a result.

    If you consider calling homophobic views out for what they are, to be hugely offensive statements,you dislike facts. You disapprove of a person's sexual orientation and wish to dictate law based on your own biblical premise on the subject. As soon as you put forward an actual argument,people will debate it. But I've never seen you actually put forward a coherent argument so we can only real deal with your general content where you have been known to use slurs.


  • #1487
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,232 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    TheBegotten wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, what's the difference between marriage and civil partnership? Is it a legal definition? Are the bonds less binding between civil partnerships? I can't imagine the church will condone gay weddings in the faith so that's out of the question.

    There are hundreds if differences in law
    http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/missingpieces/missingpieces.html

    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



  • #1488
    mickydoomsux
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,287 ✭✭✭mickydoomsux


    P_1 wrote: »
    And what, pray tell, is wrong with them doing that?

    It's just a bit silly. Despite what tumblr and reddit and whatnot say, there are relatively few "sexualities" but people seem to make up new ones when they would fit into one of the fairly standard categories.

    And woe betide the person who should question the mish-mash of phrases you've made up to describe yourself because you wanted to feel special now that "just" being trans/gay/whatever isn't all that special or uncommon any more.


  • #1489
    tomwaterford
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,768 ✭✭✭✭tomwaterford


    TheBegotten wrote: »
    Not quite that much. Based on the people I know I'd say it's around the 5% mark are openly gay.

    agh yes...but gay and openly gay are too different things;) (though I suspect for younger people...there is less hidden/could be completey wrong though)

    I was always led to believe it to be approx. 10%...doesn't really matter either way


  • #1490
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    mickydoomsux wrote: »
    It's just a bit silly. Despite what tumblr and reddit and whatnot say, there are relatively few "sexualities" but people seem to make up new ones when they would fit into one of the fairly standard categories.

    And woe betide the person who should question the mish-mash of phrases you've made up to describe yourself because you wanted to feel special now that "just" being trans/gay/whatever isn't all that special or uncommon any more.

    I know what youre talking about, thankfully they stick to the likes of tumblr with the feminists who hate men.


  • #1491
    iguana
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,909 ✭✭✭✭iguana


    I'll be voting in favour and I'll damn well be campaigning for it too. It's a disgrace that we get to vote for it. I don't see how it's in any way up to me if other people, most of whom I'll never even meet can marry. But if there is a referendum I'll do what I can to try and ensure that as we will be voting for it, we'll pass it and move on.


  • Advertisement
  • #1492
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    fran17 wrote: »
    exactly so in many situations the terms gay boy and fag hag are not derogatory terms.statistically the chances of meeting gay people are quite slim and how would I know there gay just by seeing them?they look different to straight people?

    It certainly feels derogatory to me when you use it in the manner you do.

    If you don't mean to offend, you are do a very good impression of a person who does.


  • #1493
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    fran17 wrote: »
    I show an opposing point of view,the clear lack of respect is shown by the pro lobby in this thread with some hugely offensive statements.and as for discussion,it hardly is when you refuse to answer my questions.that's my answer to your question

    Hey, care to address any of my detailed rebuttals of your points?

    Before you martyr yourself and claim nobody addresses your questions, how about you address the reasoned responses you have received.

    I look forward to it.


  • #1494
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    TheBegotten wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, what's the difference between marriage and civil partnership? Is it a legal definition? Are the bonds less binding between civil partnerships? I can't imagine the church will condone gay weddings in the faith so that's out of the question.

    We are talking about civil marriage, so religious marriage doesn't come into. they are unaffected.

    there are currently about 170 legal differences between marriage and civil partnership (i think the required separation period before a divorce is granted is actually two years less than marriage as well).

    even if they were the same in everything but name, it would still be wrong to maintain the distinction. it would be an arbitrary, separate but equal distinction, which served no purpose other than to mark out gay relationships as somehow different or other, with the implied suggestion being that they weren't worthy of the name marriage.

    separate but equal doesn't work, and it never truly means equal.


  • #1495
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    iguana wrote: »
    I'll be voting in favour and I'll damn well be campaigning for it too. It's a disgrace that we get to vote for it. I don't see how it's in any way up to me if other people, most of whom I'll never even meet can marry. But if there is a referendum I'll do what I can to try and ensure that as we will be voting for it, we'll pass it and move on.

    There will be a referendum because Ireland's constitution must be changed in order to ensure any change to the definition of a civil marriage to include same sex marriage is and remains legal.

    That's not a disgrace.


  • #1496
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,288 ✭✭✭Daith


    TheBegotten wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, what's the difference between marriage and civil partnership? Is it a legal definition? Are the bonds less binding between civil partnerships? I can't imagine the church will condone gay weddings in the faith so that's out of the question.

    The Church won't have to marry people. Civil marriage is different from religious marriage.


  • #1497
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,288 ✭✭✭Daith


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    There will be a referendum because Ireland's constitution must be changed in order to ensure any change to the definition of a civil marriage to include same sex marriage is and remains legal.

    That's not a disgrace.

    There is no definition of marriage in our Constitution. There is no need to amend our constitution.


  • #1498
    iguana
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,909 ✭✭✭✭iguana


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    There will be a referendum because Ireland's constitution must be changed in order to ensure any change to the definition of a civil marriage to include same sex marriage is and remains legal.

    That's not a disgrace.

    What exactly is the article that needs to be changed?


  • #1499
    P_1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    iguana wrote: »
    What exactly is the article that needs to be changed?

    I think it's more a fear that a judge on the day has the potential to interpret the definition of marriage to only be between a man and a woman if it were legislated for rather than having to change any specific article.


  • #1500
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    There will be a referendum because Ireland's constitution must be changed in order to ensure any change to the definition of a civil marriage to include same sex marriage is and remains legal.

    That's not a disgrace.

    I don't think it should be a struggle to see why people might find the idea of voting on minority rights to be a disgrace.


  • Advertisement
  • #1501
    Daith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,288 ✭✭✭Daith


    P_1 wrote: »
    I think it's more a fear that a judge on the day has the potential to interpret the definition of marriage to only be between a man and a woman if it were legislated for rather than having to change any specific article.

    Not at all. If the government decides that marriage includes same sex couples a judge won't overturn it


Advertisement