Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Options
1…6162646667…69

Comments

  • Options
    #1892
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    fran17 wrote: »
    My poor friend it'll be a cold day in hell before i take moral advice from a homosexual.I would have sympathy on you but you made your sinful life choice so really my sympathy lies with your parents

    You're supposedly taking advice from the bible. So, are you adhering to all those laws in levitius too, or are you using the bible as a stick to beat people you donations like?

    Also, my parents are divorced, but for some reason that doesn't bother you much. I'd posit that is because they aren't gay.


  • Options
    #1893
    P_1
    Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Would it be worth considering starving young Fran of the oxygen he so clearly craves?

    By not replying to him, not by strangling him I hasten to add.


  • Options
    #1894
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,810 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    fran17 wrote: »
    My poor friend it'll be a cold day in hell before i take moral advice from a homosexual.I would have sympathy on you but you made your sinful life choice so really my sympathy lies with your parents

    Are you completely without sin Fran according to the bible?


  • Options
    #1895
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,866 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    Even rereading it, I find it pretty disgusting that anyone could write such a message to a fellow human being. If someone holds views such as that, maybe they should consider keeping them to themselves rather than intentionally trying to hurt people.

    At least it shows that Fran was never really interested in a proper discussion. All of his/her views don't come from a remotely rational place.

    I'm scared of what Fran would do if he was Russian. He seems like one of the first to sign up for a "safari".


  • Options
    #1896
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 50,630 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Mod

    Fran17 banned for flaming.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1897
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    fran17 wrote: »
    My poor friend it'll be a cold day in hell before i take moral advice from a homosexual.I would have sympathy on you but you made your sinful life choice so really my sympathy lies with your parents

    Now Franny, that's not very Christian of you is it.

    Or very clever - I never gave advice. I told you of you are going to argue that my life should be subject to your morals you should show that yours is too.

    You know what Jesus thought of hypocrites don't you?

    Actually do you? Have you ever actually read the bible?

    You missed the piece about judgment and love. In fact love was his golden rule.

    If you keep this up you won't see a cold day in hell, but you might have a few hot ones!


  • Options
    #1898
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    I'm happy he just admitted it instead of hiding behind his piss poor charade trying to make his views seem any way rational


  • Options
    #1899
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    I'm happy he just admitted it instead of hiding behind his piss poor charade trying to make his views seem any way rational

    It took quite some time but the mask finally slipped.

    And this, folks, is why it's important to vote yes. To vote no is to pander to the bigots out there.


  • Options
    #1900
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Are you completely without sin Fran according to the bible?

    I'm completely without Fran according to whoopsadaisydoodles :D


  • Options
    #1901
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Mod

    Fran17 banned for flaming.

    Oh I really don't think he'll like that he got banned for flaming, given his stance on the matter and all...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1902
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    fran17 wrote: »
    My poor friend it'll be a cold day in hell before i take moral advice from a homosexual.I would have sympathy on you but you made your sinful life choice so really my sympathy lies with your parents

    Hahahaha!! I'm not homophobic really! My opposition to SSM is based on rational, logical reasoning rather than homophobia and bigotry.


  • Options
    #1903
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    Oops didn't read any further than the post in question before responding. Bye Fran we will miss you!


  • Options
    #1904
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    old hippy wrote: »
    It took quite some time but the mask finally slipped.

    And this, folks, is why it's important to vote yes. To vote no is to pander to the bigots out there.

    In fairness it was a clear cellophane mask in the first place!


  • Options
    #1905
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    In fairness it was a clear cellophane mask in the first place!

    Oooh. Kinky!


  • Options
    #1906
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    fran17 wrote: »
    My poor friend it'll be a cold day in hell before i take moral advice from a homosexual.I would have sympathy on you but you made your sinful life choice so really my sympathy lies with your parents

    I know that Fran is gone and I possibly should not be continuing to draw attention to same, but here lies my opposition to this being done via referendum (and yes IHI, I know that it is going to be whether I like it or not). I do not believe that it is acceptable to allow incitement of hatred via law! Having a vote on whether or not to continue to deprive equal rights based on sexuality is providing an oppurtunity for exactly that!

    Allowing homophobes the oppurtunity to veto the legalisation of SSM is no different to having a referendum on whether black people should be entitled to the same rights as everyone else, i.e totally unacceptable.

    If the constitution is that problematic that it interferes with equal rights, something should be done about it. It seems however that the main concern is that a judge 'might interpret' the original authors intentions regarding issue x,y or z. I don't see how that is acceptable either unless x,y and z are clearly specified. At the moment there is no mention of the gender of married couples in the constitution so I can't see why a referendum is needed, other than 'what judges might interpret'. Which to me is ridiculous, you cannot have a legal system based on what judges might imagine the authors of the constitution were thinking at the time they wrote it, in areas where they made no particular specification. Now I know enough about Mr Develera to know that he probably did not want equal rights for LGBT people regarding relationship rights, however the fact he didn't specify that in his awful, backward document is tough cookies!

    It should (in an ideal liberal democracy) be illegal for any group to bring a legal challenge against a law that has been amended due to the fact that the existing law was discriminating against a minority group. The law should be passed and any attempt at legal challenges should be blocked by an incitement of hatred law!

    There is no rational, logical reason to oppose SMM! Not one!


  • Options
    #1907
    Otacon
    Registered Users Posts: 6,721 ✭✭✭Otacon


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    There is no rational, logical reason to oppose SMM! Not one!

    The most rational (though still entirely illogical) argument I have heard against SSM is that it would cost the government money.

    Obviously, that is still no basis to continue to deny SS couples the right to marriage and is more of an argument to get rid of the social institution altogether, but it also happens to be the point least raised by the No side. Odd.


  • Options
    #1908
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    It should (in an ideal liberal democracy) be illegal for any group to bring a legal challenge against a law that has been amended due to the fact that the existing law was discriminating against a minority group. The law should be passed and any attempt at legal challenges should be blocked by an incitement of hatred law!

    Honestly Kiwi, do you not see how such a nonsense position could be abused?

    Let's say a minority of people wanted to reduce the marriage age to 15. You would automatically approve the necessary legislative change (becasue they are a discriminated against minority) and forbid any attempt to challenge the law on ANY grounds.

    Nonsense Kiwi.

    This is precisely why we have a constitution (to prevent such nonsense).


  • Options
    #1909
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Honestly Kiwi, do you not see how such a nonsense position could be abused?

    Let's say a minority of people wanted to reduce the marriage age to 15. You would automatically approve the necessary legislative change (becasue they are a discriminated against minority) and forbid any attempt to challenge the law on ANY grounds.

    Nonsense Kiwi.

    This is precisely why we have a constitution (to prevent such nonsense).

    Do you think gay people getting married is nonsense?


  • Options
    #1910
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    old hippy wrote: »
    Do you think gay people getting married is nonsense?

    Absolutely not. That's a pretty low way of responding.

    Kiwi's thoughts on legislative reform is what i (very clearly) labelled as nonsense.

    Poor form hippy.


  • Options
    #1911
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Absolutely not. That's a pretty low way of responding.

    Kiwi's thoughts on legislative reform is what i (very clearly) labelled as nonsense.

    Poor form hippy.

    So you're just nit picking, then?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1912
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Honestly Kiwi, do you not see how such a nonsense position could be abused?

    Let's say a minority of people wanted to reduce the marriage age to 15. You would automatically approve the necessary legislative change (becasue they are a discriminated against minority) and forbid any attempt to challenge the law on ANY grounds.

    Nonsense Kiwi.

    This is precisely why we have a constitution (to prevent such nonsense).

    The marriage age is something that equally affects (or has affected, or would have affected if they had wanted to get married) everyone. There is no minority group having their rights separated from those of the rest of the population or infringed upon. If passed everyone can get married at 15, if not everyone has to wait until 18 (or 16 with parental consent). There is no exclusion of any minority group. People will vote on such an issue based on personal experience (I really wanted to marry at 15 and couldn't, so I will vote yes. Or I was/my child is far too immature at 15 so I will vote no). 15 year old still will be able to get married eventually so they are not being oppressed.

    People are not voting on SSM, or any other referendum which questions the equal rights entitlement of a particular group, for benign/honest reasons necessarily. Many will be voting based on hatred and bigotry. Do you think it is appropriate that someone with an attitude like Fran has a right to decide whether Flogg/Redzer or any other LGBT person have a right to marry the person they love should they choose to do so?

    A better analogy would be is it acceptable to have a public vote on whether the marriage age should be increased to 25 for Nigerian people only.


  • Options
    #1913
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,586 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    old hippy wrote: »
    So you're just nit picking, then?
    no, they are pointing out the redundancy of your silly and transparent strawman argument.


  • Options
    #1914
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    osarusan wrote: »
    no, they are pointing out the redundancy of your silly and transparent strawman argument.

    Like I said, nit picking.


  • Options
    #1915
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    What many people don't seem to understand is that LGBT people are not asking for the law to make an exception for them. They are not asking for different treatment or special treatment. They are asking to be treated equally to the rest of the population. They have pointed out part of the law that leads to them being discriminated against and denied equal rights, and requested that it be amended. I see no good reason why (if all was fair and just) that should be put before the entire public to decide. Particularly with the knowledge that this group is the subject of irrational hate and discrimination already, and therefore some citizens are inevitably going to vote against instating equal rights for reasons of hatred and bigotry and try to convince others to do the same!

    You can get married IHI, I can get married. But only because we are of the 'right' sexual orientation to have that right recognised. What business is it of ours to vote on whether or not that right should be instated into law for a group who have been denied it up until now due to historical bigotry?


  • Options
    #1916
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    The marriage age is something that equally affects (or has affected, or would have affected if they had wanted to get married) everyone. There is no minority group having their rights separated from those of the rest of the population or infringed upon. If passed everyone can get married at 15, if not everyone has to wait until 18 (or 16 with parental consent). There is no exclusion of any minority group. People will vote on such an issue based on personal experience (I really wanted to marry at 15 and couldn't, so I will vote yes. Or I was/my child is far too immature at 15 so I will vote no). 15 year old still will be able to get married eventually so they are not being oppressed.

    You are forgetting about 15 year-olds that want to marry. The current law prevents them from doing so and everyone who isn't 15 years old gets a say in oppressing 15 year olds.
    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    Do you think it is appropriate that someone with an attitude like Fran has a right to decide whether Flogg/Redzer or any other LGBT person have a right to marry the person they love should they choose to do so?

    Fran has a right to vote on the proposed amendment to the constitution whether you, I, Flogg or Redzer like it or not. He may be a bell-end but I will defend his right to vote in a constitutional referendum in Ireland, even if the result of which is that he votes against a proposal to extend marriage rights to same sex couples.
    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    A better analogy would be is it acceptable to have a public vote on whether the marriage age should be increased to 25 for Nigerian people only.

    That's not a better analogy. You are assuming that discrimination can only happen on the basis of race or sexual orientation. A person can be discriminated against because of their age. And they are. It is enshrined in our legislation.

    Constitutional democracy for the win every time Kiwi.


  • Options
    #1917
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    Otacon wrote: »
    The most rational (though still entirely illogical) argument I have heard against SSM is that it would cost the government money.

    Obviously, that is still no basis to continue to deny SS couples the right to marriage and is more of an argument to get rid of the social institution altogether, but it also happens to be the point least raised by the No side. Odd.

    SSM will cost the state money? I'm not sure how past the actual legislation stage but am open to explanation. Having the entire population over the age of 18 vote probably costs the state a lot too, as opposed to men only. I don't think that's a very good argument for restricting that right again though!


  • Options
    #1918
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,040 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    SSM will cost the state money? I'm not sure how past the actual legislation stage but am open to explanation. Having the entire population over the age of 18 vote probably costs the state a lot too, as opposed to men only. I don't think that's a very good argument for restricting that right again though!
    extending tax breaks etc would be a cost but thats a moot point given we have civil partnership

    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



  • Options
    #1919
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    You are forgetting about 15 year-olds that want to marry. The current law prevents them from doing so and everyone who isn't 15 years old gets a say in oppressing 15 year olds.



    Fran has a right to vote on the proposed amendment to the constitution whether you, I, Flogg or Redzer like it or not. He may be a bell-end but I will defend his right to vote in a constitutional referendum in Ireland, even if the result of which is that he votes against a proposal to extend marriage rights to same sex couples.



    That's not a better analogy. You are assuming that discrimination can only happen on the basis of race or sexual orientation. A person can be discriminated against because of their age. And they are. It is enshrined in our legislation.

    Constitutional democracy for the win every time Kiwi.

    A 15 year old is not being discriminated against because they cannot marry. By that logic so is a 4 year old. There is an age where all citizens, regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or any other reason are considered to reach the age of majority. There is no one group being isolated for separate treatment for any reason. There are rights and protections in law that are specific to childhood, therefore there needs to be an agreed age where this state ends. It is nothing to do with oppression or discrimination. Changing the age of majority is an appropriate subject for a referendum or public vote. Whether the current oppression of a specific minority group should continue is not. I don't really see what's not clear about that difference. Of course ageism exists but it is not relevant to the agreed age where childhood comes to an end for every person.


  • Options
    #1920
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    You are forgetting about 15 year-olds that want to marry. The current law prevents them from doing so and everyone who isn't 15 years old gets a say in oppressing 15 year olds.

    15 year olds are children. Many also don't want to go to school but we oppress them into that too.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1921
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    And in all honesty I do not support the right of bigots to have a say in whether or not groups that they express hatred toward should have the same rights that they enjoy. Rights are rights and should not be up for discussion.

    I support their right to be a bigot and express bigoted opinions, but not to act on them in a way that interferes with the rights and lives of those who are the object of their bigotry.


Advertisement